| Literature DB >> 35813674 |
Eftal Geçgil Demir1, Nadide Gizem Tarakçı1, Ruken Aslınur Samancı1, Merve Cambaz2, Şeymanur Bilici3, Dilara Tuygan3, Büşra Çalık3, Ayşe Sümeyye Çiftçi3.
Abstract
Background: The low incidence of diseases such as celiac, anemia, osteoporosis, and obesity in Ethiopia has aroused interest in the study of teff. The primary objective of this study was to determine the effect of regular consumption of teff seeds on hematological findings and anthropometric measurements in overweight and obese individuals. The secondary objective was to compare these effects of teff seeds with the Mediterranean diet.Entities:
Keywords: Mediterranean diet; Teff seeds; anthropometric measurements; hematological findings; obesity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35813674 PMCID: PMC9214744 DOI: 10.4314/ejhs.v32i3.21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ethiop J Health Sci ISSN: 1029-1857
Comparison of anthropometric measurements between groups
| Variables | Teff (n=14) | Mediterranean Diet | Total |
| |||
|
| |||||||
| x | SD | x | SD | x | SD | ||
|
| 26.7 | 3.5 | 27.6 | 3.7 | 30.1 | 3.5 | 0.463 |
| 93.2 | 7.9 | 90.8 | 22.1 | 92.1 | 16.1 | 0.867 | |
| 111.9 | 8.0 | 109.2 | 11.4 | 110.6 | 9.7 | 0.483 | |
| 31.7 | 2.7 | 33.0 | 3.9 | 32.3 | 3.3 | 0.347 | |
Comparison of the hematological findings of the participants at the beginning and end of the study
| Biochemical | Measurement | Teff (n=14) | Mediterranean Diet (n=14) | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| x | SD | p1 | x | SD | p2 | p3 | ||
|
| Start of Study | 5.4 | 0.3 | 0.746 | 5.3 | 0.5 | 0.768 | 0.200 |
| End of Study | 5.3 | 0.4 | 5.3 | 0.5 | ||||
| Difference | 0.4 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 1.6 | ||||
|
| Start of Study | 94.3 | 10.3 | 0.012 | 90.7 | 9.8 | 0.432 | 0.186 |
|
| End of Study | 90.3 | 7.9 | 88.9 | 8.9 | |||
| Difference | 4.0 | 8.0 | 1.8 | 8.1 | ||||
|
| Start of Study | 270.4 | 78.6 | 0.917 | 282.5 | 78.0 | 0.753 | 0.937 |
| End of Study | 281.6 | 62.5 | 269.7 | 50.9 | ||||
| Difference | 23.4 | 98.0 | 1.8 | 21.4 | ||||
|
| Start of Study | 4.4 | 0.5 | 0.364 | 4.2 | 0.7 | 0.433 | 0.397 |
| End of Study | 4.3 | 0.4 | 4.1 | 0.5 | ||||
| Difference | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | ||||
|
| Start of Study | 83.7 | 62.4 | 0.683 | 67.5 | 44.9 | 0.799 | 0.512 |
| End of Study | 72.9 | 36.1 | 62.2 | 27.3 | ||||
| Difference | 13.6 | 75.5 | 7.3 | 39.7 | ||||
|
| Start of Study | 243.4 | 101 | 0.074 | 192.3 | 75.5 | 0.071 | 0.495 |
| End of Study | 271.5 | 127.8 | 212.6 | 67.8 | ||||
| Difference | 30.8 | 64.3 | 21.2 | 40.5 | ||||
|
| Start of Study | 17.6 | 9.8 | 0.480 | 16.8 | 10.4 | 0.084 | 0.101 |
| End of Study | 19.7 | 7.8 | 20.6 | 6.5 | ||||
| Difference | 2.6 | 7.9 | 4.3 | 10.3 | ||||
|
| Start of Study | 199.1 | 36.6 | 0.006 | 196.3 | 40.2 | 0.005 | 0.662 |
| End of Study | 186.5 | 33.6 | 183.2 | 38.6 | ||||
| Difference | 14.5 | 15.2 | 13.1 | 13.9 | ||||
|
| Start of Study | 122.3 | 32.0 | 0.001 | 121.8 | 38.5 | 0.583 | 0.116 |
| End of Study | 114.3 | 27.4 | 121.4 | 29.4 | ||||
| Difference | 8.0 | 20.2 | 0.3 | 21.7 | ||||
|
| Start of Study | 55.9 | 11.5 | 0.009 | 52.1 | 12.1 | 0.746 | 0.133 |
| End of Study | 53.8 | 10.5 | 51.6 | 10.5 | ||||
| Difference | 2.0 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 5.6 | ||||
|
| Start of Study | 5.5 | 3.6 | 1,000 | 7.0 | 0.9 | 0.028 | 0.057 |
| End of Study | 7.3 | 0.1 | 7.5 | 0.7 | ||||
| Difference | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0,0 | 0.5 | ||||
p1 and p2: Paired Samples T Test and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test; p3 : Independent Samples T Test and Mann Whitney U Test
p<0.05
p1: Comparison of the beginning of study and end values of the intervention group
p2: Comparison of the starting and end values of the control group
p3: Comparison of interventions and control groups between end of study and beginning of study
Relationship between intake of macro nutrients and hematologic findings of participants
| Nutrient | HbA1C | HBS | Transferrin | Albumin | Iron | Vitamin | Total | Vitamin | Total | LDL | HDL |
|
| |||||||||||
|
| -0.014 | -0.312 | -0.084 | 0.405 | 0.515 | -0.717 | -0.949 | 0.158 | 0.80 | 0.042 | 0.122 |
|
| -0.80 | -648. | 0.1551 | -0.101 | 0.446 | -0.510 | 0.316 | 0.028 | 0.075 | 0.199 | -0.316 |
|
| -0.272 | 0.442 | -0.308 | -0.388 | -0.525 | 0.369 | -0.775 | -0.454 | -0.473 | -0.073 | -0.419 |
|
| -0.013 | -0.277 | -0.12, | 0.1770 | 0.351 | -0.353 | 0.348 | -0.198 | 0.284 | 0.273 | 0.277 |
|
| 0.175 | 0.100 | -0.244 | 0.261 | -0.003 | -0.433 | 0.738 | -0.281 | 0.262 | -0.61 | 0.021 |
|
| -0.038 | 0.447 | -0.093 | 0.079 | -0.472 | 0.418 | 0.738 | -0.234 | -0.089 | -0.316 | 0.454 |
|
| 0.096 | -0.302 | -0.084 | 0.339 | .590 | -.722 | -0.949 | 0.270 | 0.403 | 0.12 | -0.050 |
|
| 0.185 | -0.396 | 0.353 | 0.385 | 0.521 | -0.502 | 0.316 | 0.475 | 0.385 | 0.201 | 0.236 |
|
| |||||||||||
|
| -0.441 | -.588 | -0.21 | -0.576 | 0.293 | -647. | 0.21 | -0.303 | 0.468 | 0.340 | 0.452 |
|
| -0.372 | -0.535 | -0.358 | -0.591 | 0.414 | -617. | -0.269 | -0.182 | 0.468 | 0.459 | 0.262 |
|
| 0.255 | -0.068 | -0.374 | 0.103 | 0.396 | 0.106 | -0.710 | 0.279 | -0.071 | 0.307 | -0.326 |
|
| -0.008 | -0.15 | -0.307 | 0.042 | 0.623 | 0.031 | -0.689 | -0.237 | -0.061 | -0.076 | -0.746 |
|
| -0.555 | -0.268 | -0.184 | -0.317 | 0.451 | -0.326 | 0.092 | -0.219 | .718 | .595 | 0.145 |
|
| 0.177 | 0.244 | -0.289 | 0.327 | 0.177 | 0.427 | 0.000 | .591 | 0.241 | 0.441 | -0.102 |
|
| 0.017 | -0.537 | 0.167 | -.700. | -0.217 | -0.673 | 0.200 | -0.322 | 0.338 | -0.099 | 0.259 |
|
| -0.026 | -0.60 | 0.287 | -0.242 | -0.405 | -0.321 | 0.429 | -0.204 | -0.138 | -0.420 | 0.424 |
Pearson correlation and Spearman rank correlation were used.
p<0.05
p<0.01
Relationship between respondents' macro nutrient intake anthropometric measurements
| Nutrient | BMI | Waist | Hip Circumference | Upper Middle Arm |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.438 | 0.63 | 0.184 | .623 |
|
| 0.262 | 0.075 | -0.001 | 0.482 |
|
| -0.268 | -0.151 | 0.131 | -0.210 |
|
| 0.094 | 0.322 | 0.405 | 0.303 |
|
| 0.108 | 0.362 | 0.505 | 0.263 |
|
| -0.238 | -0.272 | 0.051 | -0.399 |
|
| 0.489 | .564 | 0.388 | .694 |
|
| 0.374 | 0.259 | -0.082 | 0.412 |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.324 | 0.24 | 0.423 | 0.418 |
|
| 0.483 | 0.204 | 0.444 | 0.480 |
|
| 0.195 | -0.028 | -0.010 | 0.025 |
|
| 0.199 | -0.017 | 0.344 | 0.296 |
|
| 0.350 | 0.452 | 0.347 | 0.406 |
|
| 0.081 | 0.174 | -0.306 | 0.051 |
|
| -0.047 | -0.044 | 0.207 | 0.196 |
|
| -0.186 | -0.14 | 0.069 | -0.002 |
Pearson correlation and Spearman rank correlation were used.
p<0.05
p<0.01