The relationship between dietary patterns and grip strength in the general population: the TCLSIH cohort study
- PDF / 501,072 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 86 Downloads / 204 Views
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
The relationship between dietary patterns and grip strength in the general population: the TCLSIH cohort study Xu Zhang1 · Yeqing Gu2 · Jie Cheng1 · Ge Meng1,3 · Qing Zhang4 · Li Liu4 · Hongmei Wu1 · Shunming Zhang1 · Yawen Wang1 · Tingjing Zhang1 · Xuena Wang1 · Xing Wang4 · Shaomei Sun4 · Ming Zhou4 · Qiyu Jia4 · Kun Song4 · Yuntang Wu1 · Kaijun Niu1,4,5,6 Received: 23 February 2020 / Accepted: 10 September 2020 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Purpose Previous studies have shown that many nutrients play an essential role in maintaining skeletal muscle strength. Hand grip strength (HGS) is frequently used as an objective and reliable method to evaluate overall body muscle strength and physical function. Some studies have demonstrated that some specific single nutrients such as PUFA, fiber, vitamin C, fruits and vegetables are associated with muscle strength. However, few studies have explored the relationship between dietary patterns and HGS in the adult population. The aim of this study was to investigate how dietary patterns are related to HGS in a large-scale Chinese population. Methods A cross-sectional study (n = 35,175) was performed in Tianjin, China. Adherence to dietary patterns was measured by a valid self-administered food frequency questionnaire with 81 food items. Principal-components analysis was used to derive three major dietary patterns: “sweet”, “healthy” and “animal food”. HGS was measured using a handheld digital dynamometer. Analysis of covariance and multiple logistic regression were employed to explore the relationship between dietary patterns and HGS. Results After adjustment for potential confounders, the means (95% confidence interval) of HGS for increasing quartile of dietary patterns were as follows: “sweet”, 0.50 (0.49–0.51), 0.50 (0.49–0.51), 0.50 (0.49–0.51), 0.50 (0.48–0.51) (P value = 0.07); “healthy” 0.50 (0.49–0.51), 0.50 (0.49–0.51), 0.50 (0.49–0.51), 0.50 (0.49–0.51) (P value
Data Loading...
