4.4 Article

Intake of specific nutrients and foods and hearing level measured 13 years later

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 109, Issue 11, Pages 2079-2088

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114512004291

Keywords

Hearing; Diet; Nutrients; Meat

Funding

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-05-PNRA-010]
  2. Direction Generale de la Sante (Ministry of Health)
  3. Mederic
  4. Sodexo
  5. Ipsen
  6. Mutuelle Generale de l'Education Nationale
  7. Pierre Fabre

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Only a few studies have investigated the impact of nutrients and food groups on hearing level (HL) with a population-based approach. We examined the 13-year association between intake of specific nutrients and food groups and HL in a sample of French adults. A total of 1823 subjects, aged 45-60 years at baseline, participating in the Supplementation with Antioxidant Vitamins and Minerals 2 cohort were selected. Nutrient and food intake was estimated at baseline among participants who had completed at least six 24 h dietary records. HL was assessed 13 years after baseline and was defined as the pure-tone air conduction of the worse ear at the following thresholds: 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz. The relationship between quartiles of energy-adjusted nutrient and food intake and HL was assessed by multivariate linear regression analyses, in men and women separately. Intakes of retinol (P-trend = 0.058) and vitamin B-12 (P-trend=0.068) tended to be associated with better HL in women. Intakes of meat as a whole (P-trend=0.030), red meat (P-trend=0.014) and organ meat (P-trend=0.017) were associated with better HL in women. Higher intake of seafood as a whole (P-trend=0.07) and of shellfish (P-trend=0.097) tended to be associated with better HL in men. Consumption of meat is therefore associated with a better HL in women. Further research is required to better elucidate the mechanisms behind the associations between diet and hearing.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available