4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Population determinants of serum lycopene concentrations in the United States: Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 135, 期 3, 页码 567-572

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jn/135.3.567

关键词

lycopene; NHANES III; pizza; serum cholesterol; tomatoes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Serum lycopene is inversely related to the risk for cancer and cardiovascular diseases. We used data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994, to investigate the relation between serum lycopene concentrations and sex, age, geographical location, race-ethnicity, education, alcohol, smoking, BMI, blood pressure, serum total cholesterol and triacylglycerol, and intakes of fat, tomatoes and tomato-based products in 3413 individuals aged 17-90 y. Multivariate adjusted mean lycopene concentrations were 48.3% lower in individuals greater than or equal to 70 y old than in those 17 to < 30 y old (P < 0.0001), 7.6% lower in women than in men (P = 0.0045), 15.1% lower in people living in the South than those in the West (P < 0.0001), 10.3 and 61.0% lower in the 1st quartile than in the 4th quartile for dietary fat intake (P = 0.0173) and serum cholesterol (P < 0.0001), respectively, 11.1% lower in tomato noneaters than those who ate tomatoes greater than or equal to 31 times/mo (P = 0.0085), 13.5% lower in pizza noneaters than those who ate pizza greater than or equal to 16 times/mo (P = 0.0016), and 20.6% lower in pasta noneaters than those who ate pasta (with tomato sauce) bills times/mo (P < 0.0001). Race-ethnicity, alcohol, BMI, blood pressure, and consumption of non-tomato vegetables, and fruits and juices had no association with serum lycopene concentrations. Sex, age, geographical region, socioeconomic status, serum total cholesterol, smoking, and intakes of fat, tomatoes, pizza, and pasta were significant determinants of serum lycopene concentrations in the United States.

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