Characteristics of participants
A number of 389 overweight and obese women were investigated in this cross-sectional study, of which, 70.8%were married, 41.1% employed, 47.8% had a college education, and 28% had a good economic status. The overall prevalence of rs3807992 genotypes was 38.34% and 61.66% for the A and G alleles, and the prevalence of frequency of genotypes was 49%, 22% and 24% for GG,AG and AA, respectively.The means and standard deviation (SD) of age, BMI, WC of individual were 36.69 ± 9.20 years, 30.96 ± 3.87 kg/m2, 99.12 ± 9.41 cm, respectively (Table 1).
Table 1
General characteristics of participants across tertiles of processed meat (n = 389).
Variables | T1 (n = 130) | T2 (n = 129) | T3 (n = 130) | P-value | P-value* |
Demographic variables | |
Age (year) | 37.63 ± 8.90 | 36.23 ± 9.18 | 36.22 ± 9.53 | 0.36 | 0.35 |
Physical activity (MET/h/w) | 1478.99 ± 2631.26 | 1084.93 ± 2240.61 | 997.66 ± 998.78 | 0.27 | 0.23 |
Anthropometric measurements | |
Weight (kg) | 79.37 ± 10.02 | 79.40 ± 11.22 | 81.67 ± 11.03 | 0.15 | 0.99 |
Height (cm) | 161.02 ± 6.19 | 160.76 ± 5.91 | 161.66 ± 5.53 | 0.44 | 0.99 |
BMI (kg/m2) | 30.61 ± 3.69 | 30.78 ± 3.93 | 31.52 ± 3.97 | 0.14 | 0.82 |
WHR | 0.93 ± 0.05 | 0.93 ± 0.05 | 1.64 ± 7.98 | 0.35 | 0.85 |
WC (cm) | 98.21 ± 8.87 | 98.46 ± 9.74 | 100.74 ± 9.46 | 0.06 | 0.89 |
Body composition | |
BFM (kg) | 33.95 ± 7.78 | 33.71 ± 8.17 | 36.52 ± 9.90 | 0.01 | 0.84 |
FFM (kg) | 46.07 ± 5.40 | 46.06 ± 5.70 | 47.37 ± 5.83 | 0.10 | 0.98 |
SMM (kg) | 25.25 ± 3.24 | 25.37 ± 3.51 | 26.01 ± 3.51 | 0.15 | 0.96 |
PBF (kg) | 42.07 ± 5.20 | 41.84 ± 5.42 | 42.75 ± 5.86 | 0.38 | 0.98 |
VFL (kg) | 15.80 ± 3.22 | 15.62 ± 3.48 | 16.37 ± 3.08 | 0.16 | 0.97 |
ODP | 142.84 ± 21.52 | 142.71 ± 19.68 | 149.32 ± 22.42 | 0.01 | 0.57 |
FFMI | 18.76 ± 11.59 | 17.77 ± 1.45 | 18.11 ± 1.68 | 0.48 | 0.50 |
FMI | 13.19 ± 3.23 | 13.16 ± 3.23 | 13.99 ± 3.68 | 0.08 | 0.91 |
BRI | 5.74 ± 1.37 | 5.78 ± 1.34 | 6.04 ± 1.36 | 0.17 | 0.88 |
ABSI | 0.79 ± 0.02 | 0.79 ± 0.02 | 0.79 ± 0.03 | 0.34 | 0.94 |
Blood pressure measurements | | |
SBP (mm/Hg) | 112.87 ± 13.83 | 111.33 ± 14.07 | 110.72 ± 13.28 | 0.53 | 0.16 |
DBP (mm/Hg) | 79.16 ± 10.01 | 76.71 ± 11.77 | 76.52 ± 9.39 | 0.14 | 0.08 |
Qualitative variables | |
rs 3807992 genotypes | | 0.46 | 0.45 |
GG | 67 (35.1%) | 67 (35.1%) | 57 (29.8%) |
AA,AG | 56 (30.6%) | 62 (33.9%) | 65 (35.5%) |
Frequency of alleles | | 0.14 | 0.11 |
GG | 67 (35.1%) | 67 (35.1%) | 57 (29.8%) |
AG | 26 (30.2%) | 35 (40.7%) | 25 (29.1%) |
AA | 30 (30.9%) | 27 (27.8%) | 40 (41.2%) |
Marriage status | | 0.4 | 0.4 |
Single | 31 (28.2%) | 39 (35.5%) | 40 (36.4%) |
Occupation | | 0.93 | 0.84 |
Unemployed | 76 (33.5%) | 74 (32.6%) | 77 (33.9%) |
Education | | 0.28 | 0.25 |
