Table 2

Risk of overweight according to frequency of consumption of food groups

Quartile (Q)

or Tertile (T)

median servings/d

Model 1a

Model 2b

OR (95%CI)

OR (95%CI)


Grains

Q1

0.8

1.00

1.00

Q2

1.4

0.69 (0.50, 0.96)

0.77 (0.54, 1.10)

Q3

2.1

0.61 (0.44, 0.87)

0.73 (0.50, 1.07)

Q4

3.5

0.59 (0.41, 0.83)

0.78 (0.51, 1.20)

P Trend = 0.002

P Trend = 0.19

Nuts

T1

0.1

1.00

1.00

T2

0.2

0.75 (0.57, 0.98)

0.81 (0.61, 1.08)

T3

1.1

0.60 (0.43, 0.85)

0.68 (0.46, 0.98)

P Trend = 0.002

P Trend = 0.03

Vegetables

Q1

0.4

1.00

1.00

Q2

0.7

0.65 (0.46, 0.92)

0.73 (0.51, 1.06)

Q3

1.5

0.90 (0.65, 1.24)

0.93 (0.66, 1.32)

Q4

2.6

0.67 (0.48, 0.94)

0.68 (0.45, 1.03)

P Trend = 0.09

P Trend = 0.19

Fruits

Q1

0.4

1.00

1.00

Q2

0.9

0.83 (0.59, 1.15)

0.92 (0.65, 1.32)

Q3

1.8

0.92 (0.66, 1.29)

1.02 (0.71, 1.48)

Q4

4.2

0.78 (0.55, 1.12)

0.96 (0.63, 1.47)

P Trend = 0.27

P Trend = 0.98

Meats/Fish/Eggs

Q1

0.3

1.00

1.00

Q2

0.8

1.08 (0.73, 1.58)

1.02 (0.69, 1.53)

Q3

1.3

1.13 (0.76, 1.69)

1.30 (0.85, 1.99)

Q4

2.5

0.83 (0.54, 1.28)

1.06 (0.66, 1.70)

P Trend = 0.34

P Trend = 0.64

Dairy

Q1

0.6

1.00

1.00

Q2

1.3

1.07 (0.76, 1.50)

1.15 (0.81, 1.63)

Q3

1.4

1.06 (0.74, 1.51)

1.30 (0.89, 1.91)

Q4

2.3

1.36 (0.97, 1.92)

1.99 (1.34, 2.94)

P Trend = 0.09

P Trend = 0.0008

Low Nutrient-Dense Foods

Q1

0.4

1.00

1.00

Q2

0.8

0.90 (0.65, 1.25)

0.91 (0.65, 1.29)

Q3

1.5

0.68 (0.48, 0.96)

0.68 (0.47, 0.98)

Q4

3.0

0.43 (0.29, 0.63)

0.46 (0.30, 0.71)

P Trend < 0.0001

P Trend = 0.0001


aFrequency of consumption of a food group controlling for gender, type of school and soda intake (Logistic regression model: Overweight = one food group + gender + type of school + soda consumption).

bSame as Model 1 plus additional simultaneous adjustments for frequency of consumption of all the other six food groups. (Logistic regression model: Overweight = Grains + Nuts + Vegetables + Fruits + Meat/Fish/Eggs + Dairy + LNDF + gender + type of school + soda consumption).

Matthews et al. Nutrition Journal 2011 10:71   doi:10.1186/1475-2891-10-71

Open Data