4.7 Article

Association between Eating Speed and Classical Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Cross-Sectional Study

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu11010083

关键词

eating speed; hypertriglyceridemia; PREDIMED study; metabolic syndrome

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Health (ISCIII) [PI05/1839 PI10/01407, PI13/00462, PI16/00501, RD06/0045]
  2. FEDER (Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional)
  3. Centre Catala de la Nutricio de l'Institut d'Estudis Catalans
  4. Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports [FPU 17/01925]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality around the world. Lifestyle is recognized as a key factor in the development of metabolic disorders and CVD. Recently, eating speed has been of particular interest since some studies have associated it with the development of obesity and other cardiometabolic disorders. We aimed to assess the association between eating speed and various cardiovascular risk factors. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis within the framework of the PREDIMED (Prevencion con Dieta Mediterranea) study with 792 participants from the Reus-Tarragona center. Eating speed was self-reported according to participant perception and categorized as slow, medium, or fast. The association between eating speed and cardiovascular risk factors was assessed using Cox regression models with constant time of follow-up for all individuals. Compared to participants in the slow eating speed category, those in the faster eating speed category were 59% more likely to have the hypertriglyceridemia component of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) (Hazard Ratio, (HR) 1.59; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.16-2.17), even after adjustment for potential confounders (HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.08-2.02). No other significant differences were observed. Eating speed was positively associated with the prevalence of the hypertriglyceridemia component of the MetS in a senior population at high cardiovascular risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据