4.6 Article

Tree Nuts Are Inversely Associated with Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: The Adventist Health Study-2

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085133

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute [UO1CA152939]
  2. International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research and Education Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To examine the relationships of nut consumption, metabolic syndrome (MetS), and obesity in the Adventist Health Study-2, a relatively healthy population with a wide range of nut intake. Research Design and Methods: Cross-sectional analysis was conducted on clinical, dietary, anthropometric, and demographic data of 803 adults. MetS was defined according to the American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute diagnostic criteria. We assessed intake of total nuts, tree nuts and peanuts, and also classified subjects into low tree nut/low peanut (LT/LP), low tree/high peanut (LT/HP), high tree nut/high peanut (HT/HP), and high tree/low peanut (HT/LP) consumers. Odds ratios were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: 32% of subjects had MetS. Compared to LT/LP consumers, obesity was lower in LT/HP (OR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.53, 1.48), HT/HP (OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.40, 0.99) and HT/LP (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.34, 0.88) consumers, p for trend = 0.006. For MetS, odds ratios (95% CI) were 0.77 (0.47, 1.28), 0.65 (0.42, 1.00) and 0.68 (0.43, 1.07), respectively (p for trend = 0.056). Frequency of nut intake (once/week) had significant inverse associations with MetS (3% less for tree nuts and 2% less for total nuts) and obesity (7% less for tree nuts and 3% less for total nuts). Conclusions: Tree nuts appear to have strong inverse association with obesity, and favorable though weaker association with MetS independent of demographic, lifestyle and dietary factors.

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