| Literature DB >> 35334846 |
Jetsada Ruangsuriya1,2, Rawiwan Wongpoomchai1,2, Somdet Srichairatanakool1, Wachiranun Sirikul3,4, Nida Buawangpong5, Penprapa Siviroj3.
Abstract
As Thailand moves toward an aging society, frailty has become a concern amongst northern Thai elderly. The causes of frailty are multifactorial and include genetic, environmental, and socio-economic factors; diet is of particular interest. A cross-sectional study was conducted from September to October 2017 to investigate what kind of diets normally consumed by 350 Thai elders were associated with frailty using a questionnaire and frailty determination by Fried's phenotype followed by phytochemical analyses of the diets. The multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated a significant positive association between certain foods and lower frailty. Guava fruit and Acacia pennata vegetable consumption had lower odds of frailty, which were 0.52 times (95% CI 0.28-0.96, p = 0.037) and 0.42 times (95% CI 0.21-0.83, p = 0.012) when adjusted for the potential confounders. The phytochemical analyses of guava fruit showed a significantly higher amount of total flavonoids (p < 0.001), total phenolic compounds (p = 0.002), and antioxidant capacity, including DPPH (p < 0.001), ABTS (p < 0.001), and FRAP (p = 0.002) when compared to those of banana. Acacia pennata vegetable contained a significantly higher amount of total phenolic compounds (p = 0.012) when compared to those of lettuce. These findings may assist in health promotion programs of frailty prevention by encouraging an increase in consumption of either guava fruit or Acacia pennata vegetable among Thai elderly.Entities:
Keywords: Acacia pennata; Thailand; dietary consumption; frailty; fruits; guava fruit; older adults; vegetables
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35334846 PMCID: PMC8954598 DOI: 10.3390/nu14061192
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Demographic and health characteristics of participants.
| Characteristics | Total, | Physical Frailty Status, | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-Frail | Frail | |||
| Sex a | ||||
| Male | 90 (26.7) | 48 (53.3) | 42 (46.7) | 0.013 * |
| Female | 260 (74.3) | 106 (40.8) | 154 (59.2) | |
| Age, years a, Mean ± SD | 69.31 ± 6.96 | 67.47 ± 5.70 | 70.76 ± 7.51 | |
| 60–64 | 106 (30.3) | 57 (53.8) | 49 (46.2) | <0.001 ** |
| 65–74 | 158 (45.1) | 69 (43.7) | 89 (56.3) | |
| ≥75 | 86 (24.6) | 28 (32.6) | 58 (67.4) | |
| Education a | ||||
| No school | 46 (13.1) | 16 (34.8) | 30 (65.2) | 0.077 |
| Primary school | 212 (60.6) | 89 (42.0) | 123 (58.0) | |
| Secondary school | 92 (26.3) | 49 (53.3) | 43 (46.7) | |
| Marital status a | ||||
| Single | 50 (14.3) | 15 (30.0) | 35 (70.0) | 0.028 * |
| Married | 171 (48.9) | 86 (50.3) | 85 (49.7) | |
| Widow/divorced/separated | 129 (36.9) | 53 (41.1) | 76 (58.9) | |
| Occupation in the past a | ||||
| Farmers | 181 (52.9) | 81 (44.8) | 100 (55.2) | 0.338 |
| Merchants | 85 (24.9) | 40 (47.1) | 45 (52.9) | |
| Official workers | 33 (9.6) | 17 (51.5) | 16 (48.5) | |
| Housekeeper/unemployed | 43 (12.6) | 14 (32.6) | 29 (67.4) | |
| Incomes, USD per month a | ||||
| ≤30 | 118 (33.7) | 50 (42.4) | 68 (57.6) | 0.103 |
| 31–90 | 137 (39.1) | 55 (40.1) | 82 (59.9) | |
| 91–180 | 52 (14.9) | 31 (59.6) | 21 (40.4) | |
| >180 | 43 (12.3) | 18 (41.9) | 25 (58.1) | |
| No. of underlying diseases a | ||||
| None | 128 (36.6) | 67 (52.3) | 61 (47.7) | 0.035 * |
| 1 | 131 (37.4) | 55 (42.0) | 76 (58.0) | |
| ≥2 | 91 (26.0) | 32 (35.2) | 59 (64.8) | |
| Underlying diseases | ||||
| Hypertension a | 177 (49.4) | 65 (36.7) | 112 (63.3) | 0.006 * |
| Diabetes mellitus a | 44 (12.6) | 13 (29.5) | 31 (70.5) | 0.039 * |
| Cardiovascular diseases a | 17 (4.9) | 8 (47.1) | 9 (52.9) | 0.794 |
| Stroke b | 5 (1.4) | 2 (40.0) | 3 (60.0) | 0.612 |
| Arthritis a | 72 (20.6) | 29 (40.3) | 43 (59.7) | 0.475 |
| Osteoporosis a | 17 (4.9) | 3 (17.6) | 14 (82.4) | 0.025 * |
| COPD b | 8 (2.3) | 4 (50.0) | 4 (50.0) | 0.500 |
COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Non-frail was indicated if the participant met none of the frail phenotypic criteria; Frail was indicated if the subject met 1 or more of the criteria; Significant p-values were analyzed by a Chi-square test, b Fisher’s exact test; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.
