| Literature DB >> 33956833 |
Shao-Yuan Chuang1, Hsing-Yi Chang1,2, Hsin-Ling Fang1, Shu-Chen Lee3, Yueh-Ying Hsu1, Wen-Ting Yeh3, Wen-Ling Liu1, Wen-Harn Pan1,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few longitudinal studies have investigated the association between foods/dietary pattern and mortality risk in the Asian population. We investigated the prospective association between foods/dietary pattern and risk of death among ethnic Chinese adults in Taiwan.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33956833 PMCID: PMC8101962 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of the participants from NAHSIT 1993–1996 by dietary quality score: On physical examination, laboratory test, and comorbidity parameters.
The comorbidity cutoff point was defined as follows. Overweight/obesity: BMI ≥24 kg/m2; hypertension: systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg or using medications; hypertriglyceridemia: triglycerides ≥200 mg/dL; hypercholesterolemia: total cholesterol ≥240 mg/dL; diabetes: glucose ≥126 mg/dL or taking anti-glucose medication; High LDL: ≥ 130 mg/dL. Low HDL: HDL<40/50 mg/dL.
| Total | Poor (N = 726) (TEA:-2~+2) | Average (N = 1088) (TEA:3~4) | Healthy(N = 661) (TEA≥5) | P-for trend | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mean±std | mean±std | mean±std | mean±std | ||
| Age, yrs | 43.5±13.4 | 45.0±13.7 | 43.7±13.4 | 41.5±12.8 | < .001 |
| Sex (male %) | 46.6% | 52.6% | 54.5% | 52.7% | 0.968 |
| Height (cm) | 160.5±8.2 | 159.3±8.0 | 160.6±8.4 | 161.8±7.9 | < .001 |
| Weight (kg) | 61.5±10.9 | 61.7±10.6 | 61.6±11.2 | 61.0±10.6 | 0.185 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.9±3.9 | 24.3±3.9 | 23.9±3.9 | 23.3±3.5 | < .001 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 77.7±10.4 | 79.1±10.5 | 77.8±10.4 | 76.0±10.0 | < .001 |
| Blood pressure | |||||
| Systolic (mmHg) | 123.6±19.0 | 125.7±20.3 | 123.9±18.7 | 120.8±17.9 | < .001 |
| Diastolic (mmHg) | 80.0±13.1 | 81.3±13.3 | 80.2±13.0 | 78.3±12.9 | < .001 |
| Current smoking (%) | 24.3% | 27.6% | 23.3% | 22.5% | 0.028 |
| Current drinking (%) | 16.8% | 21.0% | 15.4% | 14.5% | 0.001 |
| Physical activity (%) | 58.1% | 50.8% | 59.5% | 64.0% | < .001 |
| Clinical chemistry | |||||
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 87.9±25.7 | 88.5±26.6 | 88.3±25.9 | 86.7±24.3 | 0.225 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 193.9±41.3 | 192.6±39.8 | 196.1±42.6 | 191.6±40.6 | 0.721 |
| Triglyceride (mg/dL) | 132.8±137.8 | 141.2±136.3 | 136.4±151.3 | 117.8±113.5 | 0.002 |
| Uric acid (mg/dL) | 6.2±1.8 | 6.3±1.9 | 6.2±1.8 | 6.0±1.7 | 0.007 |
| HDL-C (mg/dL) | 57.2±19.9 | 57.0±21.3 | 56.9±18.8 | 58.0±20.0 | 0.348 |
| LDL-C (mg/dL) | 111.7±37.6 | 109.3±37.3 | 113.8±37.6 | 110.9±37.8 | 0.415 |
| Overweight/obesity (%) | 45.0% | 50.6% | 44.8% | 39.5% | < .001 |
| Hypertension (%) | 28.8% | 33.1% | 28.7% | 24.4% | 0.003 |
| Diabetes (%) | 5.6% | 9.06% | 5.70% | 4.99% | 0.391 |
| Hypercholesterolemia (%) | 11.3% | 10.2% | 11.9% | 11.5% | 0.428 |
| Low HDL-C (%) | 27.1% | 26.3% | 27.7% | 26.9% | 0.781 |
| High LDL-C (%) | 33.6% | 34.0% | 33.0% | 34.0% | 0.992 |
| Hypertriglyceridemia (%) | 13.3% | 14.9% | 13.3% | 11.4% | 0.053 |
| Hyperuricemia (%) | 36.4% | 37.9% | 37.4% | 33.1% | 0.071 |
*: The trend associations of age and comorbidities for diet groups based on the Taiwanese Eating Approach (TEA) score was evaluated by general linear regression with ordinal TEA as an independent variable.
