Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Endocrine Disorders 1/2023

Open Access 01.12.2023 | Research

Investigation of the association between habitual dietary FODMAP intake, metabolic parameters, glycemic status, and anthropometric features among apparently healthy overweight and obese individuals

verfasst von: Reyhaneh Mokhtari Hemami, Amir Shakarami, Abnoos Mokhtari Ardekani, Sara Aghaii, Dorna Makarem, Negin Nikrad, Mahdieh Abbasalizad Farhangi, Mohammad Sadegh Pour Abbasi

Erschienen in: BMC Endocrine Disorders | Ausgabe 1/2023

Abstract

Background

The predisposition of humans to metabolic syndrome is affected by many factors, including diet and lifestyle. Fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) are a set of carbohydrates that are fermented by gut microbiota. In animal studies, supplementation with FODMAP-rich diets as prebiotics can alter body composition and gut microbiota. This study evaluates any relationship between FODMAP and metabolic syndrome risk factors among adults with metabolic syndrome in Iran.

Methods

This cross-sectional study is based on sociodemographic information from 347 overweight and obese participants selected from outpatient clinics through public declaration. Participants body composition and anthropometric measures were also determined. A validated Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) with 168 questions was used to collect dietary data. Biochemical parameters, including serum total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), fasting serum glucose (FSG), and insulin levels, were determined by enzymatic methods. In addition, the Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) and Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI) were calculated.

Results

In moderate FODMAP and low FODMAP groups, lower waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and higher fat-free mass (FFM) were achieved in higher tertiles. In high FODMAP groups, higher systolic blood pressure (SBP) was shown in the higher tertile (P < 0.05). Higher insulin, HOMA-IR, and lower QUICKI in the second tertile of the high FODMAP group were also observed.

Conclusion

Findings of this study highlight the potential role of FODMAP in managing metabolic syndrome and open a new field of research.
Hinweise

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background

The predisposition of humans to metabolic diseases is affected by many factors, including diet and lifestyle. Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a cluster of conditions that occur together, increasing the risk of heart disease, cerebral vascular accident (CVA), and type 2 diabetes. These conditions include increased blood pressure, high fasting blood sugar, excess body fat, and elevated serum cholesterol or triglyceride [1, 2]. Any metabolic syndrome elements increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), type 2 diabetes mellitus, and CVA [3]. Obesity is a newly found factor associated with the high prevalence of metabolic syndrome [4, 5]. Although there is great genetic background for developing overweight and obesity [6], environmental factors are thought to be responsible for the recent dramatic increase in the prevalence of obesity [7]. The difference between the amount of energy consumed and the amount of energy expended leads to the storage of excess energy as fat, resulting in obesity. Recent evidence has found the significant role of gut microbiota in obesity [8]. As a result, therapeutic approaches based on manipulating gut microbiota, such as probiotics and prebiotics, are developed for treating obesity and metabolic syndrome [9].
Fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) are short-chain carbohydrates metabolized and fermented by gut microbiota [10]. Low FODMAP diets were the first treatment to reduce irritable bowel syndrome symptoms [11, 12]. A low FODMAP carbohydrate diet promotes Bacteroides while decreasing Bifidobacterium [1315] and Akkermansia muciniphila, which have beneficial metabolic effects. The balance of deconjugated secondary bile acids [13], short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) [14], lipopolysaccharide (LPS) [8], and incretin secretion [1517] are altered through the generation of active metabolites by these microbiotas during fermentation of FODMAP carbohydrates, which can change the metabolism of glucose and lipid. In one animal study, supplementation with FODMAP-rich diets as prebiotics altered body composition and gut microbiota [18]. The study also has shown that a high-fat diet rich in fructooligosaccharides (FOS) decreases mass and adiposity in rats [18]. Other studies on mice showed that a high-fat diet mixed with galactooligosaccharides (GOS) supplementation decreases LDL-cholesterol, elevates Bifidobacterium level, and reduces Clostridium [19]. In another rodent study, GOS increased the incretin hormones, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and peptide YY (PYY), and abundance of health-promoting Bifidobacterium [20]. In 5 randomized clinical trials (RCT) involving 44 overweight/obese subjects with pre-diabetes, adding 15 g of GOS daily to a regular diet increased Bifidobacterium by 5-times but insulin sensitivity, SCFA, and LPS were not changed [2123]. Therefore, due to a limited understanding of the relationship between FODMAP and MetS, much more investigation is needed to evaluate the association between FODMAP and the risk factors of MetS. Accordingly, this study aims to evaluate the relationship between FODMAP and metabolic syndrome risk factors among adults with metabolic syndrome in Iran.

