| Literature DB >> 31185656 |
Andrea Maugeri1, Martina Barchitta2, Giuliana Favara3, Maria Clara La Rosa4, Claudia La Mastra5, Roberta Magnano San Lio6, Antonella Agodi7.
Abstract
The present study investigated the association of maternal dietary patterns with pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) and total gestational weight gain (GWG), using data of 232 women from the "Mamma & Bambino" cohort. Dietary patterns were derived by a food frequency questionnaire and principal component analysis. Self-reported pre-pregnancy BMI and GWG were calculated according to the World Health Organization and Institute of Medicine guidelines, respectively. The adherence to the "Western" dietary pattern-characterized by high intake of red meat, fries, dipping sauces, salty snacks and alcoholic drinks-was associated with increased GWG (β = 1.217; standard error [SE] = 0.487; p = 0.013), especially among obese women (β = 7.363; SE = 1.808; p = 0.005). In contrast, the adherence to the "prudent" dietary pattern-characterized by high intake of boiled potatoes, cooked vegetables, legumes, pizza and soup-was associated with reduced pre-pregnancy BMI (β = -0.631; SE = 0.318; p-trend = 0.038). Interestingly, the adherence to this pattern was positively associated with GWG among underweight (β = 4.127; SE = 1.722; p = 0.048), and negatively among overweight and obese individuals (β = -4.209; SE = 1.635; p = 0.016 and β = -7.356; SE = 2.304; p = 0.031, respectively). Our findings point out that the promotion of a healthy diet might represent a potential preventive strategy against inadequate weight gain, even during the periconceptional period.Entities:
Keywords: diet; dietary assessment; epidemiology; neonatal outcomes; pregnancy; public health
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31185656 PMCID: PMC6627583 DOI: 10.3390/nu11061308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Characteristics of women from the “Mamma & Bambino” cohort (n = 232) according to gestational weight gain categories.
| Characteristics | Reduced GWG | Adequate GWG | Excessive GWG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 37.0 (4.0) | 38.0 (5.0) | 37.0 (4.0) | 0.546 |
|
| 15.1% | 13.4% | 17.2% | 0.804 |
|
| 58.9% | 63.9% | 54.7% | 0.495 |
|
| 15.1% | 17.7% | 22.2% | 0.553 |
|
| 61.0 (13.3) | 59.0 (13.0) | 64.0 (17.8) | <0.001 |
|
| 23.1 (4.4) | 21.6 (3.8) | 24.2 (6.5) | 0.002 |
|
| ||||
| Underweight | 6.8% | 8.2% | 9.4% | 0.001 |
| Normal weight | 68.5% | 77.3% | 46.9% | |
| Overweight | 15.1% | 7.2% | 32.8% | |
| Obese | 9.6% | 7.2% | 10.9% | |
|
| 68.0 (10.0) | 72.0 (14.0) | 82.0 (16.7) | <0.001 |
|
| 39.0 (2.0) | 39.0 (2.0) | 39.2 (2.0) | 0.701 |
|
| 3.2 (0.6) | 3.2 (0.6) | 3.3 (0.6) | 0.039 |
|
| 50.0 (2.0) | 50.0 (2.0) | 50.0 (2.0) | 0.286 |
ap-values are based on the Kruskal–Wallis test for quantitative variables, or Chi-squared test for categorical variables; b data are reported as median interquartile range (IQR); c defined as ≤8 years of school. Abbreviations: GWG, gestational weight gain; BMI, body mass index.
Figure 1Radar graph of factor loadings that characterize each dietary pattern.
Characteristics of women from the “Mamma & Bambino” cohort (n = 232) according to adherence to the Western dietary pattern.
| Characteristics | 1st Tertile | 2nd Tertile | 3rd Tertile | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 38.0 (5.0) | 38.0 (4.0) | 36.0 (3.0) | <0.001 |
|
| 16.0 (3.0) | 16.0 (4.0) | 16.0 (2.0) | 0.777 |
|
| 20.0% | 11.7% | 26.4% | 0.022 |
|
| 59.1% | 63.1% | 52.7% | 0.291 |
|
| 17.4% | 16.2% | 27.5% | 0.074 |
|
| 95.1% | 94.7% | 94.7% | 0.949 |
|
| 44.4% | 33.3% | 42.1% | 0.334 |
|
| 60.0 (14.2) | 62.5 (15.0) | 60.0 (15.0) | 0.923 |
|
| 22.3 (4.4) | 22.7 (5.0) | 22.8 (5.5) | 0.704 |
|
| ||||
| Underweight | 7.3% | 7.2% | 6.4% | 0.687 |
| Normal weight | 63.6% | 69.4% | 66.1% | |
| Overweight | 17.3% | 13.5% | 21.1% | |
| Obese | 11.8% | 9.9% | 6.4% | |
|
| 71.5 (16.5) | 74.0 (16.0) | 74.0 (14.0) | 0.636 |
|
| 39.0 (2.0) | 39.0 (2.0) | 39.0 (2.0) | 0.976 |
|
| 3.2 (0.6) | 3.2 (0.7) | 3.3 (0.5) | 0.800 |
|
| 50.0 (2.0) | 50.0 (1.0) | 50.0 (2.0) | 0.391 |
|
| 11.5 (7.2) | 13.0 (7.0) | 13.0 (9.0) | 0.056 |
|
| ||||
| Reduced | 36.6% | 28.0% | 28.9% | 0.162 |
| Adequate | 41.5% | 48.0% | 34.2% | |
| Excessive | 22% | 24% | 36.8% | |
ap-values are based on the Kruskal–Wallis test for quantitative variables, or Chi-squared test for categorical variables; b data are reported as median (IQR); c defined as ≤8 years of school. Abbreviations: GWG, gestational weight gain; BMI, body mass index.