Individual characteristics by dietary quality score, food items and intake frequency by foods score group.
| Total | Poor (N = 726) (TEA:-2~+2) | Average (N = 1088) (TEA:3~4) | Healthy (N = 661) (TEA≥5) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | p-value | |
| TEA food consumption (times/week) | |||||
| Sea Fish with rich OMEGA-3 | 0.96±1.71 | 0.40±0.9 | 0.87±1.6 | 1.73±2.2 | < .001 |
| Freshwater fish | 4.59±6.46 | 3.23±8.4 | 4.74±4.8 | 5.86±6.1 | < .001 |
| Other fish (shrimp or crabs) | 0.73±1.37 | 0.31±0.5 | 0.67±1.4 | 1.27±1.8 | < .001 |
| Seaweed | 0.66±1.12 | 0.33±0.8 | 0.56±1.1 | 1.17±1.2 | < .001 |
| Mushrooms | 1.02±1.69 | 0.49±0.9 | 1.02±1.9 | 1.60±1.8 | < .001 |
| Vegetables | 18.06±12.21 | 16.81±14.6 | 18.39±11.7 | 18.88±9.8 | 0.001 |
| Fruits | 6.35±5.93 | 4.34±4.9 | 6.53±5.6 | 8.26±6.8 | < .001 |
| Milk | 2.57±4.09 | 1.13±3.0 | 2.64±4.2 | 4.04±4.3 | < .001 |
| Tea | 5.58±15.39 | 3.47±9.8 | 5.46±11.8 | 8.10±23.3 | < .001 |
| Fatty meats | 2.17±3.44 | 2.81±4.0 | 2.03±3.3 | 1.68±2.9 | < .001 |
| Fermented vegetables | 1.18±3.61 | 1.49±2.8 | 1.20±4.8 | 0.82±1.6 | < .001 |
| Sweetened drinks | 3.30±6.16 | 3.76±6.3 | 3.22±6.5 | 2.92±5.3 | 0.011 |
The trend associations of food consumption for the three Taiwanese Eating Approach (TEA) score groups were evaluated by general linear regression with ordinal TEA as an independent variable.
Fig 1Survival Curves of The Healthy Taiwanese Eating Approach for (a) total and (b) cardiovascular mortality.
A significant difference existed among three groups in total and cardiovascular mortality (both p-value less than 0.05). Taiwanese Eating Approach were classified into three groups, group 1 (black triangle, poor diet), group 2 (blue circle, average diet), and group 3 (green square, healthy diet).
The association between the Taiwanese Eating Approach score and mortality (all causes, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality) among young adults (n = 2475).