Under diploma | 22 (41.5%) | 20 (37.7%) | 11 (20.8%) |
diploma | 50 (33.1%) | 46 (30.5%) | 55 (36.4%) |
University educated | 58 (31.4%) | 64 (34.6%) | 63 (34.1%) |
Level of economic | | 0.11 | 0.11 |
Poor | 37 (42.0%) | 30 (34.1%) | 21 (23.9%) |
Moderate | 56 (30.8%) | 65 (35.7%) | 61 (33.5%) |
Good | 33 (30.8%) | 31 (29.0%) | 43 (40.2%) |
Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; WC: waist circumference; BFM: body fat mass; FFM: fat free mass; SMM: skeletal muscle mass; PBF: percent body fat; VFL: visceral fat level; ODP: obesity degree percentage; FFMI: fat-free mass index; FMI: fat mass index; BRI: body roundness index; ABSI: a body shape index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; WHR, waist hip ratio. Values are mean ± standard deviation (SD) for continuous and frequency (N and %) for categorical variables. Using one-way ANOVA for continuous variables. *P-value: adjusted for energy intake, age P-value < 0.05 significant. |
Association between characteristics of the participants and the tertiles of processed meat
We divided the people of the processed meat group into 3 tertiles. The general characteristics of participants across tertiles of processed meat has shown in Table 1. In crude model, it was found that the mean BFM was significantly higher in T3 of processed meat compared to T1 (P = 0.01). Similarly, the mean of WC and FM was higher in T3 compared with T1, although, this association was not significantly (p > 0.05). Also, no significant differences were found among tertiles of processed meat in terms of anthropometric measurements and body composition. Similar results were found after adjusting for confounder variables (age, energy intake, BMI and physical activity) (p > 0.05).
Association between biochemical parameters, anthropometric measurements, and body composition between CAV-1 (polymorphism rs3807992) genotypes
Based on CAV-1 polymorphism (rs3807992), participants were categorized into two groups (GG, AA + AG). The association between the genotypes of CAV-1 polymorphism and characteristics of participants is shown in Table 2. The subjects with GG genotypes were significantly older compared to subjects with AG + AA genotypes (p < 0.05). In the crude model, the results of the study revealed that mean DBP, BFM, VFM, FMI and BRI were significantly lower in subjects with GG genotype compared with subject with AG + AA genotypes (p < 0.05). More, BMI and WC among GG genotypes was lower than in AG + AA genotypes, although, this association was not significant. After adjusting confounders (age, energy intake, BMI and physical activity), there was only significant difference in DBP (how was it between tertiles? reducing or increasing) (p = 0.05).
