| Literature DB >> 35967769 |
Gengdong Chen1, Mengyang Su2, Xinwei Chu2, Yuanhuan Wei2, Shanshan Chen2, Yingyu Zhou2, Zhengping Liu1, Zheqing Zhang2.
Abstract
Evidence suggests that plant-based diets are beneficial for alleviating metabolic diseases. Childhood is a crucial period for body growth and development. However, it is unknown whether adherence to a plant-based diet is related to a healthy body composition in children. We aimed to assess the relationship between a plant-based diet and body composition in children. A total of 452 Chinese children aged 6-9 years old participated in this cross-sectional study. Lean mass (LM), fat mass, and fat mass percentage (FMP) were assessed via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. An age- and sex-specific abdominal FMP ≥85th percentile was defined as abdominal obesity. Handgrip strength was measured using a hydraulic hand dynamometer. A validated 79-item food frequency questionnaire was used to collect dietary information. Overall plant-based diet index (PDI), healthful plant-based diet index (hPDI), and unhealthful plant-based diet index (uPDI) scores were calculated. After adjusting for potential covariates, a higher hPDI score (per 10-score increment) was associated with a higher LM in the android area (0.038 kg, 3.2%), gynoid area (0.048 kg, 1.9%), and trunk (0.102 kg, 1.2%) and with a lower FMP (1.18%) in the android area. In contrast, a higher uPDI score (per 10-score increment) was associated with a lower LM in the trunk (0.091 kg, 1.1%) and android area (0.023 kg, 1.9%) and with a higher FMP (0.74%) in the android area. No significant associations were observed between the overall PDI and body composition or abdominal obesity. After stratifying by sex, higher (vs. lower) hPDI scores was associated with lower abdominal obesity risk in girls and higher handgrip strength in boys. In conclusion, in this cross-sectional study, we found that stronger adherence to a healthful plant-based diet, and less adherence to an unhealthful plant-based diet was associated with better body composition in Chinese omnivorous children aged 6-9 years old. Our results highlight the need to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy plant foods within investigating how to obtain a healthy body composition in children.Entities:
Keywords: abdominal obesity; body composition; children; handgrip strength; plant-based diet
Year: 2022 PMID: 35967769 PMCID: PMC9372333 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.918944
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Characteristic of subjects included in the study.
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Subjects, | 147 | 149 | 159 | 150 | 146 | 157 | |
| Mean scores | 38.9 ± 3.23 | 51.6 ± 3.26 | 39.8 ± 2.62 | 51.0 ± 2.41 | 38.2 ± 2.57 | 51.1 ± 3.18 | |
| Age, years | 7.94 ± 0.96 | 8.14 ± 0.85 | 8.04 ± 0.94 | 8.02 ± 0.95 | 7.93 ± 0.95 | 8.02 ± 0.98 | |
| Height, cm | 128 ± 8.26 | 130 ± 7.63 | 129 ± 7.61 | 129 ± 8.39 | 128 ± 8.39 | 129 ± 8.27 | |
| Weight, kg | 26.1 ± 6.60 | 26.9 ± 6.88 | 26.4 ± 6.62 | 25.7 ± 6.65 | 26.6 ± 7.52 | 26.7 ± 7.18 | |
| Physical activity, Met × h/d | 39.8 ± 4.38 | 40.0 ± 4.14 | 40.0 ± 4.40 | 40.2 ± 4.43 | 40.2 ± 3.89 | 39.6 ± 4.30 | |
| Sex | Girls | 63 (42.9) | 68 (45.6) | 68 (42.8) | 66 (44.0) | 63 (43.2) | 70 (44.6) |
| Boys | 84 (57.1) | 81 (54.4) | 91 (57.2) | 84 (56.0) | 83 (56.8) | 87 (55.4) | |
