In the present study, the relationship between dietary fat quality indices with an AIP in obese and non-obese volunteers, with a mean age of 38.73 ± 9.65 years in both groups were evaluated. 180 adults, 90 obese and 90 normal weight were enrolled based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 23 subjects were excluded because of incomplete questionnaires (more than half of the items were not completed) and some had over/under reporting FFQ. Finally, the study was done on 71 normal weight and 86 overweight and obese volunteers.
As shown in Table 1, all anthropometric indices except height were significantly higher among the overweight and obese group (P < 0.001). Our results about biochemical parameters showed, AIP (P = 0.049), TC (P = 0.580), TG (P = 0.362) and LDL (P = 0.687) except for HDL (P = 0.151) were higher in overweight and obese subjects than normal subjects and built-in all biochemical parameters this difference was not significant except for AIP was significant. We observed that SBP and DBP were significantly higher in the overweight and obese group than in the normal group (P < 0.001) and the pulse pressure in the overweight and obese group was higher and meaningless (p = 0.327).
Table 1
Descriptive characteristics of study participant
` | Normal weight (71) | Overweight or obese (86) | P-Value |
Sex(M/F) | 60.11 | 67.19 | 0.731 |
Age(year) | 38.90 ± 10.976 | 38.60 ± 9.394 | 0.854 |
Anthropometric characteristic, mean ± SD |
Weight (Kg) | 73.45 ± 10.66 | 90.05 ± 13.22 | 0.0001 |
Height (Cm) | 172.54 ± 7.58 | 172.20 ± 8.33 | 0.789 |
BMI (Kg/m2) | 24.57 ± 2.32 | 30.28 ± 3.16 | 0.0001 |
WHR(Cm) | 0.090 ± 0.04 | 0.95 ± 0.06 | 0.0001 |
Biochemical parameters, mean ± SD |
TG(mg/dl) | 152.52 ± 85.38 | 164.99 ± 84.67 | 0.362 |
TC (mg/dl) | 172.17 ± 35.30 | 175.06 ± 29.90 | 0.580 |
LDL (mg/dl) | 98.44 ± 29.71 | 100.22 ± 25.75 | 0.687 |
HDL (mg/dl) | 44.51 ± 8.41 | 42.40 ± 9.67 | 0.151 |
AIP(mg/dl) | 0.2654 ± 0.2516 | 1.1654 ± 0.2162 | 0.049 |
Blood pressure, mean ± SD |
SBP (mmHg) | 121.17 ± 13.03 | 131.02 ± 15.18 | 0.0001 |
DBP (mmHg) | 76.90 ± 11.13 | 84.21 ± 11.43 | 0.0001 |
Pulse (bpm) | 84.55 ± 13.20 | 86.63 ± 13.19 | 0.327 |
Comparison between in two groups of normal and overweight or obese; means are compared using Student t test. Percentages are compared using Chi-square. |
p < 0.05 was considered to be significant |
According to the findings from Table 2, the comparison of fat quality indices in the two groups of normal and overweight or obese was shown. The results showed that AI (P = 0.012) higher in the overweight or obese group was significant. Whereas, h/H (P = 0.034) and ω-6/ω-3 ratio (p = 0.004) are higher significantly in normal weight subject than overweight or obese subject but there were no significant differences in fat quality intake between two groups.
SFAs, namely Loric (p = 0.715), Palmitic (p = 0.875), Stearic (p = 0.062), and Myristic (p = 0.325) acids, total trans (p = 0.481), Cholesterol (p = 0.250) and MUFA (p = 0.207) were higher in the overweight and obese group but were not significant PUFA (p = 0.920), was higher in the normal group but was not significant.
Table 2
Comparison of fat quality intake in two groups of normal and overweight or obese
Variable | Normal weight (n = 71) | Overweight or obese (n = 86) | P-Value |
AI | 228.195 ± 28.326 | 461.488 ± 52.816 | 0.012 |
TI | 471.159 ± 46.141 | 484.455 ± 50.631 | 0.841 |
hH | 71.858 ± 3.780 | 49.949 ± 4.131 | 0.034 |
CSI | 30.402 ± 0.459 | 31.004 ± 0.939 | 0.824 |
Total fat | 90.30 ± 35.51 | 95.52 ± 42.73 | 0.412 |
∑SFA | 19.555 ± 8.012 | 22.013 ± 10.409 | 0.066 |
Loric acid (c12:0) | 0.40 ± 0.27 | 0.41 ± 0.27 | 0.715 |
Myristic acid (14:0) | 1.43 ± 0.87 | 1.56 ± 0.88 | 0.325 |
Palmitic acid (16:0) | 8.43 ± 3.64 | 9.34 ± 4.67 | 0.875 |
Stearic acid (18:0) | 4.00 ± 1.78 | 4.42 ± 2.41 | 0.062 |
∑MUFA | 23.990 ± 11.381 | 21.973 ± 8.613 | 0.207 |
