4.5 Article

Sex differences in the impact of the Mediterranean diet on systemic inflammation

期刊

NUTRITION JOURNAL
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12937-015-0035-y

关键词

Sex; Mediterranean diet; C-reactive protein; Men; Women

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP 84568]
  2. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Quebec [2007-180]
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Some intervention trials have reported a reduction in systemic inflammation with the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) while others have observed no effect. Despite the fact that sex differences have been highlighted in the inflammatory regulation, it is still not known whether MedDiet exerts similar effects on systemic inflammation in men and women. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate sex differences in the effects of the MedDiet on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP). Findings: Participants were 35 men and 27 premenopausal women (24-53 years) presenting a slightly deteriorated lipid profile. All foods were provided to participants during a 4-week isocaloric MedDiet. At baseline, women had higher hs-CRP concentrations than men (P = 0.03). No sex difference was observed in hs-CRP response to the MedDiet (P for sex-by-time interaction = 0.36), with both men and women experiencing no change (respectively P = 0.62 and P > 0.99). When subgroups were formed according to hs-CRP concentration before the MedDiet phase, men with elevated baseline values (>= 2 mg/l) experienced a reduction in hs-CRP over time with the MedDiet (-26.5 %) while an increase was observed in men with lower baseline values (+ 96.6 %; P for group-by-time interaction = 0.02). This pattern of change was not observed in women. Conclusions: Results from this controlled feeding study suggest that men and women have similar effects from the MedDiet on systemic inflammation. The individual's overall inflammatory status seems to influence these effects, but only in men.

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

4.5
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