21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The influence of energy standardisation on the alternate Mediterranean diet score and its association with mortality in the Multiethnic Cohort

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The alternate Mediterranean diet (aMED) score is an adaptation of the original Mediterranean diet score. Raw (aMED) and energy-standardised (aMED-e) versions have been used. How the diet scores and their association with health outcomes differ between the two versions is unclear. We examined differences in participants’ total and component scores and compared the association of aMED and aMED-e with all-cause, CVD and cancer mortality. As part of the Multiethnic Cohort, 193 527 men and women aged 45–75 years from Hawaii and Los Angeles completed a baseline FFQ and were followed up for 13–18 years. The association of aMED and aMED-e with mortality was examined using Cox’s regression, with adjustment for total energy intake. The correlation between aMED and aMED-e total scores was lower among people with higher BMI. Participants who were older, leaner, more educated and consumed less energy scored higher on aMED-e components compared with aMED, except for the red and processed meat and alcohol components. Men reporting more physical activity scored lower on most aMED-e components compared with aMED, whereas the opposite was observed for the meat component. Higher scores of both aMED and aMED-e were associated with lower risk of all-cause, CVD and cancer mortality. Although individuals may score differently with aMED and aMED-e, both scores show similar reductions in mortality risk for persons scoring high on the index scale. Either version can be used in studies of diet and mortality. Comparisons can be performed across studies using different versions of the score.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A multiethnic cohort in Hawaii and Los Angeles: baseline characteristics.

          The authors describe the design and implementation of a large multiethnic cohort established to study diet and cancer in the United States. They detail the source of the subjects, sample size, questionnaire development, pilot work, and approaches to future analyses. The cohort consists of 215,251 adult men and women (age 45-75 years at baseline) living in Hawaii and in California (primarily Los Angeles County) with the following ethnic distribution: African-American (16.3%), Latino (22.0%), Japanese-American (26.4%), Native Hawaiian (6.5%), White (22.9%), and other ancestry (5.8%). From 1993 to 1996, participants entered the cohort by completing a 26-page, self-administered mail questionnaire that elicited a quantitative food frequency history, along with demographic and other information. Response rates ranged from 20% in Latinos to 49% in Japanese-Americans. As expected, both within and among ethnic groups, the questionnaire data show substantial variations in dietary intakes (nutrients as well as foods) and in the distributions of non-dietary risk factors (including smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, and physical activity). When compared with corresponding ethnic-specific cancer incidence rates, the findings provide tentative support for several current dietary hypotheses. As sufficient numbers of cancer cases are identified through surveillance of the cohort, dietary and other hypotheses will be tested in prospective analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: the OPEN study.

            This paper describes the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study, conducted from September 1999 to March 2000. The purpose of the study was to assess dietary measurement error using two self-reported dietary instruments-the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and the 24-hour dietary recall (24HR)-and unbiased biomarkers of energy and protein intakes: doubly labeled water and urinary nitrogen. Participants were 484 men and women aged 40-69 years from Montgomery County, Maryland. Nine percent of men and 7% of women were defined as underreporters of both energy and protein intake on 24HRs; for FFQs, the comparable values were 35% for men and 23% for women. On average, men underreported energy intake compared with total energy expenditure by 12-14% on 24HRs and 31-36% on FFQs and underreported protein intake compared with a protein biomarker by 11-12% on 24HRs and 30-34% on FFQs. Women underreported energy intake on 24HRs by 16-20% and on FFQs by 34-38% and underreported protein intake by 11-15% on 24HRs and 27-32% on FFQs. There was little underreporting of the percentage of energy from protein for men or women. These findings have important implications for nutritional epidemiology and dietary surveillance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Effects of a Mediterranean-Style Diet on Cardiovascular Risk Factors

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                British Journal of Nutrition
                Br J Nutr
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                0007-1145
                1475-2662
                November 14 2016
                October 21 2016
                November 14 2016
                : 116
                : 9
                : 1592-1601
                Article
                10.1017/S0007114516003482
                5505740
                27766989
                f903894c-d51e-41b1-8699-1db6993c00f1
                © 2016

                https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article