4.4 Article

Health in early adulthood: the contribution of the 1978/79 Ribeirao Preto birth cohort

期刊

出版社

ASSOC BRAS DIVULG CIENTIFICA
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-879X2006000800007

关键词

non-communicable chronic diseases of adults; metabolic syndrome; obesity; arterial hypertension; asthma; dyslipidemia

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [00/09508-7] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increase in non-communicable chronic diseases of adults is due to demographic changes and changes in the risk factors related to physical activity, smoking habits and nutrition. We describe the methodology for the evaluation of persons at 23/25 years of age of a cohort of individuals born in Ribeirao Preto in 1978/79. We present their socioeconomic characteristics and the profile of some risk factors for chronic diseases. A total of 2063 participants were evaluated by means of blood collection, standardized questionnaires, anthropometric and blood pressure measurements, and methacholine bronchoprovocation tests. The sexes were compared by the chi-square test, with alpha = 0.05. Obesity was similar among men and women (12.8 and 11.1%); overweight was almost double in men (30.3 vs 17.7%). Weight deficit was higher among women than among men (8.6 and 2.6%). Women were more sedentary and consumed less alcohol and tobacco. Dietary fat consumption was similar between sexes, with 63% consuming large amounts (30 to 39.9 g/ day). Metabolic syndrome was twice more frequent among men than women (10.7 vs 4.8%), hypertension was six times more frequent (40.9 vs 6.4%); altered triglyceride (16.1 vs 9.8%) and LDL proportions (5.4 vs 2.7%) were also higher in men, while women had a higher percentage of low HDL (44.7 vs 39.5%). Asthma and bronchial hyper-responsiveness were 1.7 and 1.5 times more frequent, respectively, among women. The high prevalence of some risk factors for chronic diseases among young adults supports the need for investments in their prevention.

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

4.4
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