| Literature DB >> 35139893 |
Rita Aoun1, Fatima Al Zahraa Chokor1, Mandy Taktouk1, Mona Nasrallah2,3, Hussain Ismaeel3,4, Hani Tamim5,6, Lara Nasreddine7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies investigating the association between dietary fructose intake and the metabolic syndrome (MetS) are scarce and have produced controversial findings. This study aimed at (1) assessing total dietary fructose intake in a sample of Lebanese healthy adults, and determining the intake levels of natural vs. added fructose; (2) investigating the association of dietary fructose with MetS; and (3) identifying the socioeconomic and lifestyle factors associated with high fructose intake.Entities:
Keywords: Added fructose; Adults; Cross-sectional study; Dietary fructose; Lebanon; Metabolic syndrome; Natural fructose
Year: 2022 PMID: 35139893 PMCID: PMC8827166 DOI: 10.1186/s13098-022-00800-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetol Metab Syndr ISSN: 1758-5996 Impact factor: 3.320
Sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics of the study sample (n = 283) †
| Variablesa | All participantsb (n = 283) | Metabolic syndrome (n = 102) | No metabolic syndrome (n = 181) | P-valuec |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | ||||
| Age (years) | 41.0 ± 13.7 | 44.8 ± 14.6 | 38.8 ± 12.7 | |
| N (%) | ||||
| Sex | ||||
| Female | 191 (67.5) | 56 (54.9) | 135 (74.6) | |
| Male | 92 (32.5) | 46 (45.1) | 46 (25.4) | |
| Marital Status | ||||
| Singled | 90 (31.8) | 36 (35.3) | 54 (29.8) | 0.344 |
| Married | 193 (68.2) | 66 (64.7) | 127 (70.2) | |
| Level of education | ||||
| No school or primary | 89 (31.6) | 38 (37.3) | 51 (28.3) | |
| Intermediate | 77 (27.3) | 31 (30.4) | 46 (25.6) | |
| Secondary or technical | 77 (27.3) | 28 (27.5) | 49 (27.2) | |
| University degree | 39 (13.8) | 5 (4.9) | 34 (18.9) | |
| Income ($ per month) | ||||
| < 600 | 75 (28.4) | 33 (33.0) | 42 (25.6) | 0.345 |
| 600 ≤ income ≤ 2000 | 165 (62.5) | 60 (60.0) | 105 (64.0) | |
| > 2000 | 24 (9.1) | 7 (7.0) | 17 (10.4) | |
| Smoking statuse | ||||
| Never smoked | 63 (22.3) | 21 (20.6) | 42 (23.2) | 0.641 |
| Current smoker | 195 (68.9) | 70 (68.6) | 125 (69.1) | |
| Past smokers | 25 (8.8) | 11 (10.8) | 14 (7.7) | |
| Physical Activity level | ||||
| Low intensity | 131 (46.3) | 51 (50.0) | 80 (44.2) | 0.199 |
| Moderate intensity | 88 (31.1) | 34 (33.3) | 54 (29.8) | |
| High intensity | 64 (22.6) | 17 (16.7) | 47 (26.0) | |
| Crowding index | ||||
| ≤ 1 person/room | 109 (38.5) | 45 (44.1) | 64 (35.4) | 0.146 |
| > 1 person/room | 174 (61.5) | 57 (55.9) | 117 (64.6) | |
Bolded numbers are significant at p < 0.05
SD standard deviation
aContinuous variables are expressed as Mean ± SD and categorical variables are expressed as n (%)
bLack of corresponding sum of frequencies with total sample size is due to missing data
cSignificance was derived from chi-square for categorical variables and from independent t-test for continuous variables
dSingle includes divorced, widowed and engaged
eCurrent smokers of either cigarette or narghile, past smokers of either cigarette or narghile
†Metabolic syndrome was defined according to Alberti et al. 2009 [7]
Anthropometric characteristics, biochemical and blood pressure data of the study population (n = 283) †
| Variablesa | All participants (n = 283) | Metabolic syndrome (n = 102) | No metabolic syndrome (n = 181) | p-valueb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | ||||
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 28.05 ± 5.62 | 31.04 ± 5.40 | 26.37 ± 5.02 | |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 91.99 ± 13.46 | 100.65 ± 11.39 | 87.10 ± 12.02 | |
