| Literature DB >> 33050612 |
Jui Yee Eng1, Foong Ming Moy1, Awang Bulgiba1, Sanjay Rampal1.
Abstract
The rising prevalence of overweight and obesity is partly due to nutrition transition. The reported association between dietary patterns and overweight/obesity has been controversial because of inconsistent results and weak observed associations. Although it has been hypothesized that an unhealthy diet can increase obesity risk, none of the previous studies have examined the dose-response association using nonlinear dose-response analyses. This study aimed to examine the dose-response association between major dietary patterns and overweight/obesity. This was a cross-sectional study involving teachers selected through stratified multistage sampling from public schools in three Malaysian states. Dietary intake was assessed using a food frequency questionnaire, and two major dietary patterns (Western and Prudent diet) were extracted using factor analysis. Logistic regression followed by trend analysis was used to test the difference in odds of overweight and obesity in each quintile of diet score. A further analysis using restricted cubic spline models was performed to examine the dose-response associations of dietary patterns with odds of overweight/obesity. The logistic regression analysis showed that participants with the highest quintile of Western diet score were 1.4 times more likely to be overweight/obese compared to those in the lowest quintile (95% CI: 1.11, 1.83, p-trend < 0.001). The odds of overweight/obesity showed a significant increasing trend across quintiles of Western diet among both men and women (p-trend < 0.001). In the dose-response analysis, a positive linear association (Pnonlinearity = 0.6139) was observed where overweight/obesity was more likely to occur among participants with a Western diet score greater than a mean score of zero. There was an inverse trend of odds of overweight/obesity across quintiles of Prudent diet score, significant only for men (p for trend < 0.001). Linear association was found between Prudent diet score and odds of overweight/obesity among both men (Pnonlinearity = 0.6685) and women (Pnonlinearity = 0.3684) in the dose-response analysis. No threshold at the level of adherence to Prudent diet was linked to odds of overweight/obesity. Dose-response analysis indicated that women with a Western diet score greater than zero were more likely to be overweight or obese among women. In men, higher adherence to Western diet was associated with increased odds of overweight/obesity, while greater adherence to Prudent diet decreased the odds of overweight/obesity. Promoting and enhancing the consumption of Prudent diet and limit in Western diet may be used to guide the development of evidence-based diet interventions to curb overweight and obesity.Entities:
Keywords: Prudent diet; Western diet; dietary pattern; dose–response; obesity; overweight
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33050612 PMCID: PMC7601593 DOI: 10.3390/nu12103092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
General characteristics of the study participants across quintiles of dietary pattern scores.
| Characteristics | Overall | Western Diet | Prudent Diet | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q3 | Q5 | Q1 | Q3 | Q5 | ||||
| Age (years) | 40.3 (9.0) | 42.5 ± 0.3 | 40.3 ± 0.3 | 38.2 ± 0.3 | <0.001 | 38.9 ± 0.3 | 40.6 ± 0.3 | 40.9 ± 0.3 | <0.001 |
| Gender | |||||||||
| Men | 1174 (17.4) | 16.2 (1.3) | 17.9 (1.3) | 25.4 (1.5) | <0.001 | 24.8 (1.5) | 22.4 (1.4) | 12.0 (1.2) | <0.001 |