Characteristics of women from the “Mamma & Bambino” cohort (n = 232) according to adherence to the prudent dietary pattern.
| Characteristics | 1st Tertile | 2nd Tertile | 3rd Tertile | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 38.0 (5.0) | 37.0 (4.0) | 37.0 (4.0) | 0.675 |
|
| 16.0 (1.0) | 16.0 (3.0) | 15.0 (5.0) | 0.001 |
|
| 22.7% | 19.8% | 15.5% | 0.389 |
|
| 57.3% | 60.4% | 57.3% | 0.865 |
|
| 20.9% | 18.0% | 22.2% | 0.731 |
|
| 91.7% | 93.8% | 98.7% | 0.210 |
|
| 59.7% | 61.0% | 59.0% | 0.966 |
|
| 63.0 (12.0) | 60.5 (14.2) | 58.5 (14.0) | 0.043 |
|
| 23.2 (4.7) | 22.7 (4.7) | 21.8 (5.1) | 0.019 |
|
| ||||
| Underweight | 5.5% | 8.1% | 7.3% | 0.007 |
| Normal weight | 64.5% | 65.8% | 70.8% | |
| Overweight | 20.9% | 17.4% | 14.5% | |
| Obese | 9.1% | 8.7% | 7.4% | |
|
| 74.0 (17.0) | 73.5 (14.2) | 72.0 (15.0) | 0.551 |
|
| 39.0 (2.0) | 39.0 (2.0) | 39.0 (2.0) | 0.562 |
|
| 3.2 (0.6) | 3.2 (0.6) | 3.3 (0.7) | 0.522 |
|
| 50.0 (2.0) | 50.0 (2.0) | 50.0 (2.0) | 0.935 |
|
| 12.0 (8.0) | 12.0 (6.2) | 13.0 (7.5) | 0.830 |
|
| ||||
| Reduced | 31.9% | 34.1% | 27.8% | 0.823 |
| Adequate | 37.5% | 40.2% | 45.6% | |
| Excessive | 30.6% | 25.6% | 26.6% | |
ap-values are based on the Kruskal–Wallis test for quantitative variables, or Chi-squared test for categorical variables; b data are reported as median (IQR); c defined as ≤8 years of school. Abbreviations: GWG, gestational weight gain; BMI, body mass index.
Linear regression of the association between dietary patterns and gestational weight gain, stratified by body mass index categories.
| Dietary Patterns | Total | Underweight | Normal Weight | Overweight | Obese | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | β | SE | ||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
| Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||||||
|
| 1.369 | 0.971 | 0.161 | 1.198 | 5.516 | 0.848 | 1.218 | 0.992 | 0.223 | 5.003 | 4.152 | 0.250 | 2.549 | 3.967 | 0.636 |
|
| 1.542 | 1.072 | 0.152 | 2.308 | 10.321 | 0.860 | 0.961 | 1.116 | 0.392 | 1.917 | 3.637 | 0.605 | 13.701 | 0.887 |
|
|
| 1.217 | 0.487 |
| −0.425 | 1.651 | 0.804 | 0.372 | 0.542 | 0.493 | 2.695 | 1.828 | 0.152 | 7.363 | 1.808 |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
| Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||||||
|
| −0.353 | 1.019 | 0.730 | −5.149 | 1.351 | 0.163 | 0.895 | 1.098 | 0.417 | −7.975 | 2.672 |
| −5.730 | 2.156 | 0.131 |
|
| 0.184 | 1.067 | 0.863 | 5.382 | 1.678 | 0.274 | −0.003 | 1.142 | 0.998 | −9.736 | 4.302 |
| −10.730 | 4.156 | 0.061 |
|
| 0.118 | 0.513 | 0.818 | 4.127 | 1.722 |
| 0.046 | 0.538 | 0.932 | −4.209 | 1.635 |
| −7.356 | 2.304 |
|
The model was adjusted for age, length of gestation, birth weight, educational level, working status, smoking, parity, newborn sex and total energy intake. p-values < 0.05 are indicated in bold font. Abbreviations: SE, standard error; Ref, reference group.