4.2 Article

Cereal, fruit and vegetable fibre intake and the risk of the metabolic syndrome: a prospective study in the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN NUTRITION AND DIETETICS
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 236-245

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jhn.12242

关键词

cereal fibre; fruit fibre; metabolic syndrome; vegetable fibre

资金

  1. Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran [750]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe present study aimed to determine whether total fibre or specific fibre food sources are associated with the incidence of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) after 3years of follow-up in the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study. MethodsThis population-based prospective study, conducted within the framework of the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study, included 1582 adults, who were aged 19-84years and free of MetS at baseline. Usual dietary fibre intake was assessed at baseline using a 168-item food frequency questionnaire. Anthropometrics, blood pressure, and fasting blood glucose and lipid profiles were measured at baseline and 3years later. The MetS was defined according to the definition of the revised Adult treatment Panel III. ResultsDuring the 3-year follow-up, there was 15.2% incidence of MetS. Among sources of dietary fibre, fruit fibre was significantly and inversely associated with the occurrence of MetS, after adjustment for confounding factors, with a 21% lower risk [odds ratio (OR)=0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.60-0.97] in the highest tertile of intake compared to the lowest tertile. Subjects in the highest tertile of cereal fibre intake had lower odds of MetS compared to those in the lowest tertile (OR=0.73, 95% CI=0.52- 0.97) and this association disappeared after adjustment for confounders. No significant association was found between intakes of vegetables, legumes and nut fibre with the incidence of MetS. ConclusionsAmong specific fibre food sources, fruit fibre had a protective effect against the risk of MetS.

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

4.2
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