| Literature DB >> 26026208 |
G Appannah1, G K Pot2, R C Huang3, W H Oddy3, L J Beilin4, T A Mori4, S A Jebb5, G L Ambrosini6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Energy dense, high fat, low fibre diets may contribute to obesity in young people, however their relationships with other cardiometabolic risk factors are unclear. We examined associations between an 'energy-dense, high-fat and low-fibre' dietary pattern (DP) and cardiometabolic risk factors, and the tracking of this DP in adolescence. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Adolescents; Cardiometabolic risk factors; Dietary patterns; Energy density; Fat; Fibre; Raine study
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26026208 PMCID: PMC4510146 DOI: 10.1016/j.numecd.2015.04.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis ISSN: 0939-4753 Impact factor: 4.222
Cardiometabolic characteristics of the Raine adolescents at 14 and 17 y of age by sex.
| Cardiometabolic risk factors | Girls | P-value | Boys | P-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 y | 17 y | 14 y | 17 y | |||||||
| n | Mean (SD) | n | Mean (SD) | n | Mean (SD) | n | Mean (SD) | |||
| BMI z-score | 780 | 0.06 (1.0) | 620 | 0.001 (1.0) | 0.897 | 825 | −0.06 (1.0) | 631 | −0.07 (1.0) | 0.857 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 780 | 21.5 (4.1) | 620 | 22.9 (4.3) | <0.001 | 825 | 21.1 (4.1) | 631 | 22.6 (4.1) | <0.001 |
| Waist circumference z-score | 766 | −0.08 (0.9) | 592 | 0.18 (1.0) | <0.001 | 814 | 0.07 (1.1) | 605 | 0.46 (1.0) | <0.001 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 766 | 74.6 (10.1) | 592 | 77.5 (11.4) | <0.001 | 814 | 76.3 (11.5) | 605 | 80.5 (10.9) | <0.001 |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | 664 | 4.59 (0.60) | 614 | 4.66 (0.53) | 0.038 | 712 | 4.66 (0.74) | 654 | 4.89 (0.62) | <0.001 |
| Fasting insulin (mU/L) | 664 | 11.13 (1.57) | 614 | 7.61 (1.95) | <0.001 | 712 | 9.87 (1.79) | 654 | 7.03 (1.97) | <0.001 |
| HOMA-IR | 664 | 2.32 (1.67) | 614 | 1.57 (2.01) | <0.001 | 712 | 2.14 (1.86) | 654 | 1.51 (2.03) | <0.001 |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 664 | 1.43 (0.32) | 614 | 1.38 (0.31) | 0.010 | 712 | 1.35 (0.31) | 654 | 1.21 (0.24) | <0.001 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 664 | 2.38 (0.61) | 614 | 2.44 (0.67) | 0.124 | 712 | 2.26 (0.64) | 654 | 2.26 (0.67) | 0.983 |
| Triglycerides (mmol/L) | 664 | 0.95 (1.45) | 614 | 0.94 (1.51) | 0.550 | 712 | 0.88 (1.55) | 654 | 1.03 (1.55) | <0.001 |
| Physical fitness (PWC-170) | 640 | 96.8 (19.4) | 526 | 99.7 (24.5) | 0.023 | 694 | 124.3 (32.2) | 580 | 154.5 (41.5) | <0.001 |
| Overweight/obese (%) | 780 | 24.5 | 620 | 23.7 | 0.736 | 825 | 26.5 | 631 | 22.0 | 0.047 |
| High-waist circumference (%) | 766 | 26.9 | 592 | 27.5 | 0.793 | 814 | 32.6 | 605 | 32.4 | 0.950 |
| High-risk metabolic cluster (%) | 658 | 32.2 | 509 | 19.4 | <0.001 | 703 | 26.2 | 544 | 16.4 | <0.001 |
| Plausible dietary reporters (%) | 688 | 56.1 | 453 | 43.3 | <0.001 | 730 | 71.2 | 404 | 62.6 | <0.001 |
| Smoker (%) | 772 | 2.1 | 618 | 18.3 | 0.078 | 810 | 1.0 | 605 | 15.5 | 0.200 |
Data are expressed as mean (SD) and were compared using independent t-test.
Data are expressed as median (IQR) and were compared using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test by sex and age.
Data were compared using chi-square test by sex and age.
Smoking ≥1 cigarette(s) in the past one week; High-risk metabolic cluster is a composite indicator of an overall metabolic risk (23); Overweight/obese as defined by the IOTF criteria (25); High-waist circumference was defined as waist circumference ≥80 cm (26).
