4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Fiber from whole grains, but not refined grains, is inversely associated with all-cause mortality in older women: The Iowa Women's Health Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF NUTRITION
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 326S-330S

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2000.10718968

关键词

diet; epidemiology; prospective study; whole grain; fiber; mortality; Iowa Women's Health Study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Inconsistencies in epidemiologic findings relating grain fiber to chronic disease mag be explained by differentiating nutrient-rich fiber derived from whole grain vs. nutrient-poor fiber derived from refined rain. Objective: Given that phytochemicals are most varied and abundant in the outer layers of grains, we tested the hypothesis that whole grain fiber consumption is associated with a reduced mortality risk in comparison to a similar amount of refined grain fiber. Design: 11040 postmenopausal women enrolled in the Iowa Women's Health Study, matched on total grain fiber intake, but differing in the proportion of fiber consumed from whole vs, refined grain, were followed from baseline Ln 1986 through 31 December, 1997, during which time 1341 deaths occurred in 124,823 observed woman-years. Results: After multivariate adjustment in proportional hazards regression, women who consumed on average 1.9 g refined grain fiber/2000 kcal and 4.7 g whole grain fiber/2000 kcal had a 17% lower mortality rate (RR = 0.83, 958 Cl=0.73- 0.93) than women who consumed predominantly refined gain fiber: 4.5 g/2000 kcal, hut only 1.3 g whole grain fiber/2000 kcal. Conclusion: Inferences from studies that have reported associations between grain fiber intake and morbidity or mortality may be limited by not differentiating fiber sources. Future studies should distinguish fiber from whole cs. refined grains. Public health policy should differentiate whole grains from refined, and recommend increased consumption of the former.

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

4.1
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