| Delivery way, | Natural | 74 (50.3) | 77 (51.7) | 79 (49.7) | 73 (48.7) | 71 (48.6) | 85 (54.1) |
| Cesarean | 73 (49.7) | 72 (48.3) | 80 (50.3) | 77 (51.3) | 75 (51.4) | 72 (45.9) | |
| Household income, Yuan × month−1, | ≤150,00 | 66 (44.9) | 75 (50.3) | 73 (45.9) | 75 (50.0) | 68 (46.6) | 79 (50.3) |
| >150,00 | 81 (55.1) | 74 (49.7) | 86 (54.1) | 75 (50.0) | 78 (53.4) | 78 (49.7) | |
| Maternal education, | ≤12 years | 58 (39.5) | 56 (37.6) | 62 (39.0) | 54 (36.0) | 50 (34.2) | 69 (43.9) |
| >12 years | 89 (60.5) | 93 (62.4) | 97 (61.0) | 96 (64.0) | 96 (65.8) | 88 (56.1) | |
| Paternal education | ≤ 12 years | 55 (37.4) | 66 (44.3) | 64 (40.3) | 55 (36.7) | 45 (30.8) | 74 (47.1) |
| >12 years | 92 (62.6) | 83 (55.7) | 95 (59.7) | 95 (63.3) | 101 (69.2) | 83 (52.9) | |
| Use of calcium supplements, | No | 82 (55.8) | 95 (63.8) | 99 (62.3) | 86 (57.3) | 83 (56.8) | 100 (63.7) |
| Yes | 65 (44.2) | 54 (36.2) | 60 (37.7) | 64 (42.7) | 63 (43.2) | 57 (36.3) | |
| Use of multi-vitamin supplements, | No | 123 (83.7) | 124 (83.2) | 130 (81.8) | 121 (80.7) | 118 (80.8) | 135 (86.0) |
| Yes | 24 (16.3) | 25 (16.8) | 29 (18.2) | 29 (19.3) | 28 (19.2) | 22 (14.0) | |
Continuous variables were presented as Mean ± standard deviation; Categorical variables were presented as frequency (percentage). a, adjusted for energy using residual methods.
Dietary information of intake of different foods in our study.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Subjects, | 147 | 149 | 159 | 150 | 146 | 157 |
| Total energy intake, kcal/d | 1,450 ± 419 | 1,440 ± 425 | 1,441 ± 423 | 1,390 ± 443 | 1,411 ± 430 | 1,441 ± 454 |
|
| ||||||
| Whole grains, g/d | 0.0 (0.0, 2.0) | 1.5 (0.0, 5.2) | 0.0 (0.0, 1.6) | 1.9 (0.0, 5.5) | 1.7 (0.0, 5.3) | 0.0 (0.0, 1.9) |
| Fruits, g/d | 102 (68, 170) | 142 (99, 220) | 88 (58, 138) | 162 (113, 219) | 151 (111, 216) | 87 (58, 143) |
| Vegetables, g/d | 140 (99, 209) | 186 (134, 241) | 149 (111, 190) | 202 (133, 254) | 209 (159, 266) | 143 (108, 188) |
| Nuts, g/d | 2.9 (0.8, 7.7) | 5.4 (2.6, 12) | 2.6 (0.9, 5.3) | 7.9 (3.3, 15) | 6.3 (2.6, 15) | 2.5 (0.9, 5.8) |
| Legumes, g/d | 4.2 (2.0, 7.3) | 9.4 (5.3, 16) | 4.6 (2.1, 7.5) | 9.7 (5.7, 17) | 7.4 (3.7, 13.3) | 4.9 (2.2, 9.2) |
| Vegetable oils, g/d | 16 (10, 26) | 21 (15, 33) | 17 (10, 28) | 20 (15, 32) | 20 (11, 33) | 20 (10, 25) |
| Tea and coffee, g/d | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 0.0) |
|
| ||||||
| Fruits juices, g/d | 2.4 (0.0, 11) | 16 (7.6, 29) | 14 (5.4, 31) | 4.1 (0.0, 15) | 5.0 (0.0, 15) | 15 (4.2, 36) |
| Refined grains, g/d | 146 (118, 166) | 164 (133, 186) | 161 (140, 185) | 147 (125, 174) | 130 (112, 147) | 179 (158, 201) |
| Potatoes, g/d | 8.5 (4.2, 13.8) | 18 (12, 30) | 14 (7.6, 26) | 12 (6.8, 22) | 14 (7.8, 23) | 15 (7.6, 26) |
| Sugar-sweetened beverages, g/d | 3.0 (0.0, 12) | 14 (3.5, 26) | 14 (5.3, 33) | 1.3 (0.0, 7.5) | 1.2 (0.0, 6.4) | 14 (3.2, 31) |
|
| ||||||
| Dairy, g/d | 259 (168, 367) | 151 (104, 227) | 228 (159, 318) | 169 (113, 271) | 239 (157, 357) | 174 (114, 275) |
| Eggs, g/d | 34 (21, 47) | 23 (12, 35) | 32 (19, 45) | 26 (14, 40) | 36 (25, 50) | 23 (15, 32) |
| Fish or seafood, g/d | 25 (13, 46) | 20 (8.8, 32) | 28 (13, 44) | 17 (9.4, 31) | 28 (15, 48) | 15 (6.8, 26) |
| Meat, g/d | 124 (93, 156) | 86 (60, 110) | 113 (80, 150) | 96 (70, 125) | 120 (87, 153) | 90 (60, 125) |
Associations of plant-based diet index scores with body composition after adjusted for potential covariates.
