| Literature DB >> 29677164 |
Karen E Assmann1, Indunil Ruhunuhewa2, Moufidath Adjibade3, Zhen Li4,5,6, Raphaëlle Varraso7,8, Serge Hercberg9,10, Pilar Galan1, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to quantify to what extent the association between adherence to the French nutritional recommendations at midlife, measured by the Programme National Nutrition Santé-Guideline Score (PNNS-GS), and healthy aging (HA) is mediated by body mass index (BMI) status.Entities:
Keywords: aging; body mass index (BMI); diet; nutrition; overweight obesity; prevention
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29677164 PMCID: PMC5946300 DOI: 10.3390/nu10040515
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Sample selection of participants from the ‘Supplementation with Vitamins and Mineral Antioxidants’ (SU.VI.MAX-‘SUpplémentation en VItamines et Minéraux AntioXydants’) study, France, 1994–2009; body mass index (BMI); Programme National Nutrition Santé-Guideline Score (PNNS-GS).
Definition of Healthy Aging status in the trial ‘Supplementation with Vitamins and Mineral Antioxidants’ (SU.VI.MAX-‘SUpplémentation en VItamines et Minéraux AntioXydants’) study.
| Dimension 1 | Definition |
|---|---|
| Good physical functioning (yes/no) | Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score ≥11/12 |
| Good cognitive functioning (yes/no) | Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score ≥27/30 and |
| No limitations in IADL (yes/no) | <1 limitation on the Lawton Scale of Instrumental Activites of Daily Living (IADL) |
| No depressive symptoms (yes/no) | Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) score <16/60 |
| No health-related limitations in social life (yes/no) | No/only slight and only infrequent (perceived) interference of health problems with social life |
| Good overall self-perceived health (yes/no) | To meet this criterion, participants had to declare that their health was generally “good” to “excellent” |
| No function-limiting pain (yes/no) | To meet this criterion, participants had to report having experienced no more than “mild” physical pain during the previous month or that such pain had only limited or no impact on their daily activities |
| No incident major chronic disease (yes/no) | No incident cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes during follow-up |
| Overall healthy aging | Participants meeting all of the above criteria were considered to be aging healthily, while participants for which at least one criterion was = “no” were not considered to be aging healthily |
1 All criteria were assessed at follow-up (2007–2009), apart from events of major chronic disease, for which incidence during follow-up (1994–2009) was assessed.
Baseline characteristics of the study population according to healthy aging status, SU.VI.MAX 2 study (France), 2007−2009, N = 2249.
| Healthy Aging Status | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample Characteristics a | Number | Yes | |
| Number (%) | 1368 (60.8) | 881 (39.2) | |
| Age, y, mean (SD) | 52.3 (4.6) | 51.3 (4.3) | <0.0001 |
| Gender (male), % | 51.3 | 56.9 | 0.01 |
| Region of residence, % | 0.19 | ||
| Larger Paris-region (“Ile de France“) | 22.2 | 20.8 | |
| North-east and north-west of France | 15.8 | 13.1 | |
| West, mid-west, and “Rhone Alpes”- regions | 45.3 | 48.6 | |
| South-west and Mediterranean regions | 16.7 | 17.6 | |
| Educational level, % | <0.0001 | ||
| Primary education only | 23.6 | 16.6 | |
| Secondary education | 40.4 | 38.5 | |
| University level | 36.0 | 44.9 | |
| Occupational status, % | <0.0001 | ||
| Homemaker | 8.0 | 6.2 | |
| Manual worker | 6.8 | 4.1 | |
| Office employee | 57.2 | 52.0 | |
| Intellectual profession c | 28.0 | 37.7 | |
| Smoking status, % | 0.10 | ||
| Non-smoker | 50.1 | 51.8 | |
| Former smoker | 38.4 | 39.5 | |
| Current smoker | 11.5 | 8.7 | |
| Family situation | 0.01 | ||
| Living alone | 14.2 | 10.7 | |
| Married/cohabiting | 85.8 | 89.3 | |
| Physical activity level, % | <0.0001 | ||
| Irregular or none | 25.9 | 18.5 | |
| <1 h/day | 30.0 | 29.8 | |
| ≥1 h/day | 44.1 | 51.7 | |
| Antioxidant supplementation (yes), % | 51.5 | 54.7 | 0.14 |
| Alcohol consumption, g/day, mean (SD) | 16.8 (17.4) | 17.0 (17.2) | 0.40 |
| Number of 24h records, mean (SD) | 10.1 (3.2) | 10.4 (2.9) | 0.04 |
| PNNS-GS (points), mean (SD) | 7.7 (1.9) | 8.0 (1.9) | 0.001 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2), mean (SD) | 24.5 (3.5) | 24.0 (2.9) | 0.01 |
| Body mass index status, % | 0.0002 | ||
| BMI < 25 kg/m2 | 61.5 | 66.3 | |
| BMI ≥ 25 and <30 kg/m2 | 31.1 | 30.3 | |
| BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 7.4 | 3.4 | |
| Total energy intake (kcal/d), mean (SD) | 2194.5 (629.0) | 2221.7 (595.7) | 0.22 |
| Protein (% energy/d), mean (SD) | 16.7 (2.6) | 16.5 (2.5) | 0.09 |
| CarbohyDrates (% energy/d), mean (SD) | 39.6 (6.7) | 39.9 (6.3) | 0.55 |
| Total fat (% energy/d), mean (SD) | 37.6 (5.1) | 37.6 (4.7) | 0.88 |
| SFA (% energy/d), mean (SD) | 15.4 (2.7) | 15.5 (2.5) | 0.71 |
| MUFA (% energy/d), mean (SD) | 14.2 (2.2) | 14.2 (2.1) | 0.85 |
| PUFA (% energy/d), mean (SD) | 5.7 (1.5) | 5.7 (1.4) | 0.93 |
| Fiber intake (g/d), mean (SD) | 20.1 (7.3) | 20.6 (7.1) | 0.04 |
| Sodium intake (mg/d), mean (SD) | 3613.6 (1231.7) | 3623.2 (1188.1) | 0.72 |
Abbreviation: SFA: Saturated fatty acids; MUFA: Monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA: Polyunsaturated fatty acids a Values are mean (standard deviation, SD) or % as appropriate. b P-values are based on Mann-Whitney U tests (continuous variables) and Chi-square tests (categorical variables). c Or managerial staff; Programme National Nutrition Santé-Guideline Score (PNNS-GS).