Materials and methods

This cross-sectional study included 347 overweight and obese participants in Tabriz and Tehran, Iran. The study protocol was approved and registered by the ethics committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (registration code: IR.TBZMED.REC.1402.330).

Inclusion–exclusion criteria

Two recent projects were previously conducted in the Tabriz and Tehran cities of Iran [24, 25]. Individuals were selected from outpatient clinics through public declaration and the dissemination of posters. The inclusion criteria for this study were individuals aged between 20 to 50 and a BMI of 25 kg/m2 and more. Individuals with specific conditions, including pregnancy, breastfeeding, menopause, recent bariatric surgery, a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, hepatic or renal disease, diabetes mellitus, and taking any drugs and medications that affect weight, were excluded from the study. Participants who had been on a weight-loss regimen or taking supplements for at least three months before participating were excluded from the study.

Demographics and anthropometric evaluations

We gathered sociodemographic information, including age, gender, smoking status, educational level, marital status, employment, past medical history, and family size, by asking the participants to fulfill a questionnaire. The socioeconomic status (SES) score was then computed. Then, we categorized participants’ education level using ordered categorical variables: illiterate: 0, less than a diploma: 1, diploma and associate degree: 2, bachelor’s degree: 3, master’s degree: 4, and higher: 5. The occupational status was also recorded similarly: housewife: 1, a worker: 2, student: 3, freelancers:4 and more: 5 for females; And without a job: 1, rancher, farmer, and worker: 2, extras: 3, employee: 4, and independently employed: 5 for men. Additionally, individuals were assigned scores of 1, 2, or 3 to indicate whether they had a family size of 3, 4–5, or 6, respectively. They also received a score of 1 if they did not own a house and a score of 2 if they did. The body composition was determined using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) (Tanita, BC-418 MA, Tokyo, Japan). A wall-mounted stadiometer and a Seca scale (Seca Co., Hamburg, Germany) were used to measure height and weight to the nearest 0.5 cm and 0.1 kg, respectively. The hip circumference (HC) was measured across the broadest part of the buttocks just upon the greater trochanters. The waist circumference (WC) was measured using tape to the nearest 0.1 cm at the midpoint of the lowest costal border and the iliac crest. We also calculated the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and the body mass index (BMI). Using a standard, calibrated mercury sphygmomanometer (Riester, Diplomat 1002, Jungingen, Germany), blood pressure was measured twice in the same arm after at least 15 min of rest. The mean of the two measurements was used for analysis. The US National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III) criteria defined MetS [26]. The short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was used to measure the physical activity levels among participants [2729].

Dietary assessment and its reliability and validity

A validated semi-quantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) with 168 questions was used to collect dietary data for the Iranian population [30]. Participants kept diaries detailing how often and how much of each food item they consumed each day, week, month, and year. The amount of food consumed was converted to grams per day using the standard common portion size, cooking yield factors, and edible portions of foods found in the Iranian household measures manual [31].
The NUTRITIONIST IV software (N Squared Computing, California, USA) was utilized to analyze daily dietary intakes. The validity and dependability of the FFQ used in this study were previously evaluated [30]. Based on the estimated validity coefficients, reasonable relative validity was obtained. Men and women had nearly identical correlation coefficient values for various nutrients. The food groups were specified as follows: Whole grains, refined grains, potatoes, dairy products, vegetables, fruits, legumes, meats, nuts and seeds, solid fat, liquid oil, tea and coffee, salty snacks, simple sugars, honey and jam, soft drinks, and desserts and snacks. The frequency with which people added salt or salty sauce to food while it was being prepared or cooked, before or during eating, and the frequency of consuming processed foods with a high salt content was used to assess dietary salt consumption [32].
The foods were categorized based on their FODMAP content into high, moderate, and low FODMAP groups using the classification system provided by the Monash University Android app [33]. The Monash Uni low FODMAP diet was developed by nutritionists who coined the term FODMAP and is regularly updated and accessible globally [34]. Iranian foods were adopted with the list of high FODMAP (E.g., wheat, garlic, onion, fruit, vegetables, legumes and pulses, sweeteners, and other grains), moderate FODMAP (E.g., avocado, sweet potato, broccoli, cabbage, canned pumpkin) and low FODMAP (E.g., eggs and meat, almond milk, grains like rice, quinoa and oats, vegetables like eggplant, potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers and zucchini, fruits such as grapes, oranges, strawberries, blueberries, and pineapple) foods. Then the consumed amounts of low, moderate, and high FODMAP foods for each participant were calculated using the FFQ described before. In order to calculate the gram of high, moderate, and low FODMAP food intake, we used a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire in which every food item each participant consumed was converted into grams. The sum of all foods with high, moderate, or low FODMAP content that each participant consumed was calculated in grams separately. Then, these final values were categorized into tertiles. Then we categorized it into three tertiles (based on the amount of consumption). Higher tertiles denote higher consumption of dietary FODMAP.

