| Literature DB >> 33195372 |
Beate Brandl1,2, Thomas Skurk1,2, Rachel Rennekamp2, Anne Hannink3, Eva Kiesswetter3, Jessica Freiherr4,5, Susanne Ihsen6, Jutta Roosen7, Martin Klingenspor1,8, Dirk Haller1,9, Dietmar Krautwurst10, Thomas Hofmann10,11, Jakob Linseisen12,13, Dorothee Volkert3, Hans Hauner1,2,14.
Abstract
Introduction: Nutritional habits and requirements are changing over the lifespan, but the dynamics of nutritional issues and the diet-health relationship in the major stages of the human life cycle are not sufficiently understood. A human phenotyping research platform for nutrition studies was established to recruit and phenotype selected population groups across different stages of life. The project is the backbone of the highly interdisciplinary enable competence cluster of nutrition research aiming to identify dietary determinants of a healthy life throughout the lifespan and to develop healthier and tasty convenience foods with high consumer acceptance.Entities:
Keywords: biosamples; cohort; enable-cluster; metabolic phenotyping; nutrition
Year: 2020 PMID: 33195372 PMCID: PMC7657309 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2020.582387
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1Flowchart of the recruitment process in the four age groups.
Figure 2Study design. Timeline and examinations. a, only in older participants; b, standardized breakfast; c, only in young adults and middle agers; d, not in children; e, physical function included tests of the Short Physical Performance Battery and Fullerton Senior Fitness Test Battery; f, young adults, middle agers, older adults were invited for visit 2; g, eating habits were recorded by using a food frequency questionnaire and a 24-h food list; h, visit 3 included a web-based 24-h food list which could be filled at home.
Overview of examinations in the four age cohorts.
| Body height | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Body weight | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Waist circumference | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Hip circumference | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Skin fold thickness | ✓ | – | – | – |
| Head circumference | ✓ | – | – | – |
| Upper arm circumference | – | – | – | ✓ |
| Calf circumference | – | – | – | ✓ |
| Bioelectrical impedance analysis | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Air Displacement Plethysmography | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Indirect calorimetry | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Accelerometer | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Blood pressure, pulse rate | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Pulse wave velocity | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Spiroergometry | – | ✓ | ✓ | – |
| Physical function | – | – | – | ✓ |
| Handgrip strength | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Visual function | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Hearing ability | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Olfaction test | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Oral glucose tolerance test | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Plasma | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Serum | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Dried Blood Spots | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Urine | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Feces | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Genetic material | Saliva | Buffy coat | Buffy coat | Buffy coat |
Measurement was only performed in Freising, Germany (all children, young adults, middle-agers and 54 seniors).
Overview of all questionnaires in four age cohorts.
| Birth weight | ✓ | – | – | – |
| Subjective health | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Physical well-being | ✓ | – | – | – |
| Mental well-being | ✓ | – | – | – |
| Self-worth | ✓ | – | – | – |
| Satisfaction with live/health | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Body weight and weight changes | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Disease | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Pain | – | – | – | ✓ |
| Functional limitations (LLFDI) | – | – | – | ✓ |
| Falls, fear of falling | – | – | – | ✓ |
| Smoking | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Physical activity | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Television/computer time | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Sleeping duration | ✓ | – | – | – |
| Breastfeeding | ✓ | ✓ | – | – |
| Meal habits and special diets | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Appetite | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Nutritional effects of life events | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Knowledge | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Attitudes toward nutrition and health | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Food selection | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Eating motives (TEMS) | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Dietary protocol | – | – | – | ✓ |
| Food preferences and aversions | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Food frequency questionnaire | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Two 24 h- food lists | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Supervisory relationships | ✓ | ✓ | – | – |
| Living conditions | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Marital status | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Nationality, native language | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Education | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Professional qualification | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Occupational status | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Voluntary commitment | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Financial status/ income | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Social network | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Anthropometric and metabolic characteristics of study participants.
