Evidence Hub

Dietary patterns and the risk of metabolic syndrome in Chinese adults: a population-based cross-sectional study

Zhi-Yong Wei, Junjie Liu, Xue-Mei Zhan, H. Feng, Yuan-yuan Zhang

Public Health Nutrition, 2018

27 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objective Data on dietary patterns in relation to the risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in a middle-aged Chinese population are sparse. The present study was performed to determine the major dietary patterns among a population aged 45–59 years and to evaluate their associations with MetS risk in China. Design Cross-sectional examination of the association between dietary patterns and MetS. Face-to-face interviews were used to assess dietary intake using a validated semi-quantitative FFQ. OR and 95 % CI for MetS were calculated across quartiles of dietary pattern scores using multivariate logistic regression analysis models. Setting City of Linyi, Shandong Province, China. Subjects Adults (n 1918) aged 45–59 years. Results Three major dietary patterns were identified: traditional Chinese, animal food and high-energy. After adjustment for potential confounders, individuals in the highest quartile of the traditional Chinese pattern had a reduced risk of MetS relative to the lowest quartile (OR=0·72, 95 % CI 0·596, 0·952; P<0·05). Compared with those in the lowest quartile, individuals in the highest quartile of the animal food pattern had a greater risk of MetS (OR=1·28; 95 % CI 1·103, 1·697; P<0·05). No significant association was observed between the high-energy pattern and risk of MetS. Conclusions These findings indicate that the traditional Chinese pattern was associated with a reduced risk, while the animal food pattern was associated with increased risk of MetS.…

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.

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