Biochemical evaluation

A total of 10 ml of fasting venous blood were obtained from all participants for the biochemical analysis. A commercial kit (Pars Azmoon, Tehran, Iran) was utilized to determine total serum cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and fasting blood glucose (FBG). Plasma and serum samples were divided by centrifugation at 4,500 rpm for ten minutes at four degrees Celsius. Aliquots were frozen at 70 degrees Celsius prior to the analysis. Moreover, to calculate the portion of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), the Friedewald equation was applied [35]. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits (Bioassay Technology Laboratory, Shanghai Korean Biotech, Shanghai City, China) were utilized to determine insulin levels in the blood. The Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI) and the Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) were calculated by dividing fasting insulin (IU/ml) by 22.5 fasting glucose (mmol/l). 1/[log insulin (U/mL) + log glucose (mmol/L) during fasting].

Statistical analysis

The SPSS (IBM SPSS version 26.0) software was used to analyze the data at a significance level of 0.05. Categorical variables and continuous variables were described as frequency (percentage) and mean [standard deviation (SD)], respectively. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to evaluate the association between low, moderate, and high FODMAP foods and metabolic syndrome. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to control the effect of confounding variables (including age, sex, BMI, and total energy intake) on the association of low, moderate, and high FODMAP foods and metabolic syndrome. Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors across the FODMAP tertiles in two multivariable-adjusted models. The risk was described in three models (Model I: crude, Model II: adjusted for age and sex, Model III: adjusted for age, BMI, sex, SES, and energy intake). The G-power software was utilized to determine the minimum sample size required for the study, considering a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.25, a significance level of 0.05, and a power of 80%, which resulted in a prediction of 315 participants. However, based on previous studies, considering a 10% drop-out [36, 37]. The sample size was calculated with α = 0.05 and β = 0.2. Therefore, the power was 80%. According to the power of 80%, categorizing of the high, moderate, and low FODMAP groups into tertiles was the best choice to avoid false positives due to multiple comparisons and false negatives due to inadequate power [38, 39]. The final sample size for the study was 347 individuals, 58.2% male and 41.8% female [40]. The sampling was performed in three months.

