| Literature DB >> 34205823 |
Miriam Garrido-Miguel1,2, Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno1,3, Rubén Fernández-Rodríguez1, Isabel Antonia Martínez-Ortega1, Luis Enrique Hernández-Castillejo1, Bruno Bizzozero-Peroni1,4, Marta Carolina Ruiz-Grao1,2, Arthur Eumann Mesas1,5.
Abstract
The main objective of this study was to estimate the association between nut consumption and body composition-related measures and to examine whether this relationship is mediated by cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and the muscle strength index (MSI) in young adults. A cross-sectional study involving college students (n = 354) aged 18-30 years from a Spanish public university was conducted. Body composition and fitness components were assessed using standard methods. Nut consumption was evaluated using a Food-Frequency Questionnaire. ANCOVA models were used to assess the mean differences in physical fitness and body composition by nut consumption categories. Hayes's PROCESS macro was applied for mediation and interaction analyses adjusted for the main confounders. Young adults with high nut consumption (≥5 portions of 30 g/week) showed significantly higher values of physical fitness components and fat-free mass and lower values of adiposity-related measures than their peers in the lowest categories of nut consumption (˂1 portion/week) (p < 0.05). No significant interaction between CRF and nut consumption on body composition was found. In the mediation analysis, CRF and MSI acted as full mediators of the relationship of nut consumption with fat-free mass and waist circumference/height index. Otherwise, CRF and MSI partially mediated the relationship between nut consumption and body mass index and percent of fat mass. Finally, nut consumption, per se, does not appear to have a significant impact on body composition indicators because these associations have been shown to be partially (for BMI and %BF) or entirely (for ratio WC/height and fat-free mass) explained by CRF and MSI.Entities:
Keywords: adiposity; fitness; mediation; nuts; obesity; university students
Year: 2021 PMID: 34205823 PMCID: PMC8234532 DOI: 10.3390/nu13062126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Descriptive characteristics of the study sample by sex.
| Variable | All ( | Men ( | Women ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 21.05 ± 3.11 | 21.19 ± 2.85 | 20.97 ± 3.25 | 0.534 |
| Weight (Kg) | 65.41 ± 12.34 | 72.60 ± 10.94 | 61.50 ± 11.27 |
|
| Height (cm) | 167.30 ± 8.66 | 175.39 ± 7.03 | 162.93 ± 5.86 |
|
| WC (cm) | 78.96 ± 9.37 | 83.13 ± 7.92 | 76.68 ± 9.40 |
|
| Ratio WC (cm)/height (cm) | 0.47 ± 0.05 | 0.47 ± 0.04 | 0.47± 0.05 |
|
| % Fat mass | 26.61 ± 10.01 | 18.85 ± 6.83 | 30.68 ± 8.95 |
|
| Fat free mass (Kg) | 47.59 ± 10.20 | 57.93 ± 7.84 | 42.17 ± 6.41 |
|
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 23.28 ± 3.62 | 23.55 ± 3.03 | 23.14 ± 3.90 | 0.308 |
| Underweight (%) | 3.1 | 0.8 | 4.4 | |
| Normal weight (%) | 70.6 | 70.6 | 70.6 | 0.068 |
| Overweight (%) | 21.8 | 26.2 | 19.3 | |
| Obesity (%) | 4.5 | 2.4 | 5.7 | |
| CRF (stages) | 5.63 ± 2.67 | 7.95 ± 2.23 | 4.09 ± 1.64 |
|
| CRF (VO2 max estimate, mL/Kg/min) | 37.49 ± 8.03 | 44.44 ± 6.69 | 32.88 ± 4.94 |
|
| Handgrip strength (Kg) | 30.41 ± 9.51 | 39.22 ± 7.75 | 24.43 ± 4.77 |
|
| Standing long jump (cm) | 161.21 ± 43.78 | 195.49 ± 31.91 | 136.82 ± 33.55 |
|
| Muscle strength index (cm/Kg) a | 0.013 ±1.7 | 1.52 ±1.25 | −1.05 ± 1.21 |
|