Relative risk estimates (95% confidence interval (CI)) for the association between nutritional requirement (PNNS-GS) components and healthy aging status, SU.VI.MAX 2 study (France), 2007–2009, N = 2249 a,b.
| Nutritional Score | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| PNNS-GS | 1.06 (1.03, 1.09) | 0.0001 |
| PNNS-GS without Physical activity component | 1.04 (1.01, 1.08) | 0.0109 |
| PNNS-GS without Seafood component | 1.06 (1.02, 1.09) | 0.0009 |
| PNNS-GS without Fruits and vegetables component | 1.06 (1.03, 1.10) | 0.0006 |
| PNNS-GS without Whole grain food component | 1.06 (1.03, 1.10) | 0.0001 |
| PNNS-GS without Total added fats component | 1.06 (1.03, 1.09) | 0.0002 |
| PNNS-GS without Salt component | 1.06 (1.03, 1.09) | 0.0002 |
| PNNS-GS without Vegetable added fats component | 1.07 (1.04, 1.10) | <0001 |
| PNNS-GS without Alcohol component | 1.06 (1.03, 1.09) | 0.0002 |
| PNNS-GS without Meat and poultry, seafood and eggs component | 1.06 (1.03, 1.09) | 0.0002 |
| PNNS-GS without Milk and dairy products component | 1.06 (1.03, 1.09) | 0.0001 |
| PNNS-GS without Sweetened foods component c | 1.06 (1.03, 1.09) | 0.0002 |
| PNNS-GS without Bread, cereals, potatoes and legumes | 1.06 (1.03, 1.09) | 0.0001 |
| PNNS-GS without Beverages component d | 1.06 (1.03, 1.09) | 0.0002 |
a Robust-error-variance Poisson regression models were used to model healthy aging status. b Models were adjusted for age, gender, smoking status, educational level, occupational status, living situation, antioxidant supplementation, total energy intake, number of 24 h records and the removed component, except for the overall PNNS-GS. c Points for the sweetened foods- component were calculated based on added sugar from sweetened foods (including food items such as sweet cakes, cookies, and chocolate), as a % of daily overall energy intake (% EI/d): (a) ≥17.5% EI/d → −0.5 points; (b) 17.5–12.5% EI/d → 0 points; (c) <12.5% EI/d →1 point. d Points for beverages- component were calculated as follows: (a) <1l water and >250 ml soda/d → 0 points; (b) ≥1l water and >250 ml soda/d → 0.5 points; (c) <1l water and ≤250 ml soda/d → 0.75 points; (d) ≥1l water and ≤250 ml soda/d → 1 point; Programme National Nutrition Santé-Guideline Score (PNN-GS); Relative risk (RR).
Relative risk estimates for the direct and the indirect effect a for the mediating role of BMI status on the association between the PNNS - Guidelines Score and healthy aging, SU.VI.MAX 2 study (France), 2007–2009, N = 2249.
| PNNS-GS Quartiles RR (95% CI) b | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Ptrend | |
| Direct effect a | 1.00 (ref) | 1.08 (0.92, 1.26) | 1.20 (1.03, 1.40) | 1.31 (1.13, 1.53) | 0.0002 |
| Indirect effect c | 1.00 (ref) | 1.01 (1.00, 1.01) | 1.01 (1.00, 1.01) | 1.01 (1.01, 1.02) | 0.0003 |
| Total effect d | 1.00 (ref) | 1.09 (0.92, 1.26) | 1.21 (1.03, 1.41) | 1.33 (1.13, 1.55) | |
| Mediation (%) e | 7% | 5% | 5% | ||
a Based on the method of mediation analysis proposed by Lange et al. (2012). Adjusted for age, gender, smoking status, educational level, occupational status, living situation, antioxidant supplementation, total energy intake and number of 24 h records. b The natural direct and indirect effects were obtained from the weighted mediation model of robust-error-variance Poisson regression. c Corresponds to the value of the exposure relative to the indirect path. d Confidence intervals for the total effect were assigned by bootstrapping. e The proportion mediated was computed as . NDE-natural direct effect; NIE-natural indirect effect; Programme National Nutrition Santé-Guideline Score (PNNS-GS).