Results

The general demographic and anthropometric features of study participants are represented in Table 1. As shown, there was no significant difference in general characteristics and anthropometric variables among different tertiles of high FODMAP. However, in moderate and low FODMAP groups, lower WHR and higher FFM were achieved in higher tertiles (P < 0.05). Also, those at the higher tertile of the moderate FODMAP group had significantly higher BMR than other tertiles (P = 0.04). Also, as shown in Table 1, male subjects consumed higher amounts of moderate and low FODMAP foods (P < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). Table 2 compares biochemical variables in high, moderate, and low FODMAP groups in crude and energy, age, gender, physical activity, and BMI-adjusted models. No significant association was observed in high, moderate, and low FODMAP groups. Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the odds of biochemical variables in second and third tertiles versus first in the high, moderate, and low FODMAP groups of food items. In the high FODMAP group (Table 3), individuals in the third tertile of the high FODMAP group were more likely to have higher SBP and DBP than those in the first tertile (P < 0.05) in crude and age, sex-adjusted models. Also, higher serum insulin levels, HOMA-IR, and lower QUICKI in the second tertile versus the first tertile of the high FODMAP group were observed. In the moderate FODMAP group (Table 4), those at the second tertile were less likely to have higher SBP than the first tertile (OR = 0.954; CI = 0.919–0.991; P = 0.01) in the fully-adjusted model. No significant association was observed for the low FODMAP group (Table 5) for biochemical variables in multinomial logistic regression models. Tables 6 and 7 compare dietary macronutrients, and some of the micronutrients and food groups across different tertiles of dietary low, moderate, and high FODMAP groups. As expected, there was an increase in almost all of the food ingredients and food groups in different tertiles of dietary low, moderate, and high FODMAP groups.
Table 1
Anthropometric measurements of study participants across different tertiles of High FODMAP, Moderate FODMAP and Low FODMAP intake
Variables
High FODMAP (0.02–1.22g/ kcal)
Moderate FODMAP
(0.03–0.39 g/ kcal)
Low FODMAP
(0.13–2.96 g/ kcal)
1st tertile (n = 113)
2nd tertile (n = 113)
3rd tertile (n = 113)
*P
1st tertile (n = 113)
2nd tertile (n = 113)
3rd tertile (n = 113)
*P
1st tertile (n = 113)
2nd tertile (n = 113)
3rd tertile (n = 113)
*P
Age (year)
39.30 (7.93)
40.72 (9.39)
41.84 (10.01)
0.11
41.30 (9.40)
40.71 (9.42)
39.92 (8.72)
0.52
40.01 (10.04)
41.20 (8.14)
40.71 (9.29)
0.62
SES
9.96 (2.62)
10.00 (2.54)
10.02 (2.20)
0.09
9.63 (2.70)
10.56 (2.18)
9.83 (2.50)
0.11
9.89 (2.73)
9.51 (2.26)
10.41(2.46)
0.12
Education (≤ 12 y)
73 (92.4)
59 (93.7)
41 (93.2)
0.75**
59 (90.8)
49 (96.1)
65 (91.6)
0.66**
56 (94.9)
54 (90.0)
63 (92.6)
0.87**
Marital status (% Single)
15 (13.3)
13 (11.5)
17 (15.0)
0.72**
10 (8.8)
18 (15.8)
17 (15.0)
0.43**
12 (10.6)
13 (11.4)
20 (17.7)
0.15**
Gender (%Male)
66 (58.4)
70 (61.9)
60 (53.1)
0.39**
52 (46.0)
72 (63.2)
72 (63.7)
 < 0.001**
55 (48.7)
64 (56.1)
77 (68.1)
0.01**
Weight (kg)
92.59 (13.31)
92.72 (14.28)
90.89 (15.86)
0.57
90.10 (15.76)
