4.7 Article

Food Intake Patterns Associated With Incident Type 2 Diabetes The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 263-268

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc08-1325

关键词

-

资金

  1. National institutes of Health
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [UO1 HL/17887, UO1 HL/17889, UO1 HL/17890, UO1 HL/17892, UO1 HL/17902, DK29867]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - Markers of hemostasis and inflammation such as plasminogen activator inhibitor-1. (PAI-1) and fibrinogen have been associated with risk of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to identify food intake patterns influencing this pathway and evaluate their association with incident diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study cohort included 880 middle-aged adults initially free of diabetes. At the 5-year follow-up, 1.44 individuals had developed diabetes. Usual dietary intake was ascertained with a 114-item food frequency questionnaire. Using reduced rank regression, we identified a food pattern maximizing the explained variation in PAI-1 and fibrinogen. Subsequently, the food pattern-diabetes association was evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS - High intake Of the food groups red meat, low-fiber bread and cereal, dried beans, fried potatoes, tomato vegetables, eggs, cheese, and cottage cheese and low intake of wine characterized the pattern, which was positively associated with both biomarkers. With increasing pattern score, the odds of diabetes increased significantly (P-trend < 0.01). After multivariate adjustment, the odds ratio comparing extreme quartiles was 4.3 (95% CI 1.7-10.8). Adjustment for insulin sensitivity and secretion and other metabolic factors had little impact (4.9, 1.8-1.3.7). CONCLUSIONS - Our findings provide Support for potential behavioral prevention strategies, as we identified a food intake pattern that was strongly related to PAI-1, and Fibrinogen and independently predicted type 2 diabetes.

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

4.7
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