Comparison of physical frailty indicators between non-frail and frail older adults.
| Parameters | Total | Non-Frail | Frail | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a Weight (kg), Mean ± SD | 54.11 ± 10.10 | 55.74 ± 9.41 | 52.83 ± 10.46 | 0.007 * |
| b Unintended weight loss, n (%) | 32 (9.1) | 29 (90.6) | 3 (9.4) | <0.001 ** |
| b Self-reported exhaustion, n (%) | 7 (2.0) | 0 (0.0) | 7 (100.0) | 0.016 * |
| b Low activity, n (%) | 63 (18.0) | 62 (98.4) | 1 (1.6) | <0.001 ** |
| c Walking time (sec), Mean ± SD | 6.27 ± 2.29 | 5.17 ± 0.83 | 7.14 ± 2.67 | <0.001 ** |
| b Slow walking speed, n (%) | 112 (32.0) | 1 (0.9) | 111 (99.1) | <0.001 ** |
| c Grip strength (kg), Mean ± SD | 22.59 ± 6.51 | 25.59 ± 5.74 | 20.23 ± 6.11 | <0.001 ** |
| b Low grip strength, n (%) | 102 (29.1) | 0 (0.0) | 102 (100.0) | <0.001 ** |
Significant p-values were analyzed by a Independent sample t-test, b Fisher’s exact test, c Mann–Whitney test; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.
Comparison of fruits and vegetables consumption in non-frail and frail older adults.
| Types of Fruits and Vegetables ≠ | Total | Non-Frail | Frail | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fruits | ||||
| Banana | 265 (75.7) | 120 (45.3) | 145 (54.7) | 0.393 |
| Papaya | 218 (62.3) | 92 (42.2) | 126 (57.8) | 0.384 |
| Mango | 173 (49.4) | 76 (43.9) | 97 (56.1) | 0.979 |
| Orange | 153 (43.7) | 67 (43.8) | 86 (56.2) | 0.945 |
| Watermelon | 128 (36.6) | 58 (45.3) | 70 (54.7) | 0.707 |
| Pineapple | 122 (34.9) | 61 (50.0) | 61 (50.0) | 0.098 |
| Rambutan | 122 (34.9) | 46 (37.7) | 76 (62.3) | 0.083 |
| Mangosteen | 113 (32.3) | 47 (41.6) | 66 (58.4) | 0.531 |
| Durian | 75 (21.5) | 36 (48.0) | 39 (52.0) | 0.446 |
| Guava | 60 (17.1) | 36 (60.0) | 24 (40.0) | 0.005 * |
| Vegetables | ||||
| Lettuce | 306 (87.4) | 134 (43.8) | 172 (56.2) | 0.835 |
| Long bean | 174 (49.7) | 81 (46.6) | 93 (53.4) | 0.339 |
| Ivy gourd | 156 (44.6) | 71 (45.5) | 85 (54.5) | 0.609 |
| Eggplant | 127 (36.3) | 52 (40.9) | 75 (59.1) | 0.385 |
| Morning glory | 120 (34.3) | 53 (44.2) | 67 (55.8) | 0.964 |
| Gurmar (Local vegetable) | 106 (30.3) | 48 (45.3) | 58 (54.7) | 0.750 |
| Cauliflower | 94 (26.9) | 34 (36.2) | 60 (63.8) | 0.074 |
| Cucumber | 67 (19.1) | 31 (46.3) | 36 (53.7) | 0.677 |
| Cabbage | 67 (19.1) | 34 (50.7) | 33 (49.3) | 0.216 |
| Malabar spinach | 58 (16.6) | 20 (34.5) | 38 (65.5) | 0.110 |
|
| 58 (16.6) | 19 (32.8) | 39 (67.2) | 0.059 |
| Collard greens | 52 (14.9) | 18 (34.6) | 34 (65.4) | 0.140 |
|
| 44 (12.6) | 27 (61.4) | 17 (38.6) | 0.013 * |
≠ Frequently consumed types of fruits and vegetables in the last month; * Significant p-values were analyzed by Chi-square test; * p < 0.05.
