4.4 Article

Carbohydrate quality is not associated with liver enzyme activity and plasma TAG and HDL concentrations over 5 years in an older population

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 110, 期 5, 页码 918-925

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114512005867

关键词

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; Serum lipids; Glycaemic index; Dietary fibre

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is closely associated with insulin resistance and obesity. Hence, carbohydrate quality could be of relevance to the risk of NAFLD, but prospective data are lacking. The aim of the present study was to investigate longitudinal associations between carbohydrate quality (including dietary glycaemic index (GI) and intakes of sugar, starch and fibre) and markers of liver function in an older Australian population. The analysis was based on 866 participants (>= 49 years) of the Blue Mountains Eye Study with fasting blood specimens and dietary intake data at baseline and 5-year follow-up. Multi-level mixed regression analysis was used to relate dietary GI and sugar, starch and fibre intake to the liver enzymes alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT), as well as fasting TAG and HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C). After adjustment for potential confounding factors, a lower fibre intake was cross-sectionally related to higher GGT (P = 0.02) and fasting TAG (P = 0.002) levels, with fruit fibre being the most relevant fibre source (P = 0.095 for GGT; P = 0.003 for TAG). A higher dietary GI was associated with lower HDL-C (P = 0.046). Changes in carbohydrate quality during 5 years were not related to changes in ALT, GGT, TAG or HDL-C (P >= 0.08). In conclusion, the absence of longitudinal associations between carbohydrate quality and liver enzymes and serum lipids in this older population does not support a major role of carbohydrate nutrition in liver function among the elderly.

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