4.7 Article

Prospective Associations of Dietary and Nutrient Patterns with Fracture Risk: A 20-Year Follow-Up Study

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu9111198

关键词

dietary pattern; nutrient pattern; fracture; China Health and Nutrition Survey

资金

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies on long-term exposure to foods/nutrients and its associations with fracture risk are scarce. Using data from the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS), we determined the prospective association of dietary and nutrient patterns with fractures. Data from 15,572 adults aged 18 years were analyzed. Fracture occurrence was self-reported and dietary intake data were collected using a 24-h recall method for three consecutive days, for each individual across nine waves (1989-2011). We used cumulative and overall mean, recent and baseline dietary and nutrient exposures. Hazard ratios (HR) were used to determine the associations. Two dietary (traditional and modern) and two nutrient (plant- and animal-sourced) patterns were identified. After adjusting for potential confounders, study participants in the third tertiles (highest intake) of the modern dietary and animal-sourced nutrient patterns' cumulative scores had a 34% (HR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.06-1.71) and 37% (HR = 1.37; 95% CI: 1.08-1.72) increase in fracture risks compared to those in the first tertiles, respectively. While the overall mean factor scores of dietary and nutrient patterns had a similar (or stronger) pattern of association as the cumulative scores, no association between recent and baseline scores and fracture was found. Greater adherence to a modern dietary and/or an animal-sourced nutrient pattern is associated with a higher risk of total fractures. This suggests that a modern animal based diet is related to bone fragility. A repeated three-day 24-h recall dietary assessment provides a stronger association with fracture compared to a recent or baseline exposure.

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