| Literature DB >> 36038871 |
Sobhan Mohammadi1, Keyhan Lotfi2, Saeideh Mirzaei3, Ali Asadi4, Masoumeh Akhlaghi5, Parvane Saneei6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although several studies evaluated the relationship between individual dietary antioxidants and metabolic health conditions, data on the association between dietary total antioxidant capacity and metabolic health among children and adolescents is limited. This study investigated the relationship between dietary total antioxidant capacity and metabolic health status in Iranian overweight/obese adolescents.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescents; Children; Dietary total antioxidant capacity; Metabolically health status; Obesity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36038871 PMCID: PMC9426225 DOI: 10.1186/s12937-022-00806-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr J ISSN: 1475-2891 Impact factor: 4.344
General characteristics of study participants across energy-adjusted tertiles of the dietary TAC score (n = 203)a
| Tertiles of energy-adjusted FRAP | Pb | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 ( | T2 ( | T3 ( | ||
| Age (y) | 13.84 ± 1.62 | 13.94 ± 1.50 | 14.16 ± 1.69 | 0.49 |
| Weight (kg) | 73.66 ± 10.81 | 73.53 ± 12.85 | 73.25 ± 11.21 | 0.98 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 27.26 ± 2.74 | 27.35 ± 3.74 | 27.44 ± 3.20 | 0.95 |
| Gender (%) | 0.32 | |||
| Boy | 44.8 | 48.5 | 57.4 | |
| Girl | 55.2 | 51.5 | 42.6 | |
| Physical activity levels (%) | 0.78 | |||
| Low | 53.7 | 48.5 | 48.5 | |
| High | 46.3 | 51.5 | 51.5 | |
| Socioeconomic status levels (%) | 0.72 | |||
| Low | 32.8 | 30.9 | 23.5 | |
| Moderate | 44.8 | 42.6 | 45.6 | |
| High | 22.4 | 26.5 | 30.9 | |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 115.67 ± 11.41 | 111.60 ± 16.87 | 110.88 ± 24.26 | 0.26 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 75.02 ± 10.03 | 74.81 ± 6.75 | 70.68 ± 15.27 | 0.04 |
| Fasting blood glucose (mg/dL) | 100.64 ± 9.71 | 96.84 ± 7.46 | 96.46 ± 7.76 | 0.01 |
| Insulin (µUI/mL) | 22.33 ± 15.13 | 21.00 ± 11.22 | 17.97 ± 11.02 | 0.12 |
| HOMA-IR index | 5.55 ± 3.72 | 5.13 ± 3.07 | 4.38 ± 3.2.94 | 0.11 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 127.58 ± 63.19 | 129.82 ± 67.89 | 108.53 ± 67.35 | 0.12 |
| HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | 43.67 ± 6.76 | 44.91 ± 9.05 | 45.87 ± 7.74 | 0.27 |
aAll values are means ± standard deviation (SD), unless indicated
bObtained from ANOVA for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables
Multivariable-adjusted intakes of Dietary TAC Score and selected nutrients of study participants across energy-adjusted tertiles of the dietary TAC score (n = 203)a
| Tertiles of energy-adjusted FRAP | Pb | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 ( | T2 ( | T3 ( | ||
| Energy (Kcal/d) | 2896.43 ± 66.52 | 2831.28 ± 65.88 | 2921 ± 66.14 | 0.61 |
| Fruits | 234.41 ± 17.84 | 343.75 ± 17.70 | 417.91 ± 17.75 | < 0.001 |
| Vegetables | 214.20 ± 20.39 | 279.39 ± 20.23 | 333.67 ± 20.29 | < 0.001 |
| Meats | 68.43 ± 4.02 | 68.56 ± 3.99 | 69.05 ± 4.00 | 0.99 |
| Coffee and Tea | 99.69 ± 22.96 | 237.37 ± 22.77 | 570.95 ± 22.84 | < 0.001 |
| Nuts | 7.87 ± 1.28 | 11.99 ± 1.27 | 16.61 ± 1.27 | < 0.001 |
| Proteins (% of energy) | 14.05 ± 0.25 | 14.25 ± 0.24 | 14.62 ± 0.24 | 0.25 |
| Fats (% of energy) | 27.50 ± 0.62 | 28.42 ± 0.61 | 30.60 ± 0.62 | < 0.001 |
| Carbohydrates (% of energy) | 59.54 ± 0.62 | 58.79 ± 0.61 | 56.56 ± 0.62 | < 0.001 |
| Dietary fiber (g/d) | 16.72 ± 0.54 | 19.63 ± 0.53 | 21.95 ± 0.53 | < 0.001 |
| Omega-3 fatty acids (g/d) | 0.57 ± 0.02 | 0.60 ± 0.02 | 0.64 ± 0.02 | 0.04 |
| Selenium (mg/d) | 0.10 ± 0.00 | 0.08 ± 0.00 | 0.09 ± 0.00 | < 0.001 |
| Iron (mg/d) | 26.49 ± 0.64 | 25.30 ± 0.63 | 23.03 ± 0.63 | < 0.001 |
| Magnesium (mg/d) | 255.17 ± 6.72 | 279.11 ± 6.66 | 329.79 ± 6.68 | < 0.001 |
| Vitamin A (µg/d) | 856.09 ± 73.97 | 1147.80 ± 73.37 | 1314.69 ± 73.60 | < 0.001 |
| Beta-Carotene (µg/d) | 280.10 ± 67.42 | 468.58 ± 66.87 | 525.69 ± 67.08 | 0.03 |
| Vitamin E (mg/d) | 29.04 ± 1.40 | 32.20 ± 1.39 | 29.81 ± 1.40 | 0.25 |
| Alpha-Tocopherol (mg/d) | 10.53 ± 0.59 | 12.50 ± 0.58 | 14.30 ± 0.59 | < 0.001 |
| Vitamin C (mg/d) | 98.80 ± 6.41 | 136.52 ± 6.36 | 165.07 ± 6.38 | < 0.001 |
aAll values are means ± standard error (SE); energy intake and macronutrients are adjusted for age and gender; all other values are adjusted for age, gender and energy intake. bObtained from ANCOVA
Fig. 1Prevalence of MUO across tertiles of FRAP in the study population A MUO based on IDF definition. B MUO based on IDF/HOMA-IR definition
Multivariable-adjusted odds ratio for MUO across energy-adjusted tertiles of the dietary TAC score (n = 203)a
| Tertiles of energy-adjusted FRAP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 ( | T2 ( | T3 ( | Ptrend | |
| MUO cases (n) | 31 | 27 | 21 | |
| Crude | 1.00 | 0.76 (0.39–1.51) | 0.52 (0.26–1.05) | 0.07 |
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 0.82 (0.40–1.66) | 0.46 (0.22–0.99) | 0.05 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 0.86 (0.38–1.94) | 0.50 (0.21–1.15) | 0.11 |
| Model 3 | 1.00 | 0.79 (0.35–1.81) | 0.40 (0.16–0.96) | 0.04 |
| MUO cases (n) | 25 | 24 | 18 | |
| Crude | 1.00 | 0.92 (0.45–1.85) | 0.60 (0.29–1.26) | 0.18 |
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 1.03 (0.50–2.15) | 0.56 (0.25–1.24) | 0.17 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 1.11 (0.48–2.55) | 0.61 (0.25–1.47) | 0.30 |
| Model 3 | 1.00 | 1.04 (0.43–2.36) | 0.47 (0.19–1.19) | 0.14 |
aAll values are odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Ptrend was obtained by the use of tertiles of TAC score as an ordinal variable in the model. Model 1: Adjusted for age, gender, energy intake. Model 2: More adjustments for physical activity levels, socioeconomic status. Model 3: Further adjustment for omega-3 and BMI