| Literature DB >> 28724424 |
Roberta de Oliveira Santos1, Diva Aliete Dos Santos Vieira2, Andreia Alexandra Machado Miranda2, Regina Mara Fisberg2, Dirce Maria Marchioni2, Valéria Troncoso Baltar3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association of obesity and dietary patterns has been well documented in scientific literature; however, information on the impact of meal patterns on obesity is scarce. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of adherence to lunch patterns and body mass index (BMI) in a representative sample of individuals aged 20 years or older in Sao Paulo.Entities:
Keywords: Body mass index; Lunch; Meal; Obesity
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28724424 PMCID: PMC5518136 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4582-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
The main characteristics of the study participants by tertile (T) categories of dietary pattern scores in the ISA-Capital 2008
| Traditional | Western | Sweetened juice | Salad | Meats | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | |
| Sex, n (%) | |||||||||||||||
| Male | 87 (28.34) | 94 (29.84) | 189 (60.77) | 100 (32.47) | 120 (39.09) | 150 (47.17) | 120 (38.96) | 129 (41.88) | 121 (38.17) | 137 (45.21) | 111 (35.35) | 122 (38.61) | 146 (47.10) | 110 (35.14) | 114 (36.77) |
| Female | 220 (71.66) | 221 (70.16) | 122 (39.23) | 208 (67.53) | 187 (60.91) | 168 (52.83) | 188 (61.04) | 179 (58.12) | 196 (61.83) | 166 (54.79) | 203 (64.65) | 194 (61.39) | 164 (52.90) | 203 (64.86) | 196 (63.23) |
| Body mass index (kg/m2), median (IQR) | 26.04 (23.31, 29.07) | 25.39 (22.83, 28.91) | 24.93 (22.19, 27.99) | 25.71 (22.88, 29.07) | 25.39 (22.83, 28.65) | 25.08 (22.53, 28.13) | 25.53 (22.66, 28.55) | 25.62 (23.18, 29.14) | 25.25 (22.41, 28.40) | 24.73 (22.15, 28.41) | 26.00 (23.31, 29.07) | 25.52 (23.09, 28.40) | 25.39 (22.40, 28.76) | 25.59 (22.94, 28.91) | 25.32 (22.83, 28.13) |
| Physical activity levels, n (%) | |||||||||||||||
| Insufficiently active | 269 (87.62) | 286 (90.79) | 282 (90.68) | 282 (91.56) | 275 (89.58) | 280 (88.05) | 269 (87.34) | 273 (88.64) | 295 (93.06) | 275 (90.76) | 289 (92.04) | 273 (86.39) | 290 (93.55) | 273 (87.22) | 274 (88.39) |
| Sufficiently active | 38 (12.38) | 29 (9.21) | 29 (9.32) | 26 (8.44) | 32 (10.42) | 38 (11.95) | 39 (12.66) | 35 (11.36) | 22 (6.94) | 28 (9.24) | 25 (7.96) | 43 (13.61) | 20 (6.45) | 40 (12.78) | 36 (11.61) |
| Total energy intake (kcal/day), median (IQR) | 1352 (1029, 1868) | 1409 (1072, 1849) | 1900 (1413, 2439) | 1368 (1079, 1815) | 1487 (1099, 1998) | 1813 (1303, 2469) | 1459 (1097, 2034) | 1494 (1083, 2014) | 1653 (1229, 2245) | 1501 (1106, 2065) | 1489 (1091, 2007) | 1598 (1237, 2137) | 1572 (1207, 2150) | 1484 (1086, 1963) | 1582 (1110, 2178) |
| Misreporting status, n (%) | |||||||||||||||
| Under-reporting | 99 (32.25) | 74 (23.49) | 40 (12.86) | 88 (28.57) | 83 (27.04) | 42 (13.21) | 74 (24.03) | 75 (24.35) | 64 (20.19) | 73 (24.09) | 77 (24.52) | 63 (19.94) | 57 (18.39) | 82 (26.20) | 74 (23.87) |
| Plausible-reporting | 169 (55.05) | 202 (64.13) | 202 (64.95) | 188 (61.04) | 183 (59.61) | 202 (63.52) | 199 (64.61) | 189 (61.36) | 185 (58.36) | 175 (57.76) | 197 (62.74) | 201 (63.61) | 200 (64.52) | 186 (59.42) | 187 (60.32) |
| Over-reporting | 39 (12.70) | 39 (12.38) | 69 (22.19) | 32 (10.39) | 41 (13.36) | 74 (23.27) | 35 (11.36) | 44 (14.29) | 68 (21.45) | 55 (18.15) | 40 (12.74) | 52 (16.46) | 53 (17.10) | 45 (14.38) | 49 (15.81) |
Sao Paulo. Brazil. (n = 933)
Regression coefficients for the association of the dietary patterns with body mass index in the study population
| Lunch Patterns | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| β | 95% CI | ||
| Traditional | Pattern (ref. 1st tertile) | |||
| 2nd tertile | −0.27 | −1.01; 0.48 | ||
| 3rd tertile | −1.07 | −1.80;-0.34 | ||
| Western | Pattern (ref. 1st tertile) | |||
| 2nd tertile | 0.01 | −0.74; 0.75 | ||
| 3rd tertile | −0.38 | −1.11; 0.35 | ||
| Sweetened juice | Pattern (ref. 1st tertile) | |||
| 2nd tertile | 0.22 | −0.53; 0.97 | ||
| 3rd tertile | −0.56 | −1.29; 0.17 | ||
| Salads | Pattern (ref. 1st tertile) | |||
| 2nd tertile | 0.78 | 0.04; 1.52 | ||
| 3rd tertile | 0.46 | −0.27; 1.19 | ||
| Meats | Pattern (ref. 1st tertile) | |||
| 2nd tertile | 0.22 | −0.52; 0.96 | ||
| 3rd tertile | −0.16 | −0.90; 0.56 | ||
|
| β | 95% CI | ||
| Traditional | Insufficiently active | Pattern (ref. 1st tertile) | ||
| 2nd tertile | −0.50 | −1.23, 0.24 | ||
| 3rd tertile | −0.78 | −1.57, −0.02 | ||
| Sufficiently active | 2nd tertile | 1.99 | −0.99, 5.05 | |
| 3rd tertile | 0.84 | −2.09, 3.82 | ||
| Western | Pattern (ref. 1st tertile) | |||
| 2nd tertile | −0.07 | −0.77, 0.63 | ||
| 3rd tertile | 0.14 | −0.58, 0.85 | ||
| Sweetened juice | Pattern (ref. 1st tertile) | |||
| 2nd tertile | 0.17 | −0.54, 0.87 | ||
| 3rd tertile | −0.29 | −0.99, 0,40 | ||
| Salads | Pattern (ref. 1st tertile) | |||
| 2nd tertile | 0.37 | −0.33, 1.07 | ||
| 3rd tertile | 0.06 | −0.62, 0.75 | ||
| Meats | Pattern (ref. 1st tertile) | |||
| 2nd tertile | 0.01 | −0.68, 0.70 | ||
| 3rd tertile | −0.29 | −0.98, 0.39 | ||
aAdjusted for age, sex, household per capita income, physical activity levels, smoking status, alcohol consumption, total energy intake, misreporting status and lunch patterns
ISA-Capital 2008. Sao Paulo. Brazil