| Literature DB >> 32652943 |
Kaijie Xu1, Xueying Cui2, Bian Wang2, Qingya Tang1,2, Jianfang Cai3, Xiuhua Shen4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An appropriate diet is an important determinant of kidney health. However, the association between vegetarian diets and renal function is unclear. We aimed to study the association between vegetarian diets and renal function in healthy adults.Entities:
Keywords: Dietary pattern; Estimated glomerular filtration rate; Kidney; Renal function; Serum creatinine; Urea nitrogen; Uric acid; Vegetarian
Year: 2020 PMID: 32652943 PMCID: PMC7353802 DOI: 10.1186/s12882-020-01918-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nephrol ISSN: 1471-2369 Impact factor: 2.388
Fig. 1Flowchart of study participants
Basic characteristics of vegetarians and omnivores
| Variables | Vegetarians | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegans | Lacto-ovo vegetarians | Total vegetariansa | Omnivores | |
| Sex (Females, %) | 74.3 | 85.4 | 82.2 | 82.2 |
| Age (years) | 37.2 ± 9.2 | 34.8 ± 8.3 | 35.4 ± 8.6 | 34.8 ± 9.4 |
| Vegetarian diet duration (years) | 5.4 ± 4.5 | 5.4 ± 5.2 | 5.4 ± 5.0 | |
| Income per month (yuan) | ||||
| < 3000 | 17.1 | 19.2 | 18.7b | 26.1 |
| 3000 ~ 8000 | 67.2 | 68.2 | 67.9b | 65.3 |
| > 8000 | 15.7 | 12.6 | 13.4b | 8.6 |
| Education (%) | ||||
| Primary or secondary | 21.4 | 13.1 | 15.3b | 17.7 |
| Vocational | 18.6 | 15.2 | 16.0b | 17.7 |
| College and above | 60 | 71.7 | 68.7b | 64.6 |
| Alcohol consumption (%) | ||||
| None or rarely | 98.6 | 93.5c | 95.1b | 83.4 |
| Monthly or weekly | 0 | 5.5c | 4.1b | 12.4 |
| Daily | 1.4 | 1 | 0.8b | 4.2 |
| Smoking (%) | 14.3 | 8 | 9.7 | 8.2 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 20.5 ± 2.4 | 21.1 ± 2.7 | 20.9 ± 2.6b | 22.4 ± 3.5 |
| Physical activity (hours/week) | 2.0 ± 2.9 | 1.8 ± 2.3 | 1.9 ± 2.5b | 1.4 ± 2.0 |
| Skeletal muscle mass (kg) | 22.7 ± 4.8 | 22.2 ± 3.8 | 22.3 ± 4.1 | 23.3 ± 4.8 |
| Systolic pressure (mmHg) | 108.6 ± 12.3 | 107.8 ± 12.8 | 108.0 ± 12.7 | 111.6 ± 15.4 |
| Diastolic pressure (mmHg) | 69.9 ± 9.4 | 69.8 ± 9.0 | 69.9 ± 9.1 | 70.4 ± 11.0 |
| Fasting blood glucose (mmol/L) | 4. 6 ± 0.4 | 4.7 ± 0.7 | 4.6 ± 0.62 | 4.8 ± 0.4 |
| TGs (mmol/L) | 1.0 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.5 | 1.0 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.5 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.0 ± 0.8 | 4.1 ± 0.8 | 4.1 ± 0.8b | 4.6 ± 0.8 |
| LDL (mmol/L) | 2.5 ± 0.6 | 2.6 ± 0.6 | 2.5 ± 0.6b | 2.9 ± 0.7 |
| HDL (mmol/L) | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 1.4 ± 0.3 |
| LDL/HDL | 2.2 ± 0.6 | 2.1 ± 0.6 | 2.1 ± 0.6b | 2.2 ± 0.7 |
aTotal vegetarians: lacto-ovo vegetarians and vegans
bStatistical significance when comparing vegetarians and omnivores, P < 0.05
cStatistical significance when comparing vegans and lacto-ovo vegetarians, P < 0.05
Daily dietary intakes of vegetarians and omnivores
| Variables | Vegetarians | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegans | Lacto-ovo vegetarians | Total vegetariansa | Omnivores | |
| Energy (kcal/d) | 1507.5 ± 555.6 | 1498.8 ± 500.3b | 1501.1 ± 514.2c | 1757.3 ± 588.9 |
| Carbohydrates (g/d) | 233.2 ± 103.1 | 225.2 ± 82.7 | 227.3 ± 88.3 | 217.0 ± 78.8 |
| Carbohydrate energy supply ratio (%) | 61.6 ± 12.0 | 60.1 ± 8.7 | 60.5 ± 9.7c | 49.9 ± 11.9 |
| Fat (g/d) | 38.7 ± 8.7 | 43.7 ± 21.4b | 42.4 ± 21.31c | 65.7 ± 33.0 |
| Fat energy supply ratio (%) | 23.3 ± 9.5 | 26.2 ± 8.2b | 25.48 ± 8.60c | 33.0 ± 9.9 |
| Protein (g/d) | 48.7 ± 22.1 | 45.1 ± 19.1b | 46.0 ± 19.9c | 70.5 ± 33.9 |
| Protein energy supply ratio (%) | 12.9 ± 3.8 | 12.0 ± 2.9b | 12.2 ± 3.2c | 15.7 ± 4.3 |