Model 1: adjusted for age and sex. Model 2: adjusted for age, sex, exercise, smoking, drinking, and education. Model 3: adjusted for age, sex, exercise, smoking, drinking, education, obesity, and number of self-reported diseases. Model 4: adjusted for age, sex, exercise, smoking, drinking, education, obesity, number of self-reported diseases, systolic BP, diastolic BP, triglycerides, HDL-C, LDL-C, sugar intake (times/week), and belt-nuts (times/week). Model 5: all independent variables included in model 4 among those without a history of cancer at baseline (n = 2458).
| Diet group | Hazard ratio for Per units | Taiwanese Eating Approach | p-value for trend | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poor (N = 726) (TEA:-2~+2) | Average (N = 1088) (TEA:3~4) | Healthy (N = 661) (TEA≥5) | |||
| Mortality | |||||
| All-cause | 0.81 (0.76–0.85) | 13.9 | 8.3 | 6.1 | < .001 |
| CVD death | 0.81(0.73–0.91) | 4.1 | 2.6 | 1.5 | < .001 |
| Cancer death | 0.84 (0.76–0.93) | 3.8 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 0.031 |
| Other-cause | 0.77 (0.70–0.85) | 6.0 | 3.0 | 2.3 | < .001 |
| All-cause | 0.85 (0.80–0.90) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.67 (0.54–0.84) | 0.54 (0.41–0.72) | < .001 |
| CVD death | 0.87 (0.78–0.97) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.72 (0.48–1.07) | 0.48 (0.27–0.84) | 0.007 |
| Cancer death | 0.90 (0.81–0.998) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.85 (0.57–1.28) | 0.80 (0.49–1.30) | 0.341 |
| Other-cause | 0.79 (0.72–0.87) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.54 (0.38–0.77) | 0.43 (0.28–0.68) | < .001 |
| All-cause | 0.87 (0.81–0.92) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.70 (0.56–0.87) | 0.60 (0.45–0.81) | < .001 |
| CVD death | 0.88 (0.78–0.98) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.73 (0.49–1.10) | 0.51 (0.29–0.89) | 0.014 |
| Cancer death | 0.90 (0.81–1.01) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.86 (0.57–1.29) | 0.84 (0.51–1.38) | 0.440 |
| Other-cause | 0.83 (0.75–0.91) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.58 (0.41–0.83) | 0.53 (0.34–0.84) | 0.002 |
| All-cause | 0.87 (0.82–0.92) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.67 (0.54–0.84) | 0.60 (0.45–0.80) | < .001 |
| CVD death | 0.88 (0.79–0.99) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.68 (0.45–1.03) | 0.50 (0.28–0.88) | 0.009 |
| Cancer death | 0.90 (0.81–1.01) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.85 (0.56–1.27) | 0.83 (0.51–1.37) | 0.428 |
| Other-cause | 0.83 (0.75–0.92) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.57 (0.40–0.81) | 0.53 (0.34–0.84) | 0.002 |
| All-cause | 0.88 (0.82–0.94) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.67 (0.53–0.86) | 0.62 (0.46–0.85) | < .001 |
| CVD death | 0.88 (0.78–0.99) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.68 (0.44–1.06) | 0.48 (0.26–0.88) | 0.012 |
| Cancer death | 0.92 (0.82–1.03) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.82 (0.52–1.28) | 0.90 (0.53–1.52) | 0.616 |
| Other-cause | 0.85 (0.76–0.94) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.57 (0.39–0.84) | 0.56 (0.34–0.90) | 0.005 |
| All-cause | 0.88 (0.82–0.94) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.69 (0.54~0.89) | 0.64 (0.47~0.87) | < .001 |
| CVD death | 0.88 (0.78~0.998) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.72 (0.46~1.13) | 0.52 (0.28~0.95) | 0.046 |
| Cancer death | 0.92 (0.82~1.04) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.87 (0.55~1.37) | 0.92 (0.54~1.57) | 0.178 |
| Other-cause | 0.85 (0.76~0.94) | 1.0 (REF) | 0.57 (0.39~0.84) | 0.56 (0.34~0.91) | 0.002 |
*: Mortality, (1/1000 PY)
†: significance criterion (p-value = 0.0125 = 0.052/4) for multiple comparisons.
The trend associations of food consumption for the three Taiwanese Eating Approach (TEA) score groups were evaluated by general linear regression with ordinal TEA as an independent variable.