4.6 Article

Prospective study of dietary patterns and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among US men

期刊

THORAX
卷 62, 期 9, 页码 786-791

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thx.2006.074534

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA055075, CA55075] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL060712, HL60712] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Many foods are associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( COPD) symptoms or lung function. Because foods are consumed together and nutrients may interact, dietary patterns are an alternative way of characterising diet. A study was undertaken to assess the relation between dietary patterns and newly diagnosed COPD in men. Methods: Data were collected from a large prospective cohort of US men ( Health Professionals Follow-up Study). Using principal component analysis, two dietary patterns were identified: a prudent pattern ( high intake of fruits, vegetables, fish and whole grain products) and a Western pattern ( high intake of refined grains, cured and red meats, desserts and French fries). Dietary patterns were categorised into quintiles and Cox proportional hazards models were adjusted for age, smoking, pack-years, (pack-years)(2), race/ethnicity, physician visits, US region, body mass index, physical activity, multivitamin use and energy intake. Results: Between 1986 and 1998, 111 self-reported cases of newly diagnosed COPD were identified among 42 917 men. The prudent pattern was inversely associated with the risk of newly diagnosed COPD (RR for highest vs lowest quintile 0.50 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.98), p for trend = 0.02), and the Western pattern was positively associated with the risk of newly diagnosed COPD ( RR for highest vs lowest quintile 4.56 (95% CI 1.95 to 10.69), p for trend < 0.001). Conclusions: In men, a diet rich in fruits, vegetables and fish may reduce the risk of COPD whereas a diet rich in refined grains, cured and red meats, desserts and French fries may increase the risk of COPD.

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

4.6
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