91.85 (14.29)
94.34 (13.12)
0.08
90.67 (15.60)
92.76 (14.43)
92.86 (13.40)
0.43
Height (cm)
167.74 (9.64)
168.57 (10.20)
167.66 (9.80)
0.74
166.04 (10.41)
169.15 (8.96)
168.66 (9.99)
0.03
167.1 (10.12)
168.25 (10.32)
168.45 (9.17)
0.57
BMI (kg/m2)
32.97 (4.50)
32.57 (4.48)
32.32 (5.42)
0.59
32.72 (5.32)
32.007 (4.24)
33.24 (4.85)
0.15
32.43 (4.83)
32.86 (5.26)
32.66 (4.40)
0.79
WC (cm)
106.95 (9.69)
106.77 (9.17)
106.32 (10.13)
0.88
105.35 (10.54)
106.61 (8.69)
108.17 (9.50)
0.08
105.33 (9.38)
107.03 (9.92)
107.77 (9.55)
0.15
HC (cm)
115.27 (9.16)
115.30 (9.16)
113.96 (9.44)
0.52
115.69 (9.39)
113.36 (8.14)
115.65 (9.99)
0.12
114.93 (8.84)
115.42 (10.56)
114.30 (8.16)
0.69
WHR
0.93 (0.08)
0.93 (0.07)
0.93 (0.07)
0.95
0.91 (0.08)
0.94 (0.07)
0.94 (0.07)
0.01
0.91 (0.082)
0.93 (0.081)
0.94 (0.061)
0.03
FM (kg)
33.44 (8.24)
32.57 (8.94)
35.97 (10.53)
0.15
35.33 (9.88)
31.47 (6.98)
34.09 (9.54)
0.74
35.34 (8.94)
34.41 (9.86)
31.92 (8.40)
0.08
FFM (kg)
61.98 (12.95)
63.78 (11.78)
60.54 (12.14)
0.37
58.19 (12.89)
65.35 (11.89)
63.73 (11.32)
 < 0.001
58.57 (12.50)
63.28 (11.64)
64.59 (12.26)
0.01
BMR (kcal)
7887.26 (1509.45)
8088.85 (1377.80)
7601.78 (1856.96)
0.28
7460.01 (1521.28)
8137.96 (1799.19)
8014.65 (1517.24)
0.04
7518.41 (1477.33)
7943.76 (1581.95)
8077.37 (1738.17)
0.13
All data are mean (± SD) except marital status and gender, that is presented as the number and percent of single and males respectively in each group
BMI Body mass index, WC Waist Circumference, FM Fat Mass, FFM Fat Free Mass, WHR Waist-to-hip ratio, BMR Basal Metabolic Rate, SES Socio-economic status
*P values derived from One-Way ANOVA
**P values derived from chi-squared test
Table 2
Biochemical parameters of study participants across different tertiles of High FODMAP, Moderate FODMAP and Low FODMAP intake
Variables
High FODMAP
(0.02–1.22g/ kcal)
Moderate FODMAP
(0.03–0.39 g/ kcal)
Low FODMAP
(0.13–2.96 g/ kcal)
1st tertile (n = 113)
2nd tertile (n = 113)
3rd tertile (n = 113)
*P
**P
1st Tertile(n = 113)
2nd tertile (n = 113)
3rd tertile (n = 113)
*P
**P
1st Tertile (n = 113)
2nd tertile (n = 113)
3rd tertile (n = 113)
*P
**P
SBP (mmHg)
119.84 (14.29)
122.18 (18.23)
126.29 (15.91)
0.01
0.46
123.59 (14.60)
123.03 (14.65)
121.92 (19.67)
0.742
0.13
121.69 (17.77)
123.93 (14.56)
122.91 (16.90)
0.59
0.33
DBP (mmHg)
80.19 (10.35)
81.07 (13.23)
83.40 (10.70)
0.09
0.61
82.30 (11.07)
82.03 (10.47)
80.67 (13.43)
0.535
0.60
80.69 (13.00)
83.28 (11.16)
81.01 (10.80)
0.19
0.08
TC (mg/dL)
188.12 (35.02)
196.05 (35.69)
190.92 (39.08)
0.25
0.81
192.14 (39.06)
191.33 (36.28)
191.92 (34.89)
0.985
0.36
193.07 (37.36)
193.18 (39.47)
189.14 (33.04)
0.64
0.65
TG (mg/dL)
141.75 (81.28)
146.31 (90.17)
164.61 (105.93)
0.15
0.79
139.48 (68.29)
159.57 (112.84)
153.73 (92.28)
0.25
0.10
147.90 (100.26)
165.35 (108.85)
139.55 (62.69)
0.10
0.24
HDL-C (mg/dL)
45.25 (8.94)
45.88 (9.36)
44.70 (9.89)
0.64
0.46
46.33 (9.66)
44.13 (9.26)
45.33 (9.18)
0.20
0.11
45.47 (9.22)
45.19 (10.11)
45.12 (8.85)
0.95
0.75
LDL-C (mg/dL)
120.46 (31.48)
126.65 (32.15)
123.55 (32.14)
0.34
0.85
124.99 (33.21)
123.67 (30.15)
122.26 (32.56)
0.81
0.70
126.48 (33.20)
124.18 (33.31)
120.26 (29.02)
0.33
0.84
Glucose (mg/dL)
91.95 (13.25)
92.89 (16.84)
93.14 (25.80)
0.89
0.33
92.57 (14.30)
89.80 (13.32)
95.90 (27.04)
0.05
0.14
91.14 (12.24)
