4.7 Article

Gender Differences in Dietary Patterns and Their Association with the Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome among Chinese: A Cross-Sectional Study

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu8040180

关键词

dietary patterns; metabolic syndrome; factor analysis; invariance; cluster analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81473073]
  2. Graduate Student Innovation Center in Shanxi Province of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Few studies have investigated gender differences in dietary intake. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to examine gender differences in dietary patterns and their association with the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. The food intakes of 3794 subjects enrolled by a two-stage cluster stratified sampling method were collected using a valid semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Metabolic syndrome (MetS) was defined according to the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and its prevalence was 35.70% in the sample (37.67% in men and 24.67% in women). Dietary patterns were identified using factor analysis combined with cluster analysis and multiple group confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the factorial invariance between gender groups. The dominating dietary pattern for men was the balanced dietary pattern (32.65%) and that for women was the high-salt and energy dietary pattern (34.42%). For men, the animal and fried food dietary pattern was related to higher risk of MetS (odds ratio: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.01-1.60), after adjustment for age, marital status, socioeconomic status and lifestyle factors. For women, the high-salt and energy dietary pattern was related to higher risk of MetS (odds ratio: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.24-4.14). We observed gender differences in dietary patterns and their association with the prevalence of MetS. For men, the animal and fried food dietary pattern was associated with enhancive likelihood of MetS. For women, it was the high-salt and energy dietary pattern.

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