4.5 Article

Low intakes of dietary fiber and magnesium are associated with insulin resistance and hyperandrogenism in polycystic ovary syndrome: A cohort study

期刊

FOOD SCIENCE & NUTRITION
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 1426-1437

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.977

关键词

diet; hyperandrogenism; insulin resistance; lifestyle; obesity; PCOS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundWomen with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) often have insulin resistance (IR) which may be worsened by obesity. The roles of dietary intake and activity are unclear. Our objectives were to determine whether (a) high caloric intake or inactivity explains obesity in PCOS, and (b) dietary composition is associated with PCOS phenotypes. MethodsEighty-seven women with PCOS and 50 women without PCOS participated in this cohort study at a reproductive medicine center. Data collected included 3-day food and physical activity records, anthropometrics, and metabolic and hormonal assays. ResultsWomen with PCOS had increased body mass index (BMI) but similar caloric intake and activity to women without PCOS. There were no differences in protein, carbohydrates, fat, or glycemic load consumption, but women with PCOS consumed less fiber (medians: 19.6 vs. 24.7g) and less magnesium (medians: 238.9 vs. 273.9mg). In women with PCOS, those with IR consumed less fiber, less magnesium, and greater glycemic load than those without IR (medians: 18.2 vs. 22.1g, 208.4 vs. 264.5mg, 89.6 vs. 83.5). Fiber intake of women with PCOS was negatively correlated with IR, fasting insulin, glucose tolerance, testosterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate. Magnesium intake was negatively correlated with IR, C-reactive protein, and testosterone, but positively correlated with HDL cholesterol. Fiber intake and BMI accounted for 54.0% of the variance observed in IR. ConclusionsObesity in women with PCOS could not be explained by overeating or inactivity. Increasing dietary fiber and magnesium intakes may assist in reducing IR and hyperandrogenemia in women with PCOS.

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