4.7 Article

Diet quality and diet patterns in relation to circulating cardiometabolic biomarkers

期刊

CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 484-490

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.03.022

关键词

Diet quality; Dietary pattern; Leptin Intracellular adhesion molecule-1; C-reactive protein; Irisin

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging Grant [R01 AG032030]
  2. VA Clinical Science Award [1101CX000422-01 A1]
  3. National Center for Research Resources [UL1 RR025758]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & aims: We examined the effects of diet quality and dietary patterns in relation to biomarkers of risk including leptin, soluble intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (sICAM-1), C-reactive protein (CRP), and irisin. Methods: We analyzed data from 196 adults cross-sectionally. Dietary patterns were identified by factor analysis and diet quality scores were generated using a validated food-frequency questionnaire. Results: Both the alternate healthy eating index-2010 (AHEI-2010) and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) scores were negatively related to CRP, even after controlling for body mass index and total energy intake. Similarly, the prudent diet pattern was negatively related to leptin, sICAM-1, and CRP, whereas the Western diet pattern showed positive associations with these markers; however, after adjusting for all confounders, the associations only remained significant for leptin and sICAM-1. Irisin was positively associated with DASH and the prudent diet after controlling for all confounders (standardized beta = 0.23, P = 0.030; standardized beta = 0.25, P = 0.021, respectively). Irisin showed positive associations with increasing fruit consumption, whereas the levels of irisin decreased as meat consumption increased. Conclusions: Irisin was directly associated with healthy diet types and patterns. Further studies regarding these mechanisms are warranted. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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