Nutrients · 2023
Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diet with Metabolic-Dysfunction-Associated Fatty Liver Disease.
Наблюдательное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hu Chengxiang, Huang Rong, Li Runhong, Ning Ning, He Yue, Zhang Jiaqi, Wang Yingxin, Ma Yanan, Jin Lina
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This observational cross-sectional study was designed to explore the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) and a low-fat diet (LFD) on metabolic-dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD).
METHODS: This study involved 3961 adults. The associations between LCD/LFD scores and MAFLD were evaluated utilizing a multivariable logistic regression model. Additionally, a leave-one-out model was applied to assess the effect of isocaloric substitution of specific macronutrients.
RESULTS: Participants within the highest tertile of healthy LCD scores (0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.89) or with a healthy LFD score (0.64; 95%CI, 0.48-0.86) faced a lower MAFLD risk. Furthermore, compared with tertile 1, individuals with unhealthy LFD scores in terile 2 or tertile 3 had 49% (95%CI, 1.17-1.90) and 77% (95%CI, 1.19-2.63) higher risk levels for MAFLD, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Healthy LCD and healthy LFD are protective against MAFLD, while unhealthy LFD can increase the risk of MAFLD. Both the quantity and quality of macronutrients might have significant influences on MAFLD.
METHODS: This study involved 3961 adults. The associations between LCD/LFD scores and MAFLD were evaluated utilizing a multivariable logistic regression model. Additionally, a leave-one-out model was applied to assess the effect of isocaloric substitution of specific macronutrients.
RESULTS: Participants within the highest tertile of healthy LCD scores (0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.89) or with a healthy LFD score (0.64; 95%CI, 0.48-0.86) faced a lower MAFLD risk. Furthermore, compared with tertile 1, individuals with unhealthy LFD scores in terile 2 or tertile 3 had 49% (95%CI, 1.17-1.90) and 77% (95%CI, 1.19-2.63) higher risk levels for MAFLD, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Healthy LCD and healthy LFD are protective against MAFLD, while unhealthy LFD can increase the risk of MAFLD. Both the quantity and quality of macronutrients might have significant influences on MAFLD.