The association of dietary macronutrients with anthropometric changes, using iso-energetic substitution models: Tehran lipid and glucose study

Hosseini-Esfahani, Firoozeh; Koochakpoor, Glareh; Mirmiran, Parvin; Ebrahimof, Samira; Azizi, Fereidoun

doi:10.1186/s12986-019-0411-2

Table 3 Odds ratio of increase in weight according to iso-energetic substitution of dietary macronutrients

From: The association of dietary macronutrients with anthropometric changes, using iso-energetic substitution models: Tehran lipid and glucose study

Type of macronutrient Substitution	All		Men		Women
Type of macronutrient Substitution	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI
Carbohydrate ↑
Fat ↓	0.96	0.92–1.00	0.98	0.91–1.05	0.94	0.89–1.00^*
Protein ↓	0.94	0.86–1.02	0.92	0.79–1.05	0.96	0.85–1.07
Carbohydrate ↑
SFA ↓	0.94	0.89–0.99	0.96	0.88–1.04	0.92	0.86–0.99
MUFA ↓	0.91	0.85–0.97	0.90	0.82–0.10	0.91	0.84–0.99
PUFA ↓	0.98	0.89–0.99	0.94	0.86–1.02	0.94	0.87–1.01
Protein ↓	0.91	0.85–0.97	0.91	0.83–1.01	0.91	0.84–0.99
Carbohydrate ↑
Fat ↓	0.96	0.92–1.01	0.99	0.92–1.07	0.96	0.90–1.02
Plant Protein ↓	0.94	0.86–1.02	0.89	0.77–1.03	0.96	0.85–1.07
Animal Protein ↓	0.94	0.86–1.02	0.91	0.79–1.05	0.95	0.85–1.07
Carbohydrate ↑
SFA ↓	0.94	0.89–0.10	0.99	0.90–1.08	0.93	0.86–1.01
MUFA ↓	0.91	0.85–0.97	0.93	0.84–1.03	0.92	0.84–1.00
PUFA ↓	0.97	0.89–0.10	0.99	0.87–1.05	0.95	0.88–1.02
Plant Protein ↓	0.91	0.85–0.97	0.91	0.82–1.01	0.91	0.84–0.99
Animal Protein ↓	0.91	0.85–0.97	0.93	0.84–1.04	0.91	0.84–0.99
Plant protein ↑
Animal protein ↓	1.01	0.99–1.02	0.81	0.63–0.98	1.01	0.98–1.03
Carbohydrate ↓	0.97	0.90–1.05	0.79	0.61–0.95	0.93	0.84–1.03
Fat ↓	0.98	0.91–1.06	0.82	0.64–0.97	0.93	0.84–1.04
Plant protein ↑
Animal protein ↓	0.76	0.57–0.10	0.68	0.44–1.06	0.85	0.58–1.23
Starch ↓	0.96	0.87–1.05	0.76	0.57–0.10	0.94	0.83–1.06
Non-starch ↓	0.75	0.57–0.10	0.65	0.42–1.02	0.87	0.61–1.29
Fat ↓	0.75	0.57–0.10	0.65	0.42–1.01	0.87	0.60–1.27
Plant protein ↑
Animal protein ↓	1.00	0.99–1.02	0.79	0.61–0.98	1.01	0.98–1.03
Carbohydrate ↓	0.96	0.89–1.03	0.74	0.57–0.85	0.92	0.83–1.03
SFA ↓	0.99	0.92–1.07	0.82	0.63–0.99	0.96	0.86–1.07
MUFA ↓	0.98	0.91–1.06	0.79	0.61–1.02	0.95	0.85–1.06
PUFA ↓	0.97	0.90–1.05	0.76	0.59–0.98	0.93	0.84–1.04
Plant protein ↑
Animal protein ↓	0.72	0.54–0.96	0.60	0.38–0.95	0.87	0.59–1.27
Starch ↓	0.95	0.86–1.04	0.71	0.53–0.93	0.94	0.83–1.07
Non-starch ↓	0.73	0.55–0.97	0.55	0.35–0.88	0.90	0.62–1.32
SFA ↓	0.74	0.56–0.99	0.60	0.38–0.95	0.90	0.61–1.31
MUFA ↓	0.75	0.57–1.00	0.63	0.40–0.99	0.89	0.61–1.30
PUFA ↓	0.72	0.54–0.96	0.56	0.35–0.89	0.88	0.60–1.28

OR Odds ratio, CI Confidence interval, SFA Saturated fatty acid, MUFA Mono-unsaturated fatty acids, PUFA Poly-unsaturated fatty acids, Non-starch carbohydrates: simple sugars
Weight (kg) change was calculated by subtracting the weight at baseline from their measurements at follow up; increase in weight was defined if weight was positive or > 0. The percentage of energy from macronutrients divides by 5 to calculate one unit of each macronutrient. Logistic regression analysis was applied to estimate OR of weight change for the iso-energetic increase (↑) of 1 unit of percentage of energy from one macronutrient at the expense of another (↓). Models were adjusted for baseline age (continuous), sex (except sex strata), physical activity (low, moderate and high), smoking (former and current smoker/never smoked), education level (> 12 and ≤ 12 years of education), baseline BMI and energy intake

Back to article page

ISSN: 1743-7075

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com

Nutrition & Metabolism

Contact us