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 5 Odds ratio of increase in waist circumference 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 ↓	1.01	0.96–1.06	0.10	0.93–1.07	1.02	0.95–1.09
Protein ↓	1.01	0.92–1.11	0.94	0.82–1.09	1.11	0.96–1.28
Carbohydrate ↑
SFA ↓	0.98	0.93–1.04	0.95	0.88–1.04	1.02	0.94–1.11
MUFA ↓	0.97	0.91–1.03	0.91	0.83–1.09	1.04	0.94–1.15
PUFA ↓	0.99	0.93–1.05	0.95	0.87–1.03	1.05	0.96–1.15
Protein ↓	0.97	0.91–1.04	0.92	0.84–1.02	1.04	0.94–1.15
Carbohydrate ↑
Fat ↓	1.02	0.97–1.07	1.02	0.95–1.11	1.04	0.96–1.11
Plant Protein ↓	1.01	0.92–1.11	0.92	0.79–1.07	1.11	0.95–1.29
Animal Protein ↓	1.01	0.92–1.11	0.94	0.82–1.09	1.10	0.98–1.27
Carbohydrate ↑
SFA ↓	0.99	0.93–1.05	0.98	0.89–1.07	1.06	0.96–1.16
MUFA ↓	0.98	0.91–1.04	0.95	0.85–1.05	1.05	0.95–1.17
PUFA ↓	0.99	0.94–1.06	0.98	0.89–1.07	1.06	0.96–1.18
Plant Protein ↓	0.97	0.91–1.04	0.92	0.83–1.01	1.04	0.94–1.15
Animal Protein ↓	0.97	0.91–1.04	0.95	0.86–1.06	1.04	0.94–1.15
Plant protein ↑
Animal protein ↓	1.00	0.99–1.02	0.65	0.50–0.85	1.00	0.98–1.03
Carbohydrate ↓	0.97	0.89–1.04	0.63	0.48–0.83	0.95	0.84–1.07
Fat ↓	0.96	0.89–1.04	0.66	0.51–0.86	0.93	0.82–1.06
Plant protein ↑
Animal protein ↓	0.49	0.36–0.67	0.40	0.25–0.65	0.63	0.41–0.97
Starch ↓	0.95	0.86–1.04	0.48	0.34–0.68	0.93	0.81–1.08
Non-starch ↓	0.49	0.36–0.67	0.39	0.24–0.63	0.63	0.41–0.97
Fat ↓	0.49	0.36–0.66	0.38	0.23–0.61	0.63	0.41–0.97
Plant protein ↑
Animal protein ↓	1.00	0.99–1.02	0.66	0.50–0.87	1.01	0.98–1.03
Carbohydrate ↓	0.96	0.89–1.04	0.63	0.48–0.82	0.96	0.84–1.09
SFA ↓	0.97	0.89–1.05	0.68	0.52–0.89	0.93	0.82–1.07
MUFA ↓	0.97	0.89–1.04	0.64	0.49–0.85	0.94	0.82–1.07
PUFA ↓	0.96	0.89–1.04	0.64	0.48–0.84	0.94	0.82–1.07
Plant protein ↑
Animal protein ↓	0.491	0.36–0.66	0.39	0.24–0.62	0.64	0.42–0.99
Starch ↓	0.947	0.86–1.05	0.50	0.36–0.69	0.95	0.81–1.01
Non-starch ↓	0.489	0.36–0.67	0.38	0.23–0.61	0.64	0.42–0.99
SFA ↓	0.495	0.36–0.68	0.39	0.24–0.63	0.64	0.41–0.99
MUFA ↓	0.487	0.36–0.68	0.37	0.23–0.60	0.64	0.42–0.99
PUFA ↓	0.481	0.35–0.66	0.36	0.22–0.59	0.64	0.41–0.98

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. Waist circumference (wc) change was calculated by subtracting the waist at baseline from measurements at follow up; increase in WC was defined if WC 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 for the iso-energetic increase (↑) of 5 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 WC and energy intake

Back to article page

ISSN: 1743-7075

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com

Nutrition & Metabolism

Contact us