92.80 (17.86)
94.29 (25.62)
0.47
0.78
Insulin (µIU/mL)
16.35 (16.50)
16.25 (9.75)
15.37 (13.07)
0.88
0.12
16.86 (11.33)
13.88 (7.17)
17.04 (18.58)
0.26
0.70
16.07 (10.50)
18.43 (18.86)
13.62 (8.00)
0.06
0.50
HOMA-IR
3.72 (3.59)
3.82 (2.51)
3.64 (3.49)
0.94
0.14
3.92 (2.94)
3.05 (1.68)
4.14 (4.28)
0.08
0.34
3.69 (2.63)
4.24 (4.17)
3.27 (2.51)
0.14
0.84
QUICKI
0.32 (0.03)
0.32 (0.02)
0.33 (0.04)
0.10
0.11
0.32 (0.03)
0.33 (0.03)
0.32 (0.03)
0.50
0.73
0.33 (0.04)
0.32 (0.03)
0.33 (0.03)
0.28
0.54
SBP Systolic Blood Pressure, DBP Diastolic Blood Pressure, TC Total Cholesterol, TG Triglyceride, HDL-C High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, LDL-C Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, HOMA-IR Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance, QUICKI Quantitative Insulin sensitivity Check Index
*P values derived from One-Way ANOVA
**P values derived from ANCOVA after adjustment for confounders (age, gender, BMI, physical activity and energy intake)
Table 3
Biochemical variables of study participants by tertiles of high FODMAP
Variable
Tertile of High FODMAP
1st (N=112)
2nd (N=111)
3rd (N=112)
OR(CI)
P-value
OR(CI)
P-value
SBP (mmHg)
 Model I
1 REF
1.009 (0.993–1.025)
0.28
1.026 (1.008–1.044)
0.004
 Model II
1.006 (0.989–1.023)
0.48
1.025 (1.006–1.044)
0.009
 Model III
1.006 (0.978–1.035)
0.69
1.017 (0.982- 1.053)
0.33
DBP (mmHg)
 Model I
1 REF
1.006 (0.984–1.029)
0.57
1.025 (1.002–1.050)
0.03
 Model II
1.003 (0.979–1.0262)
0.83
1.021 (0.996–1.047)
0.098
 Model III
0.993 (0.959–1.028)
0.68
0.988 (0.946–1.032)
0.58
FBS (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
1.003 (0.989–1.017)
0.70
1.003 (0.989–1.018)
0.64
 Model II
1.001 (0.964–1.039)
0.96
1.004 (0.970–1.039)
0.82
 Model III
1.005 (0.985–1.026)
0.61
1.015 (0.993–1.037)
0.17
TC (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
1.019 (0.982–1.057)
0.32
1.002 (0.977–1.028)
0.85
 Model II
1.021 (0.983–1.060)
0.29
1.004 (0.979–1.030)
0.75
 Model III
0.999 (0.988–1.009)
0.78
0.996 (0.982–1.009)
0.50
TG (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
0.995 (0.987–1.003)
0.18
0.998 (0.992–1.004)
0.52
 Model II
0.994 (0.987–1.002)
0.16
0.998 (0.991–1.004)
0.47
 Model III
0.999 (0.988–1.009)
0.78
0.996 (0.982–1.009)
0.50
HDL (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
1.007 (0.980–1.035)
0.61
0.995 (0.967–1.023)
0.71
 Model II
1.009 (0.980–1.037)
0.55
0.992 (0.964–1.021)
0.60
 Model III
0.983 (0.943–1.024)
0.40
0.972 (0.923–1.024)
0.28
LDL (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
1.006 (0.998–1.015)
0.14
1.003 (0.995–1.012)
0.46
 Model II
1.006 (0.997–1.014)
0.17
1.002 (0.994–1.011)
0.58
 Model III
1.000 (0.988–1.012)
0.99
0.995 (0.981–1.010)
0.51
Insulin (mIU/l)
 Model I
1 REF
1.000 (0.978–1.021)
0.96
0.994 (0.970–1.019)
0.64
 Model II
0.998 (0.977–1.020)
0.86
0.990 (0.965–1.015)
0.42
 Model III
1.041 (1.001–1.083)
0.04
1.010 (0.959–1.063)
0.71
HOMA-IR
 Model I
1 REF
1.010 (0.922–1.106)
0.83
0.993 (0.899–1.096)
0.88
 Model II
1.003 (0.915–1.099)
0.95
0.973 (0.878–1.078)
0.59
 Model III
1.159 (1.101-.1.351)
0.049
1.113 (0.919–1.348)
0.27
QUICKI
 Model I
1 REF
0.028 (3.890E-6–204.461)
0.43
3873.747 (0.002–6453005815)
0.25
 Model II
0.032 (3.437E-6–296.630)
0.46
338.839 (0.077–1494435.114)
0.17
 Model III
9.866E-7 (1.558E-12–0.625)