| 44 | 94 | 108 | 160 | |
| Age, y | 4.16 ± 0.89a | 22.2 ± 1.97b | 52.2 ± 6.60c | 78.2 ± 2.75d |
| Height, cm | 108.6 ± 9.27a | 175.5 ± 9.72b | 172.6 ± 9.30b | 166.7 ± 9.13c |
| Body weight (SECA), kg | 17.9 ± 3.69a | 68.2 ± 11.70b | 72.6 ± 13.0b | 74.5 ± 13.4b,c |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 22.1 ± 2.54a | 24.2 ± 2.95b | 26.5 ± 3.96c | |
| Waist circumference, cm | 50.3 ± 4.63a | 77.9 ± 8.05b | 84.3 ± 10.40c | 96.3 ± 13.5d |
| Hip circumference, cm | 55.8 ± 4.78a | 95.6 ± 6.00b | 96.8 ± 6.53b | 102.6 ± 8.53c |
| AST, U/l | 22.0 ± 7.50 | 23.6 ± 8.17 | 23.9 ± 7.84 | |
| ALT, U/l | 23.9 ± 10.70a,b | 25.8 ± 11.3a | 21.7 ± 8.27b | |
| γGT, U/l | 16.9 ± 11.00a | 25.1 ± 22.10b | 27.9 ± 25.90b | |
| Cholesterol, mg/dl | 179.3 ± 31.60a | 224.4 ± 39.50b | 220.9 ± 43.20b | |
| Triglycerides, mg/dl | 93.8 ± 40.28 | 99.8 ± 53.37 | 107.3 ± 43.55 | |
| HDL-cholesterol, mg/dl | 60.9 ± 16.36 | 63.5 ± 17.20 | 64.1 ± 16.77 | |
| LDL-cholesterol, mg/dl | 102.2 ± 26.79a | 136.4 ± 37.98b | 137.8 ± 38.52b | |
| Fasting blood glucose, mg/dl | 76.7 ± 5.77a | 82.4 ± 7.94b | 89.1 ± 9.42c | |
| Fasting insulin, μU/ml | 3.21 ± 1.82a | 3.61 ± 3.13a | 5.05 ± 4.03b | |
| TSH, μU/ml | 1.77 ± 0.88a | 1.38 ± 0.73b | 1.34 ± 1.31b |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Middle agers fulfilling our criteria for “cardiometabolic risk” were not taken into account. P-values < 0.05 were regarded as statistically significant. The effect of different age groups was analyzed with a one-way ANOVA test for normally distributed data and a Kruskal-Wallis test in case of non-normal data. In each case a post-hoc test was performed to analyze all pairwise comparisons. The post-hoc tests were done with an appropriate adjustment for multiple testing. Means in a row labeled with a different superscript differ significantly, P < 0.05. AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; γGT, gamma-glutamyltransferase; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; ns, not significant; TSH, Thyroid-stimulating hormone.
Figure 3Notched Box plots of (A) body mass index percentile in the four stages of life, (B) fat mass (%), and (C) fat free mass (%) analyzed by air displacement plethysmography. Middle agers fulfilled our criteria for “cardiometabolic risk” were not taken into account. The effect of different age groups was analyzed with a one-way ANOVA test for normally distributed data and a Kruskal-Wallis test in case of non-normal data. In each case a post-hoc test was performed to analyze all pairwise comparisons. The post-hoc tests were done with an appropriate adjustment for multiple testing. Labeled means in a row without a common superscript letter differ, P < 0.05.
Dietary intake of young adults, middle agers, and older adults.
| 93 | 108 | 134 | |
| Energy intake, kcal/day | 1,941 ± 387 | 1,937 ± 381 | 1,972 ± 421 |
| Fat, g/day | 81.4 ± 17.60 | 84.2 ± 16.43 | 84.6 ± 17.70 |
| Fat, EN % | 39.5 | 40.7 | 40.0 |
| Saturated fatty acids, g/day | 36.5 ± 8.36 | 37.1 ± 7.53 | 36.9 ± 7.53 |
| Unsaturated fatty acids, g/day | 28.0 ± 6.43a | 30.1 ± 6.41a,b | 30.5 ± 7.04b |
| Carbohydrates, g/day | 209.7 ± 45.80 | 200.9 ± 45.42 | 211.4 ± 51.48 |
| Carbohydrates, EN % | 44.3 | 42.8 | 44.5 |
| Fiber, g/day | 22.7 ± 7.50a | 20.5 ± 5.35b | 22.1 ± 6.23a,b |
| Protein, g/day | 76.7 ± 16.67 | 76.9 ± 15.52 | 73.8 ± 16.25 |
| Protein, EN % | 16.2 | 16.5 | 15.5 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. P-values < 0.05 were regarded as statistically significant. Middle agers fulfilled our criteria for “cardiometabolic risk” were not taken into account. The effect of different age groups was analyzed with a one-way ANOVA test for normally distributed data and a Kruskal-Wallis test in case of non-normal data. In each case a post-hoc test was performed to analyze all pairwise comparisons. The post-hoc tests were done with an appropriate adjustment for multiple testing. Means in a row labeled with a different superscript differ significantly, P < 0.05. EN%, energy percent.