| Women | 5568 (82.6) | 21.2 (0.6) | 20.2 (0.6) | 18.5 (0.5) | 19.0 (0.6) | 19.3 (0.5) | 22.0 (0.6) | ||
| Race | |||||||||
| Malay | 4542 (67.4) | 11.9 (0.5) | 20.2 (0.7) | 26.9 (0.7) | <0.001 | 22.5 (0.7) | 21.3 (0.7) | 14.1 (0.6) | <0.001 |
| Chinese | 1507 (22.4) | 37.3 (1.4) | 18.9 (1.1) | 5.5 (0.7) | 14.6 (1.0) | 16.9 (1.0) | 32.3 (1.4) | ||
| Indian | 649 (9.6) | 38.6 (2.4) | 18.9 (1.9) | 3.0 (0.8) | 15.7 (1.8) | 15.9 (1.8) | 34.4 (2.3) | ||
| Others | 44 (0.7) | 44.2 (8.6) | 20.5 (6.9) | 7.2 (4.1) | 9.5 (5.7) | 21.9 (7.0) | 34.5 (8.7) | ||
| Education level | |||||||||
| Diploma | 1517 (22.5) | 35.5 (1.5) | 18.2 (1.2) | 8.7 (0.8) | <0.001 | 16.9 (1.2) | 17.2 (1.1) | 29.6 (1.4) | <0.001 |
| Degree | 4859 (72.1) | 15.6 (0.6) | 20.1 (0.6) | 23.2 (0.6) | 20.9 (0.6) | 21.0 (0.6) | 17.0 (0.6) | ||
| Master/PhD | 366 (5.4) | 20.9 (2.3) | 22.4 (2.3) | 18.5 (2.3) | 20.2 (2.3) | 15.9 (2.1) | 23.5 (2.4) | ||
| Urban status | |||||||||
| Urban | 4521 (67.1) | 15.6 (0.9) | 20.0 (0.9) | 24.2 (1.0) | <0.001 | 21.9 (1.0) | 20.3 (1.0) | 16.4 (0.9) | <0.001 |
| Rural | 2221 (32.9) | 22.7 (0.7) | 19.7 (0.6) | 17.5 (0.6) | 19.1 (0.6) | 19.6 (0.6) | 22.1 (0.7) | ||
| Physical activity level | |||||||||
| Low | 1252 (24.8) | 24.4 (1.3) | 19.8 (1.2) | 17.1 (1.2) | <0.001 | 22.0 (1.3) | 19.5 (1.3) | 19.6 (1.2) | 0.263 |
| Moderate | 2770 (54.9) | 19.8 (0.8) | 20.4 (0.8) | 19.7 (0.8) | 18.3 (0.8) | 19.1 (0.8) | 22.3 (0.9) | ||
| High | 1025 (20.3) | 17.9 (1.3) | 19.9 (1.4) | 20.7 (1.4) | 20.3 (1.4) | 22.5 (1.5) | 17.0 (1.3) | ||
| Smoking status | |||||||||
| Never smoked | 5249 (93.4) | 20.9 (0.5) | 19.9 (0.5) | 18.9 (0.5) | <0.001 | 19.6 (0.5) | 19.5 (0.5) | 21.1 (0.5) | <0.001 |
| Former smoker | 129 (2.3) | 13.6 (3.1) | 14.5 (3.5) | 35.6 (4.6) | 25.3 (4.3) | 25.8 (3.9) | 8.4 (2.7) | ||
| Current smoker | 241 (4.3) | 12.7 (2.2) | 20.5 (2.6) | 27.3 (3.0) | 24.7 (3) | 24.3 (2.8) | 7.7 (1.9) | ||
| Daily energy (kcal/day) | 2874.1 ± 21.7 | 1519.9 ± 17.7 | 2923.6 ± 38.9 | 3873.3 ± 46.3 | <0.001 | 1804.4 ± 24.2 | 3373.8 ± 53.0 | 2971.6 ± 43.9 | <0.001 |
| Carbohydrate (%TE) b | 48.3 ± 0.3 | 49.3 ± 0.3 | 48.4 ± 0.2 | 47.1 ± 0.2 | <0.001 | 51.8 ± 0.2 | 48.4 ± 0.2 | 44.3 ± 0.2 | <0.001 |
| Protein (%TE) b | 18.2 ± 0.1 | 16.7 ± 0.1 | 18.4 ± 0.1 | 19.2 ± 0.1 | <0.001 | 17.7 ± 0.1 | 18.3 ± 0.1 | 18.7 ± 0.1 | <0.001 |
| Total fat (%TE) b | 33.4 ± 0.1 | 33.9 ± 0.2 | 33.1 ± 0.2 | 33.6 ± 0.1 | < 0.106 | 30.4 ± 0.2 | 33.3 ± 0.2 | 36.8 ± 0.2 | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.2 (22.2,28.7) | 25.1 ± 0.1 | 25.8 ± 0.2 | 26.6 ± 0.2 | <0.001 | 25.7 ± 0.2 | 26.0 ± 0.2 | 25.6 ± 0.2 | 0.451 |
| BMI classification c | 276 (4.1) | ||||||||
| Underweight/normal | 2944 (43.8) | 23.4 (0.8) | 19.8 (0.8) | 17.0 (0.7) | <0.001 | 20.7 (0.8) | 19.3 (0.7) | 21.5 (0.8) | 0.506 |
| Overweight | 2253 (33.5) | 18.5 (0.9) | 20.3 (1.0) | 20.8 (0.9) | 19.8 (1.0) | 20.3 (1.0) | 19.1 (0.9) | ||
| Obese | 1248 (18.6) | 15.9 (1.2) | 18.7 (1.2) | 24.4 (1.3) | 18.5 (1.3) | 20.5 (1.3) | 19.1 (1.2) | ||
ap-values for trend were calculated using the quintile median values. b Percentage of total energy intake. TE: total energy. c Defined according to WHO classification (BMI of less than 18.5 kg/m2 considered underweight, 18.5 to 24.9 normal weight, 25.0 to 29.9 overweight, and above 30 obese). Data are presented as mean ± standard error for continuous variables and row percentage, % (standard error) for categorical variables. Q1 is the lowest quintile and Q5 is the highest quintile.
