Skip to main content

Table 2 Anthropometric measurements, dietary intake and physical activity status across different cardiometabolic phenotypes

From: Association of major dietary patterns and different metabolic phenotypes: a population-based study of northwestern Iran

Variables

MHL (n = 69)

MUHL (n = 7)

MHO (n = 83)

MUHO (n = 49)

p-value*

Men (n = 208)

Physical activity n (%)

 No PA

22 (31.88)

2 (28.57)

27 (32.53)

22 (44.89)

0.56

 Low PA

24 (34.78)

1 (14.28)

26 (31.32)

12 (24.48)

 

 High PA

23 (33.33)

4 (57.14)

30 (36.14)

15 (30.61)

 

Energy (Kcal/day)

3862 ± 1520

4388 ± 946.6

3753 ± 3177

3741 ± 1520

0.47

Carbohydrate (g/day)

216.65 ± 65.53

304.42 ± 146.74

218.35 ± 19.95

208.41 ± 81.11

0.11

Protein (g/day)

218.18 ± 94.56

228.48 ± 61.62

199.02 ± 86.95

175.21 ± 68.46

0.11

Fat (g/day)

269.89 ± 118.18

264.72 ± 89.85

246.38 ± 112.87

221.23 ± 89.87

0.23

WC (cm)

82.93 ± 13.43

89.57 ± 12.44

97.20 ± 8.81

103.28 ± 9.95

< 0.001

BMI (Kg/m2)

22.23 ± 2.31

23.92 ± 0.83

28.23 ± 3.15

30.51 ± 4.06

< 0.001

Women (n = 296)

MHL (n = 66)

MUHL (n = 10)

MHO (n = 121)

MUHO (n = 99)

p-value*

Physical activity

 No PA

26 (39.39)

2 (20)

45 (37.19)

28 (28.28)

0.08

 Low PA

13 (19.69)

2 (20)

41 (33.88)

38 (38.38)

 

 High PA

27 (40.90)

6 (60)

35 (28.92)

33 (33.33)

 

Energy (Kcal/day)

2818 ± 1318

2837 ± 757

3163 ± 1560

3272 ± 1326

0.31

Carbohydrate (g/day)

179.23 ± 70.46

175.56 ± 48.49

208.29 ± 84.40

217.30 ± 93.38

0.63

Protein (g/day)

141.05 ± 74.79

132.93 ± 33.56

159.85 ± 82.81

156.01 ± 74.75

0.45

Fat (g/day)

175.77 ± 98.11

182.43 ± 58.18

201.75 ± 106.56

200.44 ± 100.17

0.46

WC (cm)

79.48 ± 10.48

91.00 ± 6.56

91.56 ± 10.35

100.79 ± 9.02

< 0.001

BMI (Kg/m2)

22.21 ± 2.03

23.95 ± 0.85

29.39 ± 3.45

31.85 ± 4.38

< 0.001

  1. MHL: Metabolically Healthy Lean; MUHL: Metabolically unhealthy lean; MHO: Metabolically healthy obese; MUHO: Metabolically unhealthy obese; BMI: Body Mass Index; WC: waist circumference; PA: physical activity
  2. *continuous variables were compared by one way ANOVA and categorical variables were compared using chi-square and fisher exact test