Alexi Vasbinder1, Lesley F Tinker2, Marian L Neuhouser2, Mary Pettinger2, Lauren Hale3, Chongzhi Di2, Oleg Zaslavsky1, Laura L Hayman4,5, Xioachen Lin6, Charles Eaton7, Di Wang1, Ashley Scherman1, Marcia L Stefanick8, Wendy E Barrington9, Kerryn W Reding1,2. 1. Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Program in Public Health, Department of Family, Population, and Preventive Medicine, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA. 4. Department of Nursing, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Center for Global Cardiometabolic Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 7. Department of Family Medicine and Epidemiology, Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford, CA, USA. 9. Child, Family, Population Health Nursing, University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is associated with increased mortality independent of BMI, resulting in discordant metabolic phenotypes, such as metabolically healthy obese and metabolically unhealthy normal-weight individuals. Studies investigating dietary intake in MetS have reported mixed results, due in part to the limitations of self-reported measures. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of biomarker-calibrated estimates of energy and protein in MetS and metabolic phenotypes. METHODS: Postmenopausal participants from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study who were free of MetS at baseline, had available data from FFQs at baseline, and had components of MetS at Year 3 (n = 3963) were included. Dietary energy and protein intakes were estimated using biomarker calibration methods. MetS was defined as 3 or more of the following: elevated serum triglycerides (≥150 mg/dL), low HDL cholesterol (<50 mg/dL), hypertension [systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥130 or diastolic BP ≥85 mmHg], elevated serum glucose (>100 mg/dL), and abdominal adiposity (waist circumference > 89 cm). Models were adjusted for age, WHI study component, race/ethnicity, education, income, smoking, recreational physical activity, disease history, and parity. RESULTS: For every 10% increment in total calibrated energy intake, women were at a 1.37-fold elevated risk of MetS (95% CI, 1.15-1.63); a 10% increment in calibrated total protein intake was associated with a 1.21-fold elevated risk of MetS (95% CI, 1.00-1.47). Specifically, animal protein intake was associated with MetS (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14), whereas vegetable protein intake was not (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03). No differences were seen when examining metabolic phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: We found that higher calibrated total energy, total protein, and total animal protein intakes were strongly associated with MetS. If replicated in clinical trials, these results will have implications for the promotion of energy and animal protein restrictions for the reduction of MetS risks.
BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is associated with increased mortality independent of BMI, resulting in discordant metabolic phenotypes, such as metabolically healthy obese and metabolically unhealthy normal-weight individuals. Studies investigating dietary intake in MetS have reported mixed results, due in part to the limitations of self-reported measures. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of biomarker-calibrated estimates of energy and protein in MetS and metabolic phenotypes. METHODS: Postmenopausal participants from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study who were free of MetS at baseline, had available data from FFQs at baseline, and had components of MetS at Year 3 (n = 3963) were included. Dietary energy and protein intakes were estimated using biomarker calibration methods. MetS was defined as 3 or more of the following: elevated serum triglycerides (≥150 mg/dL), low HDL cholesterol (<50 mg/dL), hypertension [systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥130 or diastolic BP ≥85 mmHg], elevated serum glucose (>100 mg/dL), and abdominal adiposity (waist circumference > 89 cm). Models were adjusted for age, WHI study component, race/ethnicity, education, income, smoking, recreational physical activity, disease history, and parity. RESULTS: For every 10% increment in total calibrated energy intake, women were at a 1.37-fold elevated risk of MetS (95% CI, 1.15-1.63); a 10% increment in calibrated total protein intake was associated with a 1.21-fold elevated risk of MetS (95% CI, 1.00-1.47). Specifically, animal protein intake was associated with MetS (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14), whereas vegetable protein intake was not (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03). No differences were seen when examining metabolic phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: We found that higher calibrated total energy, total protein, and total animal protein intakes were strongly associated with MetS. If replicated in clinical trials, these results will have implications for the promotion of energy and animal protein restrictions for the reduction of MetS risks.
Authors: Anne-Claire Vergnaud; Teresa Norat; Dora Romaguera; Traci Mouw; Anne M May; Noemie Travier; Jian'an Luan; Nick Wareham; Nadia Slimani; Sabina Rinaldi; Elisabeth Couto; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Vanessa Cottet; Domenico Palli; Claudia Agnoli; Salvatore Panico; Rosario Tumino; Paolo Vineis; Antonio Agudo; Laudina Rodriguez; Maria Jose Sanchez; Pilar Amiano; Aurelio Barricarte; Jose Maria Huerta; Timothy J Key; Elisabeth A Spencer; Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Frederike L Büchner; Philippos Orfanos; Androniki Naska; Antonia Trichopoulou; Sabine Rohrmann; Silke Hermann; Heiner Boeing; Brian Buijsse; Ingegerd Johansson; Veronica Hellstrom; Jonas Manjer; Elisabet Wirfält; Marianne Uhre Jakobsen; Kim Overvad; Anne Tjonneland; Jytte Halkjaer; Eiliv Lund; Tonje Braaten; Dagrun Engeset; Andreani Odysseos; Elio Riboli; Petra H M Peeters Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2010-06-30 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Ross L Prentice; Ying Huang; Lewis H Kuller; Lesley F Tinker; Linda Van Horn; Marcia L Stefanick; Gloria Sarto; Judith Ockene; Karen C Johnson Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Thomas P Wycherley; Lisa J Moran; Peter M Clifton; Manny Noakes; Grant D Brinkworth Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Alison M Hill; Kristina A Harris Jackson; Michael A Roussell; Sheila G West; Penny M Kris-Etherton Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Ivonne Sluijs; Joline W J Beulens; Daphne L van der A; Annemieke M W Spijkerman; Diederick E Grobbee; Yvonne T van der Schouw Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Diane M O'Brien; Virag Sagi-Kiss; Susana A Palma-Duran; Chris Cunningham; Brian Barrett; Carol S Johnston; Douglas Midthune; Victor Kipnis; Laurence S Freedman; Natasha Tasevska Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 8.472