Odds of overweight/obesity according to adherence to the Western and Prudent diet among men and women.
| Western Diet | Prudent Diet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Participants | Men | Women | All Participants | Men | Women | |
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Quintile 1 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Quintile 2 | 1.37 (1.14, 1.65) | 1.24 (0.74, 2.06) | 1.39 (1.13, 1.70) | 1.10 (0.91, 1.33) | 1.08 (0.70, 1.68) | 1.12 (0.91, 1.38) |
| Quintile 3 | 1.62 (1.32, 1.99) | 1.66 (0.97, 2.85) | 1.61 (1.29, 2.01) | 0.95 (0.78, 1.15) | 1.02 (0.64, 1.64) | 0.94 (0.76, 1.17) |
| Quintile 4 | 1.96 (1.56, 2.45) | 1.70 (0.98, 2.94) | 2.01 (1.57, 2.57) | 0.92 (0.75, 1.13) | 0.77 (0.47, 1.28) | 0.96 (0.76, 1.20) |
| Quintile 5 | 2.30 (1.83, 2.88) | 1.87 (1.07, 3.28) | 2.40 (1.86, 3.10) | 0.82 (0.68, 0.99) | 0.71 (0.42, 1.21) | 0.84 (0.68, 1.03) |
| | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.041 |
| R-squared | 0.2231 | 0.0732 | 0.3056 | 0.0043 | 0.1208 | 0.0037 |
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Quintile 1 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Quintile 2 | 1.16 (0.95, 1.41) | 1.15 (0.67, 1.96) | 1.16 (0.93, 1.44) | 1.24 (1.02, 1.50) | 1.19 (0.76, 1.87) | 1.25 (1.01, 1.55) |
| Quintile 3 | 1.22 (0.98, 1.51) | 1.36 (0.77, 2.42) | 1.19 (0.94, 1.51) | 1.15 (0.94, 1.41) | 1.19 (0.73, 1.93) | 1.14 (0.91, 1.43) |
| Quintile 4 | 1.31 (1.03, 1.67) | 1.37 (0.76, 2.50) | 1.30 (1.00, 1.70) | 1.20 (0.97, 1.49) | 0.97 (0.56, 1.66) | 1.24 (0.98, 1.58) |
| Quintile 5 | 1.43 (1.11, 1.83) | 1.39 (0.75, 2.60) | 1.45 (1.09, 1.91) | 1.18 (0.96, 1.45) | 0.93 (0.52, 1.67) | 1.22 (0.97, 1.52) |
| | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.735 |
| R-squared | 0.1077 | 0.0417 | 0.1160 | 0.0043 | 0.0043 | −0.0004 |
Data presented as odds ratio (95% CI). a Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, and daily energy intake. b Model 2 was further adjusted for ethnicity, education, urban status, smoking status, and physical activity level. c Quintiles of dietary pattern scores; Q1 is the lowest quintile (referent category) and Q5 is the highest quintile.
Figure 1Restricted cubic spline plots between dietary patterns and multivariate adjusted odds ratio of overweight and obesity among all participants. (a) Western diet and (b) Prudent diet. Results obtained by multivariable logistic regression with restricted cubic splines with five knots. Solid black lines indicate odds ratio, and shaded areas indicate 95% CI.
Figure 2Restricted cubic spline plots between dietary patterns and multivariate adjusted odds ratio of overweight and obesity among women. (a) Western diet and (b) Prudent diet. Results obtained by multivariable logistic regression with restricted cubic splines with five knots. Solid black lines indicate odds ratio, and shaded areas indicate 95% CI.
Figure 3Restricted cubic spline plots between dietary patterns and multivariate adjusted odds ratio of overweight and obesity among all men. (a) Western diet and (b) Prudent diet. Results obtained by multivariable logistic regression with restricted cubic splines with five knots. Solid black lines indicate odds ratio, and shaded areas indicate 95% CI.