| Literature DB >> 29162048 |
Miriam Adoyo Muga1,2, Patrick Opiyo Owili3,4, Chien-Yeh Hsu5,6, Hsiao-Hsien Rau7, Jane C-J Chao8,9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diet has been associated with differences in weight and nutritional status of an individual. The prevalence of overweight and obesity increased among adults in Taiwan. Hence, we examined the relationship between dietary patterns and weight status by gender among middle-aged and older adults in Taiwan.Entities:
Keywords: Body mass index; Dietary patterns; Obesity; Overweight; Underweight
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29162048 PMCID: PMC5696781 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-017-0664-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Characteristics of the participants aged ≥ 40 years by weight status in Taiwan
| Weight status, % | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All, % | Underweight | Normal weight | Overweight | Obese |
| |
|
| 62,965 | 2073 | 32,907 | 18,820 | 9165 | – |
| Vegetable-fruit pattern | <0.001 | |||||
| Q1 (range, 9–14) | 21.9 | 24.4 | 20.8 | 22.1 | 25.0 | |
| Q2 (range, 15–16) | 20.9 | 20.7 | 20.8 | 20.8 | 21.3 | |
| Q3 (range, 17–18) | 21.0 | 20.8 | 20.8 | 21.6 | 19.1 | |
| Q4 (range, 19–21) | 21.0 | 19.0 | 21.9 | 20.6 | 19.1 | |
| Q5 (range, 22–42) | 15.2 | 15.1 | 15.7 | 14.9 | 14.1 | |
| Meat-processed pattern | <0.001 | |||||
| Q1 (range, 11–17) | 21.3 | 24.8 | 22.3 | 19.9 | 19.8 | |
| Q2 (range, 18–19) | 18.4 | 19.3 | 19.5 | 17.5 | 16.8 | |
| Q3 (range, 20–22) | 26.6 | 27.0 | 26.8 | 26.6 | 25.7 | |
| Q4 (range, 23–25) | 18.5 | 16.2 | 18.0 | 19.4 | 18.9 | |
| Q5 (range, 26–56) | 15.1 | 12.9 | 13.4 | 16.5 | 18.8 | |
| Gender, % male | 52.0 | 34.7 | 45.7 | 62.7 | 56.4 | <0.001 |
| Age, years | <0.001 | |||||
| 40–44 | 28.8 | 40.5 | 32.0 | 24.4 | 23.0 | |
| 45–49 | 20.9 | 19.3 | 21.8 | 20.6 | 18.6 | |
| 50–54 | 15.8 | 10.2 | 15.0 | 16.9 | 17.9 | |
| 55–59 | 11.4 | 7.6 | 10.3 | 12.7 | 13.7 | |
| ≥ 60 | 23.1 | 22.4 | 20.9 | 25.4 | 26.8 | |
| Education level | <0.001 | |||||
| < High School | 26.3 | 19.5 | 22.3 | 28.6 | 37.4 | |
| High school | 31.9 | 32.0 | 33.2 | 31.1 | 28.8 | |
| > High school | 41.8 | 48.5 | 44.5 | 40.3 | 33.7 | |
| Marital status | <0.001 | |||||
| Married | 86.3 | 80.7 | 85.9 | 87.8 | 85.8 | |
| Widows/divorced | 10.9 | 11.9 | 10.8 | 10.5 | 11.9 | |
| Never married | 2.8 | 7.4 | 3.4 | 1.7 | 2.3 | |
| Smoking, current | 19.6 | 19.1 | 17.8 | 22.1 | 20.8 | <0.001 |
| Drinking, current | 18.6 | 11.7 | 16.6 | 22.2 | 20.4 | <0.001 |
| Physical activity, yes | 63.9 | 55.9 | 64.6 | 65.8 | 59.7 | <0.001 |
| CVD | 4.3 | 4.3 | 3.5 | 4.8 | 6.2 | <0.001 |
| SBP, > 120 mmHg | 50.4 | 30.1 | 41.9 | 58.0 | 69.5 | <0.001 |
| DBP, > 80 mmHg | 26.1 | 9.4 | 19.5 | 31.7 | 42.0 | <0.001 |
aχ2 test for difference. CVD cardiovascular disease, SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure
Crude odds ratios of dietary patterns and characteristics by weight status of the participants aged ≥40 years in Taiwan, n = 62,965
| Model 1, Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Underweight | Overweight | Obese | |
| Vegetable-fruit pattern | |||
| Q1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Q2 | 0.85 (0.74, 0.97)* | 0.94 (0.89, 0.99)* | 0.85 (0.80, 0.99)*** |
| Q3 | 0.86 (0.75, 0.98)* | 0.97 (0.92, 1.03) | 0.82 (0.76, 0.88)*** |
| Q4 | 0.74 (0.65, 0.85)*** | 0.89 (0.84, 0.94)*** | 0.73 (0.68, 0.78)*** |
| Q5 | 0.82 (0.71, 0.95)** | 0.89 (0.84, 0.95)*** | 0.75 (0.69, 0.81)*** |
|
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Meat-processed pattern | |||
| Q1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Q2 | 0.89 (0.78, 1.02) | 0.99 (0.94, 1.06) | 0.97 (0.90, 1.05) |
