4.5 Article

Negative association between acrylamide exposure and body composition in adults: NHANES, 2003-2004

期刊

NUTRITION & DIABETES
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nutd.2016.48

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Acrylamide is present in mainstream cigarette smoke and in some food prepared at high temperature. Animal studies have shown that acrylamide exposure reduces body weight. Prenatal exposure to acrylamide also has been linked to reduced birth weight in human. Whether acrylamide exposure is associated with altered body compositions in adults is not clear. SUBJECTS/METHODS: We selected 3623 subjects (aged >= 20 years) from a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2003-2004 to determine the relationship among hemoglobin adducts of acrylamide (HbAA), hemoglobin adducts of glycidamide (HbGA) and body composition (body measures, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)). Data were adjusted for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: The geometric means and 95% CI concentrations of HbAA and HbGA were 60.48 (59.32-61.65) pmol/g Hb and 55.64 (54.40-56.92) pmol/g Hb, respectively. After weighting for sampling strategy, we identified that one-unit increase in natural log-HbAA, but not HbGA, was associated with reduction in body measures (body weight, body mass index (BMI), subscapular/triceps skinfold), parameters of BIA (fat-free mass, fat mass, percent body fat, total body water) and parameters of DXA (android fat mass, android percent fat, gynoid fat/lean mass, gynoid percent mass, android to gynoid ratio). Subgroup analysis showed that these associations were more evident in subjects at younger age, male gender, whites, lower education level, active smokers and those with lower BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Higher concentrations of HbAA are associated with a decrease in body composition in the US general population. Further studies are warranted to clarify this association.

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