Evidence Hub

Gender Differences in Dietary Patterns and Their Association with the Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome among Chinese: A Cross-Sectional Study

Shu-Hong Xu, Nan Qiao, Jian-Jun Huang, Chen-Ming Sun, Yan Cui, Shuang-Shuang Tian, Cong Wang, Xiao-Meng Liu et al.

Nutrients, 2016

3,794 participants · 65 citations

Abstract

Few studies have investigated gender differences in dietary intake. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to examine gender differences in dietary patterns and their association with the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. The food intakes of 3794 subjects enrolled by a two-stage cluster stratified sampling method were collected using a valid semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Metabolic syndrome (MetS) was defined according to the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and its prevalence was 35.70% in the sample (37.67% in men and 24.67% in women). Dietary patterns were identified using factor analysis combined with cluster analysis and multiple group confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the factorial invariance between gender groups. The dominating dietary pattern for men was the “balanced” dietary pattern (32.65%) and that for women was the “high-salt and energy” dietary pattern (34.42%). For men, the “animal and fried food” dietary pattern was related to higher risk of MetS (odds ratio: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.01–1.60), after adjustment for age, marital status, socioeconomic status and lifestyle factors. For women, the “high-salt and energy” dietary pattern was related to higher risk of MetS (odds ratio: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.24–4.14). We observed gender differences in dietary patterns and their association with the prevalence of MetS. For men, the “animal and fried food” dietary pattern was associated with enhancive likelihood of MetS. For women,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 3,794 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free