Table 3

Food items associated with largest estimated effect on mean waist- and hip-circumference in women.

Estimated effect on mean waist circumference

Estimated effect on mean hip circumference

Combined1




Women

Difference in mean intake 1986–99

Model 23

Model 23

Model 12

Model 23

12

23








Food item3

/mo4

/'86 5

mm6

p7

mm6

p7

mm6

p7

mm6

p7

mm6

mm6


beer, 4% alcohol

0.6

153%

-1.10

0.60

-0.92

0.83

-0.68

0.59

-1.24

0.36

0.42

-0.32

bread, crisp

-13.4

-27%

-0.31

0.21

-0.37

0.26

0.06

0.65

-0.09

0.64

0.37

0.28

cream/crème frβiche/sour cream

1.4

40%

-1.27

0.26

-0.94

0.32

1.38

0.01

0.99

0.09

2.65

1.93

fruit soups/fruit creams

-1.3

-36%

-3.24

0.01

-3.13

0.02

-0.07

0.58

-0.25

0.67

3.17

2.88

hamburger

0.8

73%

3.21

0.07

2.94

0.13

-0.66

0.47

-0.41

0.67

-3.87

-3.34

milk, 1.5% fat

18.0

331%

-1.11

0.02

-0.76

0.03

1.24

0.48

0.98

0.45

2.35

1.75

milk, 3% fat

-21.8

-84%

-1.47

0.25

-0.75

0.38

-0.05

0.44

-0.74

0.55

1.42

0.01

oil, cooking

8.7

693%

-6.18

<.01

-4.86

<.01

1.35

0.40

0.23

0.75

7.53

5.09

oil, dressing

3.3

210%

-2.54

0.07

-1.96

0.17

0.50

0.73

0.03

0.79

3.04

1.99

pasta

4.2

132%

-2.21

0.25

-1.47

0.45

2.14

0.09

1.61

0.15

4.35

3.09

potato chips/popcorn/salted nuts

1.5

188%

-0.78

0.44

-0.24

0.45

1.15

0.59

1.14

0.53

1.94

1.38

potatoes, French fried

0.9

95%

2.11

0.14

1.90

0.13

-0.42

0.05

0.04

0.13

-2.52

-1.86

soft drinks

1.9

93%

2.11

0.19

2.00

0.23

0.31

0.91

0.57

0.77

-1.81

-1.43

sugar/honey in tea/coffee

-10.4

-36%

-0.30

0.39

0.02

0.41

0.13

0.68

-0.05

0.83

0.44

-0.08

wine

0.7

65%

-1.03

0.05

-0.83

0.08

1.08

0.15

1.67

0.22

2.11

2.51


1Estimate of total effect on diabetes risk: Differences in mean hip-circumferences (negatively associated with DM) – Differences in mean waist-circumferences (positively associated with DM)

2Model 1: regression of change in mean reported food frequency on waist/hip circumference adjusted for BMI, age and survey-year.

3 Model 2: all variables are adjusted for BMI, age, survey-year, smoking-status (never/ex-/current), level of reported physical activity (lower/higher), educational level (primary school/secondary school/college), level of reported alcohol (quartiles) intake as well as interaction between smoking and low physical activity, smoking and high alcohol intake, low physical activity and high alcohol intake.

4 number of reported intakes per month

5 relative changes in % of mean reported intake 1986

6 estimated net effects of trends in reported intakes on mean waist/hip circumference.

7 probabilities that partial regression coefficients for different levels of intake are equal to zero at 95% level

Krachler et al. Nutrition Journal 2006 5:34   doi:10.1186/1475-2891-5-34

Open Data