Person:

Tobias, Deirdre

OBJECTIVE Examine the association of prepregnancy habitual consumption of fruits and fruit juices and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A prospective study among women with at least one singleton pregnancy in the Nurses’ Health Study II from 1991 to 2001. RESULTS Among 13,475 women, 860 reported a first diagnosis of GDM. The adjusted relative risks (RRs) for GDM from the lowest to highest quintile of whole fruit consumption were 1.00 (referent), 0.80 (95% CI 0.65–0.98), 0.90 (0.73–1.10), 0.80 (0.64–1.00), and 0.93 (0.76–1.16), respectively. The corresponding RRs for fruit juice were 1.00, 0.82 (0.66–1.01), 0.78 (0.63–0.96), 0.84 (0.68–1.04), and 1.00 (0.81–1.23). CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that prepregnancy higher consumption of whole fruits is not associated with an increased GDM risk. The association between fruit juices and GDM risk appears to be nonlinear.

Objectives To prospectively assess the joint association of birth weight and established lifestyle risk factors in adulthood with incident type 2 diabetes and to quantitatively decompose the attributing effects to birth weight only, to adulthood lifestyle only, and to their interaction. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2010), Nurses’ Health Study (1980-2010), and Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2011). Participants: 149 794 men and women without diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or cancer at baseline. Main outcome measure Incident cases of type 2 diabetes, identified through self report and validated by a supplementary questionnaire. Unhealthy lifestyle was defined on the basis of body mass index, smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and the alternate healthy eating index. Results: During 20-30 years of follow-up, 11 709 new cases of type 2 diabetes were documented. The multivariate adjusted relative risk of type 2 diabetes was 1.45 (95% confidence interval 1.32 to 1.59) per kg lower birth weight and 2.10 (1.71 to 2.58) per unhealthy lifestyle factor. The relative risk of type 2 diabetes associated with a combination of per kg lower birth weight and per unhealthy lifestyle factor was 2.86 (2.26 to 3.63), which was more than the addition of the risk associated with each individual factor, indicating a significant interaction on an additive scale (P for interaction<0.001). The attributable proportions of joint effect were 22% (95% confidence interval 18.3% to 26.4%) to lower birth weight alone, 59% (57.1% to 61.5%) to unhealthy lifestyle alone, and 18% (13.9% to 21.3%) to their interaction. Conclusion: Most cases of type 2 diabetes could be prevented by the adoption of a healthier lifestyle, but simultaneous improvement of both prenatal and postnatal factors could further prevent additional cases.

Background: The relation between body weight and mortality among persons with type 2 diabetes remains unresolved, with some studies suggesting decreased mortality among overweight or obese persons as compared with normal-weight persons (an “obesity paradox”). Methods: We studied participants with incident diabetes from the Nurses’ Health Study (8970 participants) and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (2457 participants) who were free of cardiovascular disease and cancer at the time of a diagnosis of diabetes. Body weight shortly before diagnosis and height were used to calculate the body-mass index (BMI, the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters). Multivariable Cox models were used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for mortality across BMI categories. Results: There were 3083 deaths during a mean period of 15.8 years of follow-up. A J-shaped association was observed across BMI categories (18.5 to 22.4, 22.5 to 24.9 [reference], 25.0 to 27.4, 27.5 to 29.9, 30.0 to 34.9, and ≥35.0) for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.29 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.05 to 1.59]; 1.00; 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.29]; 1.09 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.26]; 1.24 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.42]; and 1.33 [95% CI, 1.14 to 1.55], respectively). This relationship was linear among participants who had never smoked (hazard ratios across BMI categories: 1.12, 1.00, 1.16, 1.21, 1.36, and 1.56, respectively) but was nonlinear among participants who had ever smoked (hazard ratios across BMI categories: 1.32, 1.00, 1.09, 1.04, 1.14, and 1.21) (P=0.04 for interaction). A direct linear trend was observed among participants younger than 65 years of age at the time of a diabetes diagnosis but not among those 65 years of age or older at the time of diagnosis (P<0.001 for interaction). Conclusions: We observed a J-shaped association between BMI and mortality among all partici- pants and among those who had ever smoked and a direct linear relationship among those who had never smoked. We found no evidence of lower mortality among patients with diabetes who were overweight or obese at diagnosis, as com- pared with their normal-weight counterparts, or of an obesity paradox.

Background: The effectiveness of low-fat diets for long-term weight loss has been debated for decades, with dozens of randomized trials (RCTs) and recent reviews giving mixed results. Methods: We conducted a random effects meta-analysis of RCTs to estimate the long-term effect of low-fat vs. higher fat dietary interventions on weight loss. Our search included RCTs conducted in adult populations reporting weight change outcomes at ≥1 year, comparing low-fat with higher fat interventions, published through July 2014. The primary outcome measure was mean difference in weight change between interventions. Findings: Fifty-three studies met inclusion criteria representing 68,128 participants. In the setting of weight loss trials, low-carbohydrate interventions led to significantly greater weight loss than low-fat interventions (n comparisons=18; weighted mean difference [WMD]=1.15 kg, 95% CI=0.52 to 1.79; I2=10%). Low-fat did not lead to differences in weight change compared with other moderate fat weight loss interventions (n=19; WMD=0.36, 95% CI=-0.66 to 1.37; I2=82%), and were superior only when compared with “usual diet” (n=8; WMD=-5.41, 95% CI=-7.29 to −3.54; I2=68%). Similarly, non-weight loss trials and weight maintenance trials, for which there were no low-carbohydrate comparisons, had similar effects for low-fat vs moderate fat interventions, and were superior compared with “usual diet”. Weight loss trials achieving a greater difference in fat intake at follow-up significantly favored the higher fat dietary interventions, as indicated by difference of ≥5% of calories from fat (n=18; WMD=1.04, 95% CI=0.06 to 2.03; I2=78%) or by difference in change serum triglycerides of ≥5 mg/dL (n=17; WMD=1.38, 95% CI=0.50 to 2.25; I2=62%). Interpretation These findings suggest that the long-term effect of low-fat diets on body weight depends on the intensity of intervention in the comparison group. When compared to dietary interventions of similar intensity, evidence from RCTs does not support low-fat diets over other dietary interventions.