| Q3 | 0.90 (0.80, 1.02) | 1.11 (1.05, 1.16)*** | 1.08 (1.00, 1.15)* |
| Q4 | 0.81 (0.70, 0.93)** | 1.20 (1.13, 1.27)*** | 1.18 (1.09, 1.27)*** |
| Q5 | 0.87 (0.74, 1.01) | 1.38 (1.30, 1.47)*** | 1.57 (1.46, 1.70)*** |
|
| 0.012 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Gender | |||
| Female | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Male | 0.63 (0.58, 0.69)*** | 2.00 (1.93, 2.07)*** | 1.53 (1.46, 1.61)*** |
| Age, years | |||
| 40–44 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 45–49 | 0.70 (0.62, 0.78)*** | 1.24 (1.18, 1.31)*** | 1.19 (1.11, 1.28)*** |
| 50–54 | 0.53 (0.46, 0.63)*** | 1.48 (1.40, 1.57)*** | 1.67 (1.55, 1.79)*** |
| 55–59 | 0.58 (0.49, 0.69)*** | 1.61 (1.51, 1.72)*** | 1.85 (1.71, 2.01)*** |
| ≥ 60 | 0.84 (0.75, 0.95)** | 1.59 (1.51, 1.68)*** | 1.78 (1.67, 1.91)*** |
| Education level | |||
| < High School | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| High school | 1.10 (0.97, 1.25) | 0.73 (0.70, 0.77)*** | 0.52 (0.49, 0.55)*** |
| > High school | 1.25 (1.11, 1.41)*** | 0.71 (0.67, 0.74)*** | 0.45 (0.43, 0.48)*** |
| Marital status | |||
| Married | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Widows/divorced | 1.17 (1.02, 1.35)* | 0.95 (0.90, 1.01) | 1.11 (1.03, 1.19)** |
| Never married | 2.35 (1.97, 2.80)*** | 0.51 (0.45, 0.57)*** | 0.67 (0.58, 0.78)*** |
| Smoking, current | |||
| No | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 1.08 (0.97, 1.22) | 1.31 (1.25, 1.37)*** | 1.21 (1.14, 1.28)*** |
| Drinking, current | |||
| No | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 0.67 (0.58, 0.76)*** | 1.43 (1.37, 1.50)*** | 1.29 (1.22, 1.37)*** |
| Physical activity | |||
| No | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 0.70 (0.64, 0.76)*** | 1.05 (1.02, 1.09)** | 0.81 (0.78, 0.85)*** |
| CVD | |||
| No | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 1.24 (1.00, 1.55) | 1.42 (1.30, 1.55)*** | 1.84 (1.66, 2.05)*** |
| SBP, > 120 mmHg | |||
| No | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 0.60 (0.54, 0.66)*** | 1.92 (1.85, 1.99)*** | 3.16 (3.00, 3.32)*** |
| DBP, > 80 mmHg | |||
| No | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 0.43 (0.37, 0.50)*** | 1.92 (1.84, 2.00)*** | 2.99 (2.84, 3.15)*** |
Normal weight is the reference group (n = 32,907). CVD cardiovascular disease, SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure. Values with the star sign are significantly different from the reference group (indicated with an odds ratio of 1). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001
Adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) of the multinomial logistic regression of weight status among the participants aged ≥40 years in Taiwan, n = 62,965
| Men and women, Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Underweight | Overweight | Obese | |
| Model 2 | |||
| Vegetable-fruit pattern | |||
| Q1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Q2 | 0.89 (0.78, 1.02) | 0.96 (0.91, 1.02) | 0.92 (0.85, 0.98)* |
| Q3 | 0.92 (0.80, 1.05) | 1.00 (0.95, 1.06) | 0.91 (0.85, 0.98)** |
| Q4 | 0.80 (0.70, 0.92)** | 0.92 (0.87, 0.97)** | 0.82 (0.77, 0.89)*** |
| Q5 | 0.92 (0.79, 1.07) | 0.91 (0.85, 0.97)** | 0.85 (0.78, 0.92)*** |
|
| 0.059 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Meat-processed pattern | |||
| Q1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Q2 | 0.88 (0.77, 1.01) | 1.04 (0.98, 1.10) | 1.08 (1.00, 1.16) |
| Q3 | 0.88 (0.77, 1.00)* | 1.18 (1.11, 1.24)*** | 1.25 (1.16, 1.34)*** |
| Q4 | 0.78 (0.67, 0.90)*** | 1.29 (1.22, 1.37)*** | 1.42 (1.31, 1.53)*** |
| Q5 | 0.81 (0.69, 0.95)** | 1.50 (1.40, 1.59)*** | 1.94 (1.79, 2.10)*** |
|
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Model 3 | |||