Table 2
Characteristics of the study population across rs 3807992 genotypes
Variables | Caveolin-1 | |
| GG | (AG + AA) | P-value | P-value* |
Demographic variables | |
Age (year) | 37.56 ± 9.49 | 35.75 ± 8.78 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
Physical activity (MET/h/w) | 1215.46 ± 2033.81 | 1199.02 ± 2251.97 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
Anthropometric measurements | |
Weight (kg) | 79.26 ± 10.35 | 80.90 ± 11.68 | 0.15 | 0.93 |
Height (cm) | 161.30 ± 6.08 | 160.96 ± 5.58 | 0.56 | 0.23 |
BMI (kg/m2) | 30.57 ± 3.88 | 31.30 ± 3.93 | 0.07 | 0.37 |
WHR | 0.93 ± 0.05 | 1.41 ± 6.58 | 0.30 | 0.31 |
WC (cm) | 98.22 ± 9.30 | 99.87 ± 9.30 | 0.08 | 0.34 |
Body composition | |
BFM (kg) | 33.49 ± 7.96 | 35.64 ± 9.15 | 0.01 | 0.26 |
FFM (kg) | 46.26 ± 5.48 | 46.54 ± 5.83 | 0.62 | 0.31 |
SMM (kg) | 25.34 ± 3.27 | 25.63 ± 3.55 | 0.40 | 0.36 |
PBF (kg) | 41.62 ± 5.47 | 42.68 ± 5.47 | 0.05 | 0.26 |
VFL (kg) | 15.46 ± 3.40 | 16.28 ± 3.11 | 0.01 | 0.12 |
ODP | 142.70 ± 48.96 | 146.23 ± 23.30 | 0.10 | 0.98 |
FFMI | 18.42 ± 9.50 | 17.93 ± 1.62 | 0.47 | 0.37 |
FMI | 12.93 ± 3.25 | 13.83 ± 3.46 | 0.009 | 0.10 |
BRI | 5.70 ± 1.36 | 5.98 ± 1.33 | 0.04 | 0.15 |
ABSI | 0.79 ± 0.02 | 0.79 ± 0.02 | 0.47 | 0.34 |
Blood pressure measurements | |
SBP (mm/Hg) | 110.31 ± 12.63 | 112.90 ± 14.75 | 0.12 | 0.29 |
DBP (mm/Hg) | 75.87 ± 10.77 | 79.31 ± 10.06 | 0.007 | 0.05 |
Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; WC: waist circumference; BFM: body fat mass; FFM: fat free mass; SMM: skeletal muscle mass; PBF: percent body fat; VFL: visceral fat level; ODP: obesity degree percentage; FFMI: fat-free mass index; FMI: fat mass index; BRI: body roundness index; ABSI: a body shape index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; WHR, waist hip ratio. Values are mean ± standard deviation (SD). Using one-way ANOVA for continuous variables. *P-value: adjusted for energy intake, age,PA and BMI P-value < 0.05 significant. |
Interaction between CAV-1 (rs3807992) genotypes and processed meat on anthropometric measurements and body composition
Using the GLZM, the interaction between CAV-1 polymorphism (rs 3807992) and processed meat on anthropometric measurements and body composition was examined. In this study, for analysis, the GG genotype and first tertile of processed meat were considered as reference groups. The interaction between CAV-1 variants at (rs3807992) and processed meat on anthropometric measurements and body composition, including BMI, WC, WHR, VFL, ODP, FMI, VFA, BFM, BRI and ABSI are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 1. In the crude models, there was a significant interaction between AA + AG genotypes and processed meat on ODP and BRI in T3 compared to reference group (β = 12.37, 95%CI = 1.90, 22.84, p = 0.02) and (β = 0.71, 95%CI = 0.03, 1.39, p = 0.04), respectively.