| Body fat (Kg) | 27.15 ± 11.18 | 32.45 ± 11.14 | 24.16 ± 10.08 | |
| Triglycerides blood levels (mg/dL) | 120.70 ± 70.88 | 164.39 ± 79.96 | 96.07 ± 50.91 | |
| HDL blood levels (mg/dL) | 51.89 ± 15.89 | 42.87 ± 10.87 | 56.98 ± 16.04 | |
| LDL blood levels (mg/dL) | 106.99 ± 34.69 | 116.23 ± 38.25 | 101.78 ± 31.45 | |
| Fasting blood glucose (mg/dL) | 98.21 ± 13.31 | 105.70 ± 17.71 | 93.99 ± 7.21 | |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 116.68 ± 16.62 | 124.51 ± 18.42 | 111.71 ± 13.17 | |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 72.89 ± 9.60 | 77.41 ± 10.33 | 70.35 ± 8.16 |
BMI body mass index, HDL high-density lipoprotein, LDL low-density lipoprotein, SD standard deviation
a Data are expressed as Mean ± SD
b Significance was derived from independent t-test
† Metabolic syndrome was defined according to Alberti et al. 2009 [7]
Bolded numbers are significant at p < 0.05
Dietary energy and macronutrient intakes of the study population (n = 283) †
| Variablesa | All participants (n = 283) | Metabolic syndrome (n = 102) | No metabolic syndrome (n = 181) | p-valueb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | ||||
| Energy (Kcal/day) | 3134 ± 1301 | 3232 ± 1337 | 3080 ± 1281 | 0.34 |
| Carbohydrates (g/day) | 388.22 ± 158.16 | 407.40 ± 170.21 | 377.41 ± 150.37 | 0.12 |
| Carbohydrates (% of energy) | 50.37 ± 8.30 | 50.98 ± 8.40 | 50.03 ± 8.25 | 0.36 |
| Proteins (g/day) | 102.83 ± 60.65 | 101.95 ± 50.44 | 103.30 ± 65.83 | 0.85 |
| Proteins (% of energy) | 13.02 ± 3.64 | 12.67 ± 3.22 | 13.22 ± 3.86 | 0.22 |
| Fats (g/day) | 131.81 ± 64.97 | 134.82 ± 67.28 | 130.12 ± 63.77 | 0.56 |
| Fats (% of energy) | 39.10 ± 7.86 | 38.56 ± 8.11 | 39.41 ± 7.72 | 0.38 |
| Dietary fibers (g/day) | 28.16 ± 11.78 | 28.70 ± 13.49 | 27.85 ± 10.72 | 0.56 |
| Total sugar intake (g/day) | 104.99 ± 58.45 | 111.18 ± 61.84 | 101.49 ± 56.32 | 0.18 |
| Added fructose (g/day) c | 39.12 ± 34.10 | 41.85 ± 33.70 | 37.59 ± 34.31 | 0.31 |
| Added fructose (% of Kcal/day) | 4.80 ± 3.56 | 4.81 ± 2.97 | 4.79 ± 3.86 | 0.96 |
| Natural fructose (g/day) d | 12.29 ± 8.57 | 11.84 ± 7.88 | 12.55 ± 8.95 | 0.51 |
| Natural fructose (% of Kcal/day) | 1.78 ± 1.41 | 1.61 ± 1.15 | 1.87 ± 1.53 | 0.12 |
| Total fructose (g/day) (Added + Natural) | 51.42 ± 35.54 | 53.69 ± 35.03 | 50.14 ± 35.85 | 0.42 |
| Total fructose (% Kcal/day) | 6.58 ± 3.71 | 6.42 ± 2.96 | 6.67 ± 4.07 | 0.59 |
SD standard deviation
a Data are expressed as Mean ± SD
b Significance was derived from independent t-test
c Added fructose from industrialized foods and beverages containing beet or cane sugar/molasses, corn sweeteners and invert syrup
d Natural fructose in fructose-containing food such as fruits, vegetables, honey
† Metabolic syndrome was defined according to Alberti et al. 2009 [7]
Associations between total, added and natural fructose intakes (quartiles, g/day) and MetS, based on logistic regression analyses
| Crude model* | Model 1** | Model 2*** | Model 3**** | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | |||||
| Total fructose intake (g/day) | Q1: < 26.74 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Q2: 26.75–41.99 | 0.66 (0.32, 1.34) | 0.59 (0.27, 1.25) | 1.02 (0.42, 2.43) | 0.95 (0.40, 2.23) | |
| Q3 | 0.79 (0.39, 1.58) | 0.85 (0.40, 1.79) | 1.09 (0.45, 2.68) | 1.11 (0.45, 2.74) | |
| Q4: > 64.05 | 1.50 (0.76, 2.96) | 1.87 (0.86, 4.02) | |||
| Added fructose intake (g/day) | Q1: < 15.10 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Q2: 15.10–28.40 | 0.82 (0.41, 1.66) | 0.80 (0.38, 1.68) | 1.30 (0.55, 3.04) | 1.24 (0.52, 2.91) | |