| Vegetable-fruit pattern | |||
| Q1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Q2 | 0.89 (0.78, 1.02) | 0.97 (0.92, 1.03) | 0.93 (0.86, 1.00)* |
| Q3 | 0.91 (0.80, 1.05) | 1.01 (0.95, 1.07) | 0.92 (0.85, 0.99)* |
| Q4 | 0.80 (0.69, 0.92)** | 0.93 (0.88, 0.98)* | 0.84 (0.78, 0.91)*** |
| Q5 | 0.92 (0.79, 1.07) | 0.92 (0.86, 0.98)** | 0.87 (0.80, 0.94)*** |
|
| 0.050 | 0.003 | < 0.001 |
| Meat-processed pattern | |||
| Q1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Q2 | 0.88 (0.77, 1.01) | 1.04 (0.98, 1.11) | 1.08 (1.00, 1.17)* |
| Q3 | 0.88 (0.77, 1.00)* | 1.18 (1.12, 1.24)*** | 1.25 (1.17, 1.35)*** |
| Q4 | 0.78 (0.67, 0.90)*** | 1.29 (1.22, 1.37)*** | 1.41 (1.31, 1.53)*** |
| Q5 | 0.82 (0.70, 0.96)* | 1.48 (1.39, 1.58)*** | 1.92 (1.77, 2.08)*** |
|
| 0.002 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
Normal weight is the reference group (n = 32,907); model 2 is adjusted for age, education level, marital status, smoking, drinking, and physical activity; model 3 is adjusted for model 2 plus cardiovascular disease, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure. Values with the star sign are significantly different from the reference group (indicated with an odds ratio of 1).* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
Multinomial logistic regression of weight status among the participants aged ≥40 years in Taiwan, stratified by gender, n = 62,965
| Stratified analysis by gender, Odds Ratio (95% confidence interval)a | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Underweight | Overweight | Obese | |
| Women, | |||
| Vegetable-fruit pattern | |||
| Q1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Q2 | 0.88 (0.74, 1.05) | 0.92 (0.84, 1.01) | 0.86 (0.77, 0.96)** |
| Q3 | 0.94 (0.89, 1.12) | 0.99 (0.90, 0.07) | 0.89 (0.79, 0.99)* |
| Q4 | 0.84 (0.71, 1.00)* | 0.86 (0.79, 0.94)** | 0.81 (0.72, 0.90)*** |
| Q5 | 0.99 (0.81, 1.18) | 0.86 (0.78, 0.95)** | 0.82 (0.72, 0.93)*** |
|
| 0.545 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Meat-processed pattern | |||
| Q1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Q2 | 0.97 (0.82, 1.15) | 1.08 (0.99, 1.17) | 1.10 (0.98, 1.22) |
| Q3 | 0.95 (0.82, 1.12) | 1.17 (1.08, 1.27)*** | 1.36 (1.23, 1.50)*** |
| Q4 | 0.81 (0.67, 0.97)* | 1.28 (1.16, 1.40)*** | 1.34 (1.19, 1.51)*** |
| Q5 | 0.82 (0.67, 1.02) | 1.41 (1.27, 1.57)*** | 1.84 (1.62, 2.09)*** |
|
| 0.016 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Men, | |||
| Vegetable-fruit pattern | |||
| Q1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Q2 | 0.88 (0.71, 1.10) | 1.00 (0.94, 1.09) | 0.97 (0.88, 1.07) |
| Q3 | 0.87 (0.70, 1.09) | 1.01 (0.94, 1.09) | 0.92 (0.83, 1.01) |
| Q4 | 0.74 (0.58, 0.93)* | 0.96 (0.89, 1.04) | 0.85 (0.76, 0.93)*** |
| Q5 | 0.76 (0.58, 0.99)* | 0.97 (0.90, 1.06) | 0.92 (0.81, 1.01) |
|
| 0.010 | 0.219 | 0.002 |
| Meat-processed pattern | |||
| Q1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Q2 | 0.69 (0.54, 0.89)** | 1.02 (0.94, 1.11) | 1.12 (1.00, 1.26)* |
| Q3 | 0.76 (0.61, 0.94)* | 1.14 (1.06, 1.23)*** | 1.19 (1.07, 1.32)** |
| Q4 | 0.78 (0.62, 0.99)* | 1.19 (1.09, 1.29)*** | 1.39 (1.24, 1.55)*** |
| Q5 | 0.88 (0.68, 1.12) | 1.34 (1.23, 1.46)*** | 1.80 (1.61, 2.01)*** |
|
| 0.447 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
aAdjusted for age, education level, marital status, smoking, drinking, physical activity, cardiovascular disease, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure. Normal weight is the reference group (n = 32,907). Values with the star sign are significantly different from the reference group (indicated with an odds ratio of 1).* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001