4.3 Article

The association between metabolic syndrome and peanuts, pine nuts, almonds consumption: The Ansan and Ansung Study

Journal

ENDOCRINE
Volume 65, Issue 2, Pages 270-277

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-019-01980-3

Keywords

Metabolic syndrome; Peanut; Almond; Fine nut

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundPrevious studies reported an inverted relationship between nut consumption and the incidence of metabolic syndrome (MetS). The present study investigated the incidental risk for MetS according to peanut, almond, and fine nut consumption in the Korean population.MethodsIn a community-based Korean cohort, 5306 Korean adults were divided into four groups according to their peanut, almond, and fine nut intake (<1/month, 1/month-0.5/week, 0.5-1/week, and >= 1/week, in which one serving=15g) and were followed-up for 10 years. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate the hazard ratios (HRs) with confidence intervals (CI) for MetS in each study group. Age subgroup (>= 50 or <50 years) analysis was also conducted.ResultsThe age and multivariable-adjusted HRs with 95% CIs for MetS showed a significant inverse dose-response relationship between peanut, almond, and fine nut intake and the incidence of MetS in men and women (multivariable-adjusted HRs [95% CI] in men; 0.91 [0.76-1.09] in 1/month-0.5/week, 1.03 [0.80-1.31] in 0.5-1/week, 0.72 [0.56-0.93] in >= 1/week and in women; 0.81 [0.65-1.003] in 1/month-0.5/week, 0.76 [0.54-1.07] in 0.5-1/week, 0.57 [0.41-0.79] >= 1/week)). Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in middle-aged men (>= 1/week) and old-aged women (>= 0.5/week).ConclusionThe results of the present study suggested that peanut, almond, and fine nut intake (>= 15g/week) may be inversely related to incidence risk of MetS in the Korean general population. Additionally, the association between nut consumption and MetS incidence risk may differ in sex and age subgroups.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available