Dietary share of ultra-processed foods and metabolic syndrome in the US adult population
Martínez Steele E, Juul F, Neri D, Rauber F, Monteiro CA
Preventive medicine · 159 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Cross-sectional study (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
- Intake measured by
- Food diaries or recalls
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
- Government
- Agricultural Research Service
- Government
- Sao Paulo Research Foundation
- Government
- CNPq
- Grants
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (150888/2017-1)
Based on 4 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2019-05-09 · Prev Med · vol. 125 · pp. 40–48
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Cited
- 236 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 25.3× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 66 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Research areas
- Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Keywords
- Medicine, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Metabolic syndrome, Waist, Poisson regression, Population, Food group, Refined grains, Blood pressure, Cross-sectional study, Demography, Body mass index, Environmental health, Obesity, Internal medicine, Food science
- MeSH
- humans, blood glucose, diet, nutrition surveys, prevalence, cross-sectional studies, feeding behavior, blood pressure, adult, middle aged, united states, female, male, cholesterol, hdl, fast foods, metabolic syndrome
5 authors
From BR, US, RU
- Eurídice Martínez Steele · correspondingUniversidade de São Paulo
- Filippa JuulNew York University
- Daniela Almeida NeriUniversidade de São Paulo; Department of Physiological Sciences
- Fernanda RauberUniversidade de São Paulo; Department of Physiological Sciences
- Carlos Augusto MonteiroUniversidade de São Paulo; Department of Physiological Sciences
Abstract
This study sought to examine the relationship between dietary share of ultra-processed foods and metabolic syndrome among US adults. We studied 6, 385 participants from the cross-sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009-2014, aged 20+ years, with blood tests under fasting conditions and at least one 24-hour dietary recall. Food items were classified according to the extent and purpose of industrial food processing. Ultra-processed foods (UPF) are formulations of many ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a sequence of industrial processes (hence ultra-processed). Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) was defined according to the 2009 Joint Scientific Statement as meeting three or more of the following criteria: (1) elevated waist circumference (2) elevated fasting plasma glucose (3) elevated blood pressure (4) elevated triglycerides (5) reduced high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C). Poisson regression models with robust variance adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, family income, education, physical activity and smoking showed significant linear association between the dietary contribution of UPF and the prevalence of MetS (a 10% increase in contribution was associated with a 4% prevalence increase) (prevalence ratio -PR- = 1.04; 95% CI 1.02, 1.07). A dietary UPF contribution of >71% (5th population quintile) was associated with 28% higher prevalence of MetS compared to a contribution below 40% (1st population quintile) (PR = 1.28; 95% CI 1.09, 1.50). The association was stronger in young adults (PR between upper and lower quintiles = 1.94; 95% CI 1.39, 2.72) and decreased with age. These findings add to the growing evidence that UPF consumption is associated with diet-related non-communicable diseases.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.