4.7 Article

Fruit, Vegetable, and Physical Activity Guideline Adherence and Metabolic Syndrome in El Banco por Salud

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14091767

关键词

Hispanic; Latino; biobank; diet; physical activity; metabolic syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adherence to dietary and physical activity recommendations has been associated with reductions in morbidity and mortality. In this study, it was found that participants in El Banco por Salud had low adherence to fruit, vegetable, and physical activity guidelines, and a high prevalence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
Adherence to dietary and physical activity recommendations has been associated with reductions in morbidity and mortality. The association between baseline adherence to fruit, vegetable, and physical activity guidelines and metabolic syndrome (MetS) in El Banco por Salud (El Banco) was examined. El Banco is a wellness biobank for Latino individuals affiliated with partnered Federally Qualified Health Centers in southern Arizona. Study participants (n = 972) were 65% female, 62.3% foreign-born, 56.3% obese, 29.2% food insecure, and with an average age of 51.3 years. Adherence scores were developed using baseline questionnaires for fruits and vegetable consumption and self-reported physical activity. Adherence was low in those fully meeting guidelines for fruit, vegetable, and physical activity at 14.6%, 37.5%, and 23.5%, respectively. Roughly 65% (n = 630) had >= 3 cardiometabolic risk factors. Large waist circumference was the most prevalent risk factor at 77.9%. Adherence to physical activity recommendations differed by MetS status with 32.8% without MetS reporting >= 150 min of physical activity per week compared to 18.5% in those with MetS (p < 0.001). There were no significant associations with adherence to any guidelines and MetS in the fully adjusted model. Overall, in this sample guideline adherence was low and the cardiometabolic risk factors prevalence was high.

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