0.04
0.010 (3.245E-9–28934.052)
0.54
The multivariate multinomial logistic regression was used for estimation of ORs and confidence interval (CI). Model I: crude, Model II: adjusted for age and sex, Model III: adjusted for age, BMI, sex, SES, physical activity and energy intake
SBP Systolic Blood Pressure, DBP Diastolic Blood Pressure, TC Total Cholesterol, TG Triglyceride, HDL-C High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, LDL-C Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, HOMA-IR Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance, QUICKI Quantitative Insulin sensitivity Check Index, OR Odds ratio, CI Confidence interval
Table 4
Biochemical variables of study participants by tertile of moderate FODMAP
Variable
Tertile of Moderate FODMAP
1st (N=112)
2nd (N=111)
3rd (N=112)
OR(CI)
P-value
OR(CI)
P-value
SBP (mmHg)
 Model I
1 REF
0.998 (0.982–1.014)
0.79
0.994 (0.978–1.010)
0.44
 Model II
0.995 (0.978–1.012)
0.56
0.992 (0.975–1.010)
0.37
 Model III
0.954 (0.919–0.991)
0.01
0.975 (0.940–1.012)
0.17
DBP (mmHg)
 Model I
1 REF
0.998 (0.976–1.021)
0.86
0.988 (0.966–1.011)
0.29
 Model II
0.997 (0.973–1.021)
0.79
0.988 (0.965–1.012)
0.33
 Model III
0.982 (0.942–1.024)
0.39
0.998 (0.957–1.040)
0.92
FBS (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
0.987 (0.969–1.005)
0.16
1.008 (0.994–1.022)
0.26
 Model II
0.987 (0.968–1.006)
0.16
1.008 (0.994–1.024)
0.26
 Model III
0.987 (0.957–1.017)
0.37
1.007 (0.983–1.032)
0.55
TC (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
0.999 (0.992–1.007)
0.86
1.000 (0.993–1.007)
0.96
 Model II
1.000 (0.992–1.007)
0.90
1.000 (0.993–1.008)
0.93
 Model III
0.999 (0.986–1.012)
0.87
1.009 (0.995–1.022)
0.19
TG (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
1.003 (0.999–1.006)
0.10
1.002 (0.999–1.005)
0.22
 Model II
1.002 (0.999–1.005)
0.19
1.001 (0.998–1.005)
0.35
 Model III
1.000 (0.992–1.009)
0.94
1.007 (0.998–1.015)
0.11
HDL (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
0.975 (0.948–1.003)
0.07
0 .990 (0.963–1.018)
0.47
 Model II
0.980 (0.953–1.009)
0.17
0.996 (0.968–1.024)
0.77
 Model III
0.949 (0.900–1.003)
0.051
0.982 (0.932–1.035)
0.50
LDL (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
0.999 (0.991–1.007)
0.75
0.997 (0.989–1.006)
0.52
 Model II
0.999 (0.991–1.007)
0.78
0.998 (0.989–1.006)
0.57
 Model III
1.003 (0.989–1.017)
0.71
1.007 (0.9931.022)
0.33
Insulin (mIU/l)
 Model I
1 REF
0.976(0.946–1.007)
0.12
1.001 (0.981–1.021)
0.93
 Model II
0.979 (0.949–1.010)
0.19
1.003 (0.983–1.024)
0.77
 Model III
0.977 (0.928–1.028)
0.37
0.995(0.945–1.048)
0.84
HOMA-IR
 Model I
1 REF
0.872 (0.761–1.000)
0.05
1.018 (0.935–1.108)
0.68
 Model II
0.885 (0.772–1.016)
0.08
1.030 (0.943 -1.125)
0.51
 Model III
0.901 (0.735–1.104)
0.31
1.048 (0.871–1.260)
0.62
QUICKI
 Model I
1 REF
138.934 (0.026–751509.010)
0.26
3.388 (0.001–17835.160)
0.78
 Model II
63.428 (0.011–367537.748)
0.34
1.649 (0.000–9463.304)
0.91
 Model III
649.660 (0.000–3465157205.655)
0.41
1.091 (9.545E-8–12470267.859)
0.99
The multivariate multinomial logistic regression was used for estimation of ORs and confidence interval (CI). Model I: crude, Model II: adjusted for age and sex, Model III: adjusted for age, BMI, sex, SES, physical activity and energy intake
SBP Systolic Blood Pressure, DBP Diastolic Blood Pressