4.6 Article

Prediction of metabolic syndrome by a high intake of energy-dense nutrient-poor snacks in Iranian children and adolescents

Journal

PEDIATRIC RESEARCH
Volume 79, Issue 5, Pages 697-704

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/pr.2015.270

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences of Iran (Tehran, Iran) [098]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to investigate the relationship between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and energy-dense nutrient-poor solid snacks intakes during 3.6 y of follow-up among children and adolescents. METHOD:This population-based longitudinal study was conducted within the framework of the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study, on 424 MetS free subjects, aged 6-18 y. Data on consumption of energy-dense nutrient-poor solid snacks, sweet and salty snacks, were collected at baseline (2006-2008). Logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, total energy intake, physical activity, dietary fiber, family history of diabetes, and body mass index, was used to assess the relationship between snacks and incident MetS. RESULTS: After adjustment for confounders, compared with the lowest quartile of total energy-dense nutrient-poor solid snacks, odds ratio of incident MetS in the highest quartile was 3.04 (95% confidence interval (CD: 1.11-8.49); for sweet snacks this was 2.88 (95% CI: 1.00-8.32), and for salty ones it was 2.85 (95% CI: 1.09-7.43). The risk of incident hypertension in the highest, compared with the lowest quartile of total and salty snacks, was 2.99 (95% CI: 1.00-8.93) and 3.35 (95% CI: 1.10-10.17), respectively. CONCLUSION: Energy-dense nutrient-poor solid snacks, both salty and sweet, may have undesirable effects on the incidence of MetS, with salty snacks having the potential to increase risk of incident hypertension in children and adolescents as well.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available