| Q3: 28.41–51.48 | 0.88 (0.44, 1.76) | 1.00 (0.47, 2.14) | 1.33 (0.53, 3.34) | 1.40 (0.56, 3.52) | |
| Q4 | 1.54 (0.78, 3.04) | 2.10 (0.95, 4.63) | |||
| Natural fructose intake (g/day) | Q1: < 6.39 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Q2: 6.39–10.39 | 0.90 (0.45, 1.78) | 0.88 (0.42, 1.81) | 0.86 (0.38, 1.95) | 0.91 (0.39, 2.07) | |
| Q3: 10.39–16.64 | 1.03 (0.52, 2.05) | 0.96 (0.47, 1.97) | 1.16 (0.49, 2.76) | 1.06 (0.44, 2.50) | |
| Q4: > 16.64 | 0.88 (0.44, 1.76) | 0.77 (0.37, 1.61) | 1.04 (0.41, 2.64) | 1.01 (0.39, 2.60) | |
BMI body mass index, CHO carbohydrates, CI confidence interval, EI energy intake, OR odds ratio, MetS metabolic syndrome, Q quartile
* Crude model: No adjustments
** Model 1: Adjusted for age and sex
*** Model 2: Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, CHO (g/day), fibers (g/day), EI (kcal/day), smoking, education and physical activity level
****Model 3: Adjusted for age, sex, body fat (Kg), CHO (g/day), fibers (g/day), EI (kcal/day), smoking, education and physical activity level
Demographic, socioeconomic and lifestyle correlates of high intakes of total, added and natural fructose intakes in Lebanese adults #
| High total fructose intake | High added fructose intake | High natural fructose intake | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI)^ | AOR (95% CI)* | OR (95% CI)^ | AOR (95% CI)* | OR (95% CI)^ | AOR (95% CI)* | |
| Age (years) | ||||||
| Sex | ||||||
| Female | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | – |
| Male | 0.71 (0.393, 1.299) | – | ||||
| Marital status | ||||||
| Single | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | – |
| Married | 0.94 (0.473, 1.888) | 1.14 (0.544, 2.400) | 1.47 (0.804, 2.706) | – | ||
| Level of education | ||||||
| No school or primary | Reference | – | Reference | Reference | Reference | – |
| Intermediate | 1.12 (0.530, 2.358) | – | 1.20 (0.564, 2.552) | 1.11 (0.489, 2.500) | 0.86 (0.419, 1.777) | – |
| Secondary or technical | 1.68 (0.825, 3.421) | – | 1.25 (0.564, 2.784) | 0.86 (0.419, 1.777) | – | |
| University degree | 1.75 (0.746, 4.119) | – | 1.66 (0.694, 3.992) | 1.22 (0.451, 3.279) | 1.71 (0.757, 3.843) | – |
| Income ($ per month) | ||||||
| < 600 | Reference | – | Reference | – | Reference | – |
| 600 ≤ income ≤ 2000 | 1.27 (0.675, 2.426) | – | 1.47 (0.769, 2.807) | – | 0.82 (0.444, 1.525) | – |
| > 2000 | 1.13 (0.390, 3.317) | – | 1.23 (0.419, 3.607) | – | 0.85 (0.299, 2.456) | – |
| Smoking status | ||||||
| Never smoked | Reference | – | Reference | – | Reference | – |
| Current smoker | 1.90 (0.926, 3.915) | – | 1.90 (0.926, 3.915) | – | 1.11 (0.564, 2.191) | – |
| Past smokers | 0.65 (0.164, 2.538) | – | 0.64 (0.164, 2.538) | – | 1.97 (0.717, 5.404) | – |
| Physical activity level | ||||||
| Low intensity | Reference | – | Reference | – | Reference | – |
| Moderate intensity | 1.36 (0.721, 2.576) | – | 1.51 (0.802, 2.860) | – | 1.14 (0.612, 2.129) | – |
| High intensity | 1.75 (0.889, 3.446) | – | 1.83 (0.929, 3.627) | – | 1.07 (0.537, 2.154) | – |
| Crowding index | ||||||
| ≤ 1 person/room | Reference | – | Reference | – | Reference | Reference |
| > 1 person/room | 1.38 (0.783, 2.444) | – | 1.51 (0.849, 2.674) | – | ||
AOR adjusted odds ratio, CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio, Q quartile
# Assessed using multiple logistic regression analysis.
^ ORs were presented with 95% CI using simple logistic regression.
* AORs were presented with 95% CI using multiple logistic regression analysis. The model was adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics found to be significant correlates of the dependent variable at the crude model.