| Literature DB >> 27493920 |
Somaye Yosaee1, Alireza Esteghamati2, Mahdiyeh Nazari Nasab3, Ahmad Khosravi4, Mina Alinavaz5, Banafshe Hosseini6, Kurosh Djafarian7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a serious public health concern worldwide; however, the pathogenesis of this disease has not been yet cleared. This study aimed to compare diet quality in obese/overweight participants with/without metabolic syndrome with normal weight controls.Entities:
Keywords: Diet; Metabolic Syndrome; Obesity
Year: 2016 PMID: 27493920 PMCID: PMC4972048
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med J Islam Repub Iran ISSN: 1016-1430
Frequency distribution of general characteristics of participantss of the study groups
|
Obese with MetS |
Obese without MetS |
Normal weight |
total | p* | ||
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |||
| Sex* | Male | 45 (91.8) | 46 (93.9) | 45 (91.8) | 136 (92.5) | 0.906 |
| Female | 4 (8.2) | 3 (6.1) | 4 (8.2) | 11 (7.5) | ||
| Marital status* | Single | 8 (16.3) | 13 (26.5) | 15 (30.6) | 36 (24.5) | 0.390 |
| Married | 41 (83.7) | 36 (73.5) | 34 (69.4) | 111 (75.5) | ||
| age** | 20-29.9 | 6 (12.2) | 10 (20.4) | 15 (30.6) | 31 (21.1) | 0.277 |
| 30-39.9 | 27 (55.1) | 23 (46.9) | 24 (49) | 74 (50.3) | ||
| 40-55 | 16 (32.7) | 16 (32.7) | 10 (20.4) | 42 (28.6) |
*chi-square, **Fisher
Comparison of biochemistry parameters among participantss of case and control groups
|
Obese with MetS |
Obese without MetS |
Normal weight |
Total | p* | |
| SD± mean | SD± mean | SD± mean | SD± mean | ||
| FBS | 109±48a | 93.7±16.9b | 91.8±6.4b | 98.2±30.2 | 0.008 |
| TG | 199.8±95.5a | 119±58.5b | 109.7±54.4b | 143±82.2 | <0.001 |
| HDL-c | 52.2±7a | 54.2±7 | 56.2±8b | 54.2±7.4 | 0.029 |
| SBP | 135.9±12.76a | 127.6±14.3b | 118.9±12.2c | 127.5±14.7 | <0.001 |
| WC | 106.3±7.4a | 102.6±10.2a | 88.3±6.9b | 99.1±11.3 | <0.001 |
| <0.001 | BMI | 29.8±3.26a | 29.7±3.2a | 22.9±2.3b | 27.46±4.4 |
Values are analyzed by one–way ANOVA, values are mean ± SD.
Dissimilar values (a, b, c) of each row are significantly different.
Comparison ofHEIQ among participantss of case and control groups
|
Obese with MetS | Obese without MetS (n=49) |
Normal weight |
Total | p * | ||
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |||
| HEI | Poor dieta | 36 (73.47) | 28 (57.14) | 1 (2) | 65 (44.22) | 0<0.001 |
| Need improvement b | 13 (26.53) | 21 (42.86) | 47 (96) | 81 (55.1) | ||
| Good dietc | 0 | 0 | 1 (2) | 1 (0.68) |
*chi-square, a: HEI score≤ 50, b: HEI> 50, c: HEI≥ 80
Comparison of HEI-2010 and 12 its component among in study groups
|
Obese with MetS |
Obese without MetS |
Normal weight |
Total | p * | |
| SD± mean | SD± mean | SD± mean | SD± mean | ||
| HEI-2010 | 7.53a±47.51 | 9.87b±52.25 | 8.67c±66.85 | 12±55.61 | <0.001 |
| Total fruit | 37.7±22.09a | 44.7±27.2a | 88.2±20.7b | 57.12±32.4 | <0.001 |
| Whole fruit | 65.2±23.1a | 69.6±25.2a | 97.1±10.4b | 77.4±24.9 | <0.001 |
| Total vegetables | 55±16.6a | 51.07±16.1a | 70.9±21.7b | 59.1±20.2 | <0.001 |
| Greens and beans | 49.2±26.8a | 55.4±24.3a | 88.1±21.6b | 64.4±24 | <0.001 |
| Whole grain | 17.9±8.02a | 12.7±9.3b | 17.1±10.4 | 15.9±9.5 | 0.015 |
| Dairy | 32.9±14.3a | 45.6±27.01b | 78.8±26.6c | 52.6±30.3 | <0.001 |
| Total protein food | 86.05±8.09a | 86.4±7.3b | 85.5±14.7c | 85.9±10.5 | 0.918 |
| Seafood and plant proteins s | 24.6±23.7a | 44.8±29.8b | 73.4±30.02c | 47.8±34.3 | <0.001 |
| Fatty acidsa | 39.6±37.1a | 37.8±37.2a | 57.1±37.7b | 44.9±38.1 | 0.021 |
| Refined grain | 9.4±18.8a | 14.8±26.8b | 15.6±26.7c | 13.3±24.4 | 0.398 |
| Sodium | 65.02±26.04a | 75.48±23.01 | 78.8±28.4b | 73.14±26.41 | 0.027 |
| Empty calories | 74.8±24.5a | 79.9±25.8b | 83.5±27.4c | 79.4±26.03 | 0.253 |
Values are analyzed by one–way ANOVA, values are mean ± SD.
Dissimilar values (a, b, c) of each row are significantly different.
a: PUFA and MUFA/SFA