Oleic acid (18:1) | 15.55 ± 8.43 | 13.38 ± 6.10 | 0.812 |
Palmitoleic acid (16:1) | 0.79 ± 0.63 | 0.69 ± 0.43 | 0.209 |
∑PUFA | 19.250 ± 12.204 | 22.451 ± 12.729 | 0.920 |
Linoleic acid (18:2n6) | 1.22 ± 1.34 | 1.45 ± 1.24 | 0.267 |
C18.2.CLAs | 0.41 ± 0.72 | 0.23 ± 0.32 | 0.144 |
-Linolenic acid (18:3n6) | 0.12 ± 0.14 | 0.17 ± 0.13 | 0.177 |
-Linolenic acid (18:3n3) | 0.41 ± 0.27 | 0.52 ± 0.27 | 0.565 |
Dihomo–linolenic acid (20:3n6) | 0.34 ± 1.45 | 0.42 ± 1.23 | 0.129 |
Arachidonic acid (20:4n6) | 0.11 ± 0.10 | 0.18 ± 0.08 | 0.212 |
Eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5n3) EPA | 0.04 ± 0.05 | 0.03 ± 0.04 | 0.615 |
Docosahexaenoic acid (22:6n3) DHA | 0.13 ± 0.12 | 0.12 ± 0.11 | 0.779 |
ω-6/ω-3 ratio | 4.279 ± 0.298 | 4.609 ± 0.273 | 0.004 |
Cholesterol | 224.36 ± 112.73 | 250.89 ± 174.34 | 0.250 |
Total trans | 4.39 ± 10.81 | 5.58 ± 10.27 | 0.481 |
Abbreviation: AI: Atherogenicity index; TI: Thrombogenicity index; H/H, Σ Hypocholesterolemic/Σ Hypercholesterolemic ratio;CSI, Cholesterol-Saturated Fat Index; ω-6/ω-3 = Σ of Omega 6 series/Σ of Omega 3 series; SFAs, saturated fatty acids; MUFAs, monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFAs, polyunsaturated fatty acids; ω6, omega 6 fatty acid (Linoleic acid) ; ω3, omega 3 fatty acid (Linolenic acid) ; means are compared using Student t test. Percentages are compared using Chi-square. |
p < 0.05 was considered to be significant. |
As illustrated in Table 3, there was a positive correlation between BMI, AI, TI, CSI, SFA, MUFA, PUFA and ω-6/ω-3 ratio with AIP and negative correlation between h/H with AIP in both groups. These correlations were significant just for BMI (cc = 0.408,p = 0.045), AI (cc = 0.859, p = 0.014), h/H (cc=-0.596, p = 0.033) and SFA (cc = 0.602, p = 0.043) in overweight or obese group and were significant just for AI (cc = 0.701, p = 0.031) and h/H (cc=-0.710, p = 0.023) in normal group.
Table 3
Correlation coefficient between BMI, dietary fat quality indices with AIP in normal weight and overweight or obese groups
Variable | Normal weight (n = 71) | Overweight or obese (n = 86) |
cc | P value | cc | P value |
BMI | 0.193 | 0.106 | 0.408 | 0.045 |
AI | 0. 701 | 0.031 | 0.859 | 0.014 |
TI | 0.080 | 0.505 | 0.095 | 0.381 |
CSI | 0.085 | 0.481 | 0.024 | 0.117 |
hH | -0.710 | 0.023 | -0.596 | 0.033 |
∑SFA | 0.050 | 0.925 | 0.602 | 0.043 |
∑MUFA | 0.041 | 0.416 | 0.015 | 0.403 |
∑PUFA | 0.005 | 0.960 | 0.098 | 0.581 |
ω-6/ω-3 ratio | 0.179 | 0.135 | 0.087 | 0.425 |
Abbreviation: AI, Atherogenicity index; TI ,Thrombogenicity index; H/H, Σ Hypocholesterolemic/Σ Hypercholesterolemic ratio;CSI, Cholesterol-Saturated Fat Index; ω-6/ω-3 = Σ of Omega 6 series/Σ of Omega 3 series; SFAs, saturated fatty acids; MUFAs, monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFAs, polyunsaturated fatty acids; ω6, omega 6 fatty acid (Linoleic acid) ; ω3, omega 3 fatty acid (Linolenic acid) ; |
Table 4 presents the reported, the Correlation between lipid profile and AIP in normal weight and overweight or obese groups. Their positive correlation was significant between TG, TC, LDL, TC/HDL, LDL/HDL with AIP except for HDL that negative correlation was significant in both groups (p < 0.05).
Table 4
Correlation coefficient between lipid profile and AIP in normal weight and overweight or obese groups
Variable | Normal weight (n = 71) | Overweight or obese (n = 86) |
cc | P value | Cc | P value |
TG | 0.909** | 0.0001 | 0.919** | 0.0001 |
TC | 0.481** | 0.0001 | 0.302** | 0.004 |
LDL | 0.318** | 0.007 | 0.494** | 0.008 |
HDL | -0.632** | 0.0001 | -0.708** | 0.0001 |
TC/HDL | 0.774** | 0.0001 | 0.710** | 0.0001 |
LDL/HDL | 0.586** | 0.0001 | 0.510** | 0.0001 |
There was negatively positive correlation between TG, TC, CSI, LDL, TC/HDL, LDL/HDL with AIP except for HDL in both groups. There positive correlation were significant between TG, TC, LDL, TC/HDL, LDL/HDL with AIP except for HDL in both groups (p < 0.005). |