Figure 1Frequent consumption of (a) guava fruit and (b) Acacia pennata vegetable by older adults living in northern Thailand was associated with reduced risk of physical frailty.
Association between guava fruit and Acacia pennata vegetable intakes with physical frailty in older adults.
| Frailty Status (Non-Frail/Frail) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cOR | 95% CI | aOR | 95% CI | |||
| Sex | ||||||
| Male | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| Female | 1.66 | 1.03, 2.69 | 0.039 * | 1.59 | 0.92, 2.79 | 0.099 |
| Age, years | ||||||
| 60–64 | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| 65–74 | 1.50 | 0.91, 2.46 | 0.108 | 1.26 | 0.74, 2.14 | 0.401 |
| ≥75 | 2.41 | 1.33, 4.35 | 0.004 * | 2.01 | 1.02, 3.94 | 0.042 * |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Single | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| Married | 0.42 | 0.22, 0.83 | 0.13 * | 0.46 | 0.22, 0.96 | 0.038 * |
| Widow/divorced/separated | 0.61 | 0.31, 1.24 | 0.172 | 0.56 | 0.27, 1.19 | 0.131 |
| Incomes (USD per month) | ||||||
| ≤30 | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| 30–90 | 1.10 | 0.66, 1.81 | 0.719 | 1.16 | 0.67, 2.01 | 0.600 |
| 91–180 | 0.50 | 0.26, 0.97 | 0.040 * | 0.62 | 0.30, 1.27 | 0.189 |
| >180 | 1.02 | 0.50, 2.07 | 0.954 | 1.44 | 0.65, 3.16 | 0.369 |
| No. of underlying diseases | ||||||
| None | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| 1 | 1.52 | 0.93, 2.48 | 0.096 | 1.43 | 0.84, 2.43 | 0.185 |
| ≥2 | 2.03 | 1.17, 3.52 | 0.012 * | 2.07 | 1.15, 3.73 | 0.016 * |
| Regularly consumed | ||||||
| Guava fruit | 0.46 | 0.26, 0.81 | 0.007 * | 0.52 | 0.28, 0.96 | 0.037 * |
| 0.45 | 0.23, 0.85 | 0.015 * | 0.42 | 0.21, 0.83 | 0.012 * | |
cOR, Crude OR values were analyzed with binary logistic regression; aOR, Adjusted OR values were analyzed with multivariate logistic regression; Confounding factors are sex, age, marital status, incomes and underlying diseases; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; Ref. = Reference; * p < 0.05.
Figure 2The flavonoid content, phenolic compounds, and antioxidant capacity levels of certain fruits and vegetables. Two fruits and two vegetables those are guava fruit, banana, Acacia pennata, and lettuce vegetables were analyzed for total flavonoids (a), total phenolic compounds (b), and total antioxidant capacity using 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay, 2,2’-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) assay (c), and ferric-reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay (d). * and ** were significant at p < 0.05 and p < 0.001 analyzed by independent sample t-test, respectively.
Mean and standard deviation of flavonoid content, phenolic compounds, and antioxidant capacity levels of certain fruits and vegetables.
| Total Flavonoids (mg/g) | Total Phenolic Compounds | Antioxidant Capacity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Radical Scavenging | TEAC (mg/g) | ||||
| DPPH | ABTS | FRAP | |||
| Guava | 3.530 ± 0.007 | 20.517 ± 1.542 | 91.893 ± 0.278 | 97.745 ± 0.247 | 17.850 ± 3.802 |
| Banana | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 21.700 ± 1.380 | 6.845 ± 0.205 | 3.607 ± 0.692 |
| <0.001 ** | 0.002 * | <0.001 ** | <0.001 | 0.002 * | |
|
| 3.783 ± 0.146 | 100.603 ± 15.623 | 89.023 ± 1.589 | 96.480 ± 1.329 | 18.537 ± 2.879 |
| Lettuce | 3.650 ± 0.052 | 18.683 ± 0.032 | 91.437 ± 1.712 | 85.490 ± 3.663 | 16.53 ± 3.309 |
| 0.211 | 0.012 * | 0.148 | 0.116 | 0.477 | |
DPPH = 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; ABTS = 2,2’-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid); TEAC = Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; FRAP = ferric-reducing antioxidant power; Significant p-values were analyzed by Independent sample t-test; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.