| EI (Kcal) | 2795.79 ± 1804.77 | 2865.92 ± 1287.02 | 2757.68 ± 2033.24 | 0.590 |
| Carbohydrate (% EI) | 43.01 ± 7.10 | 43.10 ± 6.63 | 42.95 ± 7.36 | 0.852 |
| Protein (% EI) | 17.47 ± 3.46 | 17.39 ± 3.23 | 17.51 ± 3.59 | 0.749 |
| Fat (% EI) | 38.18 ± 6.21 | 37.93 ± 5.98 | 38.32 ± 6.34 | 0.578 |
| Nuts consumption (30 g) | 1.59 ± 1.37 | 1.79 ± 1.47 | 1.48 ± 1.30 |
|
| ˂1/week | 58.8 | 54.4 | 61.1 | |
| 1–4/week | 32.5 | 32.8 | 32.3 | 0.120 |
| ≥5/week | 8.8 | 12.8 | 6.6 |
The results are presented as the mean and (±) standard deviation. Bold values suggest statistical significance with p < 0.05. Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CRF, cardiorespiratory fitness; EI, energy intake; WC, waist circumference; a Sum of the standardized z score of dynamometry/weight and standing long jump. * Student’s t-tests (for continuous variables) and chi-squared tests (for categorical variables).
Bivariate correlations between nut consumption with body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), muscular strength (standing long jump, handgrip strength and muscular strength index) and total energy intake (EI).
| Nut Consumption | BMI | WC/Height | %BF | Fat-Free Mass | CRF (Stages) | CRF (VO2 Max Estimate) | Handgrip Strength | Standing Long Jump | Muscle Strength Index a | Total EI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nut consumption | - | −0.104 * | −0.107 * | −0.216 ** | 0.151 ** | 0.178 ** | 0.177 * | 0.129 * | 0.206 ** | 0.199 ** | 0.396 ** |
| BMI | - | 0.845 ** | 0.493 ** | 0.340 ** | −0.188 ** | −0.190 ** | 0.224 ** | −0.066 | −0.192 ** | −0.116 * | |
| WC/height | - | 0.433 * | 0.223 * | −0.278 ** | −0.278 ** | 0.081 | −0.160 ** | −0.232 ** | −0.067 | ||
| %BF | - | −0.537 ** | −0.548 ** | −0.540 ** | −0.390 ** | −0.531 ** | −0.632 ** | −0.166 ** | |||
| Fat-free mass | - | 0.562 ** | 0.554 ** | 0.774 ** | 0.593 ** | 0.560 ** | 0.029 | ||||
| CRF (stages) | - | 0.996 ** | 0.597 ** | 0.705 ** | 0.739 ** | 0.188 ** | |||||
| CRF (VO2 max estimate) | - | 0.589 ** | 0.697 ** | 0.732 ** | 0.186 ** | ||||||
| Handgrip strength | - | 0.611 ** | 0.803 ** | 0.101 | |||||||
| Standing long jump | - | 0.880 ** | 0.206 ** | ||||||||
| Muscle strength index a | - | 0.243 ** |
Data are presented in the correlation coefficient R. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001. Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; %BF, percentage of body fat mass; EI, energy intake; WC, waist circumference. a Sum of the standardized z-score of dynamometry/weight and standing long jump.
Figure 1Mean difference and 95% confidence intervals in physical fitness parameters (CRF, handgrip strength, standing long jump and muscle strength index) by categories of nut consumption. O: Model 0: Crude data; □: Model 1: Adjusted by age and sex. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Mean difference and 95% confidence intervals in body composition variables (BMI, WC/height, %fat mass and fat free mass) by categories of nut consumption. O: Model 1: Adjusted by age and sex; □: Model 2: Model 1+ total energy intake; ∆: Model 3: Model 2 + CRF (vo2 max); ◊: Model 4: Model 3 + muscle strength index. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.
Figure 3CRF (VO2 max estimate)/muscle strength index mediation models of the relationship between nut consumption with (a,b) BMI, (c,d) WC/heigh, (e,f) %BF, and (g,h) fat free mass controlling for age and sex. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.