| Protein intake/weight (g/kg) | 0.9 ± 0.4 | 0.8 ± 0.4b | 0.8 ± 0.4c | 1.2 ± 0.5 |
| Dietary fiber (g/d) | 17.29 ± 9.11 | 14.63 ± 9.3b | 15.3 ± 9.3c | 11.83 ± 6.90 |
| Calcium (mg/d) | 496.2 ± 316.3 | 441.6 ± 250.4b | 455.8 ± 269.5c | 539.5 ± 340.1 |
| Phosphorus (mg/d) | 841.5 ± 367.0 | 768.4 ± 331.2b | 787.4 ± 341.7c | 989.0 ± 378.6 |
| Potassium (mg/d) | 2118.1 ± 996.1 | 1741.3 ± 762.3 | 1839.4 ± 844.0 | 1943.3 ± 826.5 |
| Sodium (mg/d) | 2389.1 ± 1166.2 | 2780.0 ± 1263.4b | 2678.3 ± 1248.6c | 3767.6 ± 1584.7 |
aTotal vegetarians: lacto-ovo vegetarians and vegans
bStatistical significance when comparing vegans and lacto-ovo vegetarians, P < 0.05
cStatistical significance when comparing vegetarians and omnivores, P < 0.05
Fig. 2Renal function parameters of omnivores and vegetarians a: eGFR of omnivores and vegetarians; b: BUN of omnivores and vegetarians; c: SCr of omnivores and vegetarians; d: UA of omnivores and vegetarians; values are means ± SD. * Statistical significance when comparing vegetarians and omnivores, P < 0.05
Multiple-linear regression for the associations between vegetarian dietary patterns and renal function parametersa
| Omnivores | Vegetarians | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total vegetariansb | Lacto-ovo vegetarians | Vegans | ||
| β(95% CIs) | β(95% CIs) | β(95% CIs) | ||
| BUN | ||||
| Model 1 | 0 (Ref) | −0.71 (− 0.88, − 0.53) | −0.76 (− 0.95, − 0.57) | −0.56 (− 0.84, − 0.27) |
| Model 2 | − 0.68 (− 0.85, − 0.51) | − 0.71 (− 0.90, − 0.52) | − 0.58 (− 0.87, − 0.30) | |
| Model 3 | −0.72 (− 0.96, − 0.49) | −0.71 (− 0.96, − 0.46) | −0.74 (−1.13, − 0.36) | |
| Model 4 | − 0.63 (− 0.88, − 0.38) | −0.59 (− 0.86, − 0.32) | −0.64 (− 1.05, − 0.22) | |
| Model 5 | − 0.66 (− 0.95, − 0.38) | −0.66 (− 0.98, − 0.35) | −0.52 (− 1.04, 0.00) | |
| SCr | ||||
| Model 1 | 0 (Ref) | −1.91 (− 3.72, − 0.10) | − 2.08 (− 4.03, − 0.12) | −1.43 (− 4.43, 1.57) |
| Model 2 | − 2.04 (− 3.51, − 0.57) | −1.61 (− 3.12, − 0.10) | − 3.70 (− 6.08, − 1.32) | |
| Model 3 | −2.95 (− 4.85, − 1.05) | −2.46 (− 4.38, − 0.55) | − 5.41 (− 8.70, − 2.11) | |
| Model 4 | −2.04 (−4.10, 0.02) | − 1.58 (− 3.65, 0.48) | − 3.17 (− 6.24, − 0.09) | |
| Model 5 | −2.47 (− 4.83, − 0.11) | −2.41 (− 4.81, − 0.01) | −3.67 (− 8.17, − 0.86) | |
| UA | ||||
| Model 1 | 0 (Ref) | − 18.41 (− 29.11, − 7.70) | − 21.72 (− 33.19, − 10.25) | −9.00 (− 26.01, − 8.03) |
| Model 2 | − 10.17 (− 19.28, − 1.05) | −11.87 (− 21.54, − 2.19) | −5.69 (− 20.30, 8.95) | |
| Model 3 | −17.21 (− 28.76, − 5.65) | −16.47 (− 28.77, − 4.17) | −19.30 (− 37.77, − 0.82) | |
| Model 4 | − 15.15 (− 27.81, − 2.50) | − 16.29 (− 29.61, − 2.97) | −14.88 (− 35.18, 5.42) | |
| Model 5 | −18.00 (− 32.52, −3.48) | −18.73 (− 34.25, − 3.21) | − 19.96 (− 45.61, 5.68) | |
| eGFR | ||||
| Model 1 | 0 (Ref) | 3.06 (0.26, 5.85) | 2.65 (−0.26, 5.56) | 4.20 (−0.37, 8.78) |
| Model 2 | 3.59 (0.92, 6.28) | 2.66 (−0.08, 5.39) | 7.42 (3.02, 11.81) | |
| Model 3 | 5.94 (2.48, 9.41) | 4.51 (1.15, 7.87) | 12.29 (6.25, 18.33) | |
| Model 4 | 4.04 (0.30, 7.78) | 2.69 (−0.92, 6.30) | 8.31 (2.38, 13.85) | |
| Model 5 | 4.55 (0.25, 8.84) | 4.17 (−0.03, 8.37) | 7.70 (0.53, 15.94) | |
aModel 1: Unadjusted regression; Model 2: Adjusted for sex, age, BMI and skeletal muscle mass based on Model 1; Model 3: Adjusted for physical activity, alcohol consumption and smoking status based on Model 2; Model 4: Adjusted for LDL, HDL, systolic pressure and fasting blood glucose in addition to the adjustments in Model 3; Model 5: Adjusted for vegetarian diet duration on the basis of Model 4
bTotal vegetarians: lacto-ovo vegetarians and vegans