4.7 Article

Associations of Nutrient Patterns with the Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome: Results from the Baseline Data of the Japan Multi-Institutional Collaborative Cohort Study

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu11050990

Keywords

nutrient pattern; metabolic syndrome; factor analysis; cross-sectional study

Funding

  1. Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [16H06277, 18K10086]
  2. [17015018]
  3. [221S0001]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18K10086] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The association between nutrient patterns and metabolic syndrome (MetS) has not been examined in a Japanese population. A cross-sectional study was performed on 30,108 participants (aged 35-69 years) in the baseline survey of the Japan Multi-Institutional Collaborative Cohort Study. Dietary intake was assessed using a 46-item food frequency questionnaire. MetS was diagnosed according to the Joint Interim Statement Criteria of 2009, using body mass index instead of waist circumference. Factor analysis was applied to energy-adjusted intake of 21 nutrients, and three nutrient patterns were extracted: Factor 1 (fiber, potassium and vitamins pattern); Factor 2 (fats and fat-soluble vitamins pattern); and Factor 3 (saturated fatty acids, calcium and vitamin B-2 pattern). In multiple logistic regression analysis adjusted for sex, age, and other potential confounders, Factor 1 scores were associated with a significantly reduced odds ratio (OR) of MetS and all five components. Factor 2 scores were associated with significantly increased prevalence of MetS, obesity, and high blood pressure. Factor 3 scores were significantly associated with lower OR of MetS, high blood pressure, high serum triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol levels. Analysis of nutrient patterns may be useful to assess the overall quality of diet and its association with MetS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available