Table 3
The interaction of genotypes of caveolin-1 polymorphism and processed meats on anthropometric measurements and body composition in overweight and obese women (n = 389)
Variables | T1 (n = 130) | T2 (n = 129) | P- value | T3 (n = 130) | P- value |
β | 95%CI | | β | 95%CI | |
BMI | |
Crude model | 1 | 0.74 | -1.17, 2.65 | 0.44 | 1.33 | -0.62, 3.28 | 0.18 |
Adjusted modela | 1 | 0.57 | -1.50, 2.64 | 0.59 | 2.43 | 0.36, 4.51 | 0.02 |
WC | |
Crude model | 1 | 0.19 | -4.39, 4.77 | 0.93 | 3.31 | -1.37, 7.998 | 0.16 |
Adjusted model | 1 | -0.02 | -5.06, 5.01 | 0.99 | 5.06 | 0.04, 10.09 | 0.04 |
WHR | |
Crude model | 1 | 0.001 | -2.32, 2.32 | 0.99 | 1.42 | -0.92, 3.78 | 0.23 |
Adjusted model | 1 | -0.05 | -2.92, 2.81 | 0.62 | 1.63 | -1.19, 4.47 | 0.25 |
VFL | |
Crude model | 1 | 0.52 | -1.08, 2.13 | 0.52 | 1.13 | -0.49, 2.77 | 0.17 |
Adjusted model | 1 | 0.53 | -1.28, 2.35 | 0.56 | 1.58 | -0.21, 3.38 | 0.08 |
ODP | |
Crude model | 1 | 2.92 | -7.40, 13.24 | 0.57 | 12.37 | 1.90, 22.84 | 0.02 |
Adjusted model | 1 | 2.92 | -8.37, 14.23 | 0.61 | 18.11 | 6.93, 29.28 | 0.001 |
FMI | |
Crude model | 1 | 0.52 | -1.12, 2.17 | 0.53 | 1.53 | -0.13, 3.21 | 0.07 |
Adjusted model | 1 | 0.51 | -1.33, 2.35 | 2.27 | 0.58 | 0.44, 4.10 | 0.01 |
VFA | |
Crude model | 1 | 0.22 | -45.89, 46.35 | 0.99 | -12.71 | -59.50,34.07 | 0.59 |
Adjusted model | 1 | -0.865 | -57.37,55.64 | 0.976 | -9.14 | -65.00,46.71 | 0.748 |
BFM | |
Crude model | 1 | 0.60 | -3.55, 4.76 | 0.77 | 3.95 | -0.26, 8.17 | 0.06 |
Adjusted model | 1 | 0.91 | -3.71, 5.54 | 0.69 | 5.83 | 1.26, 10.41 | 0.01 |
BRI | |
Crude model | 1 | 0.18 | -0.48, 0.84 | 0.59 | 0.71 | 0.03, 1.39 | 0.04 |
Adjusted model | 1 | 0.08 | -0.65, 0.81 | 0.82 | 1.02 | 0.29, 1.75 | 0.006 |
ABSI | |
Crude model | 1 | -0.005 | -0.02, 0.009 | 0.47 | 0.005 | -0.009, 0.02 | 0.47 |
Adjusted model | 1 | -0.009 | -0.025, 0.007 | 0.28 | 0.003 | -0.01, 0.01 | 0.71 |
Data are presented as β and 95% confidence interval Abbreviation: CI: confidence interval, WC: waist circumference, WHR: waist hip ratio, VFL: visceral fat level, ODP: obesity degree percentage, FMI: fat mass index, VFA: visceral fat area, BFM: body fat mass, BRI: body roundness index, ABSI: a body shape index a: adjusted for: age, kcal, age of onset of obesity, diet resistance, smoking, history of weight loss, thyroid Reference group: GG Reference group: First tertile. Obtained from Generalized Linear Models. P-value < 0.05 is significant. |
After controlling for confounders, a significant interaction was demonstrated between high intake of processed meat and participant carrying the A allele on BMI (β = 2.43, 95%CI = 0.36, 4.51, p = 0.02), WC (β = 5.06, 95%CI = 0.04, 10.09, p = 0.04), FMI (β = 0.58, 95%CI = 0.44, 4.10, p = 0.01), ODP (β = 18.11, 95%CI = 6.93, 29.28, p = 0.001), BRI: (β = 1.02, 95%CI = 0.29, 1.75, p = 0.006) and BFM (β = 5.83, 95%CI = 1.26, 10.41, p = 0.01) in comparison with the GG genotype (Table 3). Overall, in the group of participants with the risk allele ( A), consumption of high processed meat was associated with obesity-related parameters compared to no risk allele group (Figure.1). Thus, the A-allele carriers who placed in the last tertile of processed meat (T3) had significantly higher levels of BMI, FMI, BFM, ODP and BRI compared with GG homozygotes (p < 0.05). Although WHR, VFL and ABSI had higher levels among A allele group compared with GG homozygotes but these differences were not significant (p > 0.05).