Adjusted odds of cardiometabolic risk factors associated with an ‘energy dense, high fat and low fibre’ DP z-score between 14 and 17 y of age, Raine study.
| Cardiometabolic risk factors | Girls | Boys | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Odds ratio | 95% CI | n | Odds ratio | 95% CI | |
| High-risk metabolic cluster | ||||||
| Model 1 | 608 | 1.04 | (1.00, 1.22) | 646 | 1.19 | (1.02, 1.39) |
| Model 2 | 558 | 1.03 | (0.87, 1.22) | 605 | 1.20 | (1.01, 1.41) |
| Overweight/obese | ||||||
| Model 1 | 754 | 0.90 | (0.80, 1.01) | 784 | 1.00 | (0.90, 1.01) |
| Model 2 | 649 | 1.02 | (0.87, 1.19) | 699 | 1.04 | (0.90, 1.20) |
| High-waist circumference | ||||||
| Model 1 | 746 | 1.00 | (0.90, 1.02) | 781 | 1.00 | (0.90, 1.01) |
| Model 2 | 643 | 1.13 | (0.97, 1.32) | 697 | 1.08 | (0.95, 1.22) |
| Model 3 | 643 | 1.28 | (1.00, 1.63) | 697 | 1.00 | (0.82, 1.22) |
Model 1 was adjusted for age and dietary misreporting.
Model 2 was adjusted for age, dietary misreporting, physical fitness and smoking status.
Model 3 was adjusted for age, dietary misreporting, physical fitness, smoking status and BMI z-score.
Composite indicator of an overall metabolic risk (23).
Overweight/obese as defined by the IOTF criteria (25).
High-waist circumference was defined as waist circumference ≥80 cm (26).
Adjusted prospective associations between an ‘energy dense, high fat and low fibre’ DP and cardiometabolic risk factors between 14 and 17 y of age, Raine study.
| Cardiometabolic risk factors | Girls | Boys | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | β | 95% CI | n | β | 95% CI | |
| BMI z-score | ||||||
| Model 1 | 754 | −0.01 | (−0.05, 0.03) | 784 | 0.03 | (−0.02, 007) |
| Model 2 | 649 | −0.01 | (−0.05, 0.04) | 699 | 0.03 | (−0.01, 0.08) |
| Waist circumference z-score | ||||||
| Model 1 | 746 | 0.01 | (−0.04, 0.06) | 781 | 0.03 | (−0.02, 0.07) |
| Model 2 | 643 | 0.02 | (−0.03, 0.08) | 697 | 0.04 | (−0.02, 0.09) |
| Model 3 | 643 | 0.04 | (0.01, 0.07) | 697 | 0.003 | (−0.02, 0.03) |
| Insulin (%) | ||||||
| Model 1 | 608 | 4.0 | (1%, 8%) | 648 | 6.0 | (3%, 9%) |
| Model 2 | 558 | 3.0 | (1%, 7%) | 605 | 5.0 | (2%, 9%) |
| Model 3 | 558 | 3.0 | (1%, 7%) | 605 | 3.0 | (1%, 7%) |
| HOMA (%) | ||||||
| Model 1 | 608 | 5.0 | (2%, 9%) | 648 | 7.0 | (3%, 10%) |
| Model 2 | 558 | 4.0 | (1%, 8%) | 605 | 5.0 | (2%, 10%) |
| Model 3 | 558 | 4.0 | (1%, 7%) | 605 | 4.0 | (1%, 7%) |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | ||||||
| Model 1 | 608 | 0.0003 | (−0.03, 0.04) | 648 | 0.04 | (0.004, 0.08) |
| Model 2 | 558 | −0.004 | (−0.04, 0.03) | 605 | 0.05 | (0.01, 0.07) |
| Model 3 | 558 | −0.01 | (−0.04, 0.03) | 605 | 0.04 | (0.01, 0.08) |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | ||||||
| Model 1 | 608 | 0.02 | (0.003, 0.04) | 648 | −0.01 | (−0.02, 0.01) |
| Model 2 | 558 | 0.02 | (0.001, 0.04) | 605 | −0.01 | (−0.02, 0.01) |
| Model 3 | 558 | 0.02 | (0.002, 0.04) | 605 | −0.002 | (−0.02, 0.01) |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | ||||||
| Model 1 | 608 | 0.04 | (−0.003, 0.07) | 648 | 0.01 | (−0.03, 0.04) |
| Model 2 | 558 | 0.04 | (−0.01, 0.08) | 605 | 0.003 | (−0.03, 0.04) |
| Model 3 | 558 | 0.04 | (−0.01, 0.08) | 605 | 0.001 | (−0.04, 0.03) |
| Triglycerides (%) | ||||||
| Model 1 | 608 | 1.0 | (1%, 3%) | 648 | 1.0 | (1%, 4%) |
| Model 2 | 558 | 1.0 | (0%, 3%) | 605 | 1.0 | (0%, 4%) |
| Model 3 | 558 | 1.0 | (0%, 3%) | 605 | 1.0 | (0%, 3%) |
β coefficient values were back transformed using exponential function; Model 1 was adjusted for age and dietary misreporting; Model 2 was adjusted for age, dietary misreporting, physical fitness and smoking status; Model 3 was adjusted for age, dietary misreporting, physical fitness, smoking status and BMI z-score.