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||||
| FM, kg | −0.100 | 0.086 | 0.244 | −0.155 | 0.097 | 0.113 | 0.052 | 0.087 | 0.551 |
| LM, kg | 0.098 | 0.084 | 0.246 | 0.155 | 0.095 | 0.103 | −0.125 | 0.085 | 0.140 |
| FMP, % | −0.408 | 0.309 | 0.188 | −0.683 | 0.349 | 0.051 | 0.378 | 0.311 | 0.226 |
|
| |||||||||
| FM, kg | −0.009 | 0.043 | 0.830 | −0.046 | 0.048 | 0.343 | 0.024 | 0.043 | 0.570 |
| LM, kg | 0.036 | 0.043 | 0.399 | 0.102 | 0.048 | 0.035 | −0.091 | 0.043 | 0.035 |
| FMP, % | −0.251 | 0.328 | 0.444 | −0.672 | 0.370 | 0.070 | 0.495 | 0.330 | 0.134 |
|
| |||||||||
| FM, kg | −0.091 | 0.052 | 0.081 | −0.102 | 0.059 | 0.085 | 0.024 | 0.053 | 0.654 |
| LM, kg | 0.064 | 0.049 | 0.185 | 0.076 | 0.055 | 0.171 | −0.040 | 0.049 | 0.415 |
| FMP, % | −0.670 | 0.424 | 0.115 | −0.886 | 0.480 | 0.066 | 0.375 | 0.429 | 0.382 |
|
| |||||||||
| FM, kg | −0.003 | 0.008 | 0.676 | −0.007 | 0.009 | 0.446 | 0.005 | 0.008 | 0.545 |
| LM, kg | 0.007 | 0.010 | 0.436 | 0.038 | 0.011 | <0.001 | −0.023 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| FMP, % | −0.440 | 0.345 | 0.203 | −1.183 | 0.388 | 0.002 | 0.742 | 0.347 | 0.033 |
|
| |||||||||
| FM, kg | −0.018 | 0.017 | 0.289 | −0.018 | 0.019 | 0.364 | 0.016 | 0.017 | 0.343 |
| LM, kg | 0.019 | 0.019 | 0.317 | 0.048 | 0.021 | 0.024 | −0.034 | 0.019 | 0.075 |
| FMP, % | −0.590 | 0.382 | 0.123 | −0.827 | 0.432 | 0.056 | 0.628 | 0.385 | 0.103 |
FM, fat mass; LM, lean mass; FMP, fat mass percentage.
Linear regression analysis, adjusted for covariates including: age, sex, height, weight, delivery way, household income, parental education, physical activity, use of calcium and multi-vitamin supplements, dietary intake of energy. The bold values indicates the statistical significance (p < 0.05).
Comparison of body composition between top tertile groups of hPDI and uPDI scores.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||||
| FM, kg | 7.427 | 0.105 | 7.555 | 0.102 | −0.128 | 0.388 |
| LM, kg | 19.036 | 0.153 | 18.652 | 0.149 | 0.384 | 0.076 |
| FMP, % | 26.901 | 0.301 | 27.890 | 0.292 | −0.989 | 0.021 |
|
| ||||||
| FM, kg | 2.795 | 0.054 | 2.855 | 0.052 | −0.060 | 0.434 |
| LM, kg | 8.432 | 0.076 | 8.204 | 0.074 | 0.228 | 0.034 |
| FMP, % | 23.503 | 0.330 | 24.651 | 0.320 | −1.148 | 0.014 |
|
| ||||||
| FM, kg | 3.809 | 0.059 | 3.878 | 0.057 | −0.070 | 0.183 |
| LM, kg | 7.844 | 0.077 | 7.698 | 0.075 | 0.146 | 0.401 |
| FMP, % | 31.222 | 0.419 | 32.356 | 0.407 | −1.134 | 0.056 |
|
| ||||||
| FM, kg | 0.413 | 0.009 | 0.419 | 0.009 | −0.005 | 0.696 |
| LM, kg | 1.218 | 0.014 | 1.167 | 0.013 | 0.050 | 0.010 |
| FMP, % | 23.509 | 0.342 | 24.886 | 0.332 | −1.377 | 0.005 |
|
| ||||||
| FM, kg | 1.275 | 0.020 | 1.300 | 0.019 | −0.025 | 0.369 |
| LM, kg | 2.563 | 0.029 | 2.486 | 0.029 | 0.077 | 0.065 |
| FMP, % | 32.155 | 0.381 | 33.537 | 0.370 | −1.381 | 0.011 |
FM, fat mass; LM, lean mass; FMP, fat mass percentage.
ANCOVA analyses, adjusted for covariates including: age, sex, height, weight, delivery way, household income, parental education, physical activity, use of calcium and multi-vitamin supplements, dietary intake of energy.
Difference = Mean .
Associations of plant-based diet index scores with abdominal obesity.
|
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 1.16 | (0.65, 2.09) | 0.616 | 1.23 | (0.68, 2.21) | 0.490 | 1.12 | (0.75, 1.68) | 0.589 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 0.84 | (0.34, 2.05) | 0.693 | 1.24 | (0.51, 2.97) | 0.637 | 1.27 | (0.68, 2.37) | 0.457 |
|
| ||||||||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 1.34 | (0.77, 2.33) | 0.298 | 0.70 | (0.38, 1.29) | 0.251 | 0.76 | (0.48, 1.21) | 0.244 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 0.97 | (0.42, 2.22) | 0.941 | 0.75 | (0.30, 1.91) | 0.548 | 0.70 | (0.34, 1.43) | 0.326 |
|
| ||||||||||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 0.93 | (0.50, 1.72) | 0.815 | 1.44 | (0.82, 2.54) | 0.209 | 1.17 | (0.78, 1.75) | 0.441 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 1.80 | (0.68, 4.77) | 0.238 | 2.12 | (0.86, 5.26) | 0.105 | 1.52 | (0.82, 2.84) | 0.185 |
Logistic regression analysis, with Model 1 as univariate analysis without adjustment; and Model 2 adjusted for covariates including: age, sex, height, weight, delivery way, household income, parental education, physical activity, use of calcium and multi-vitamin supplements, dietary intake of energy.
Associations of plant-based diet index scores with handgrip strength.
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| β |
|
| β |
|
| β |
|
| |
|
| |||||||||
| Model 1 | 0.34 | 0.23 | 0.143 | 0.16 | 0.26 | 0.540 | −0.13 | 0.23 | 0.584 |
| Model 2 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.627 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.310 | −0.11 | 0.16 | 0.482 |
|
| |||||||||
| Model 1 | 0.01 | 0.30 | 0.751 | −0.06 | 0.31 | 0.843 | −0.06 | 0.31 | 0.843 |
| Model 2 | −0.14 | 0.22 | 0.522 | −0.14 | 0.23 | 0.538 | −0.15 | 0.23 | 0.507 |
|
| |||||||||
| Model 1 | 0.53 | 0.33 | 0.107 | 0.45 | 0.41 | 0.274 | 0.45 | 0.41 | 0.274 |
| Model 2 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.260 | 0.61 | 0.27 | 0.024 | −0.12 | 0.22 | 0.595 |
Logistic regression analysis, with Model 1 as univariate analysis without adjustment; Model 2 adjusted for covariates including: age, sex, height, weight, delivery way, household income, parental education, physical activity, use of calcium and multi-vitamin supplements, dietary intake of energy. The bold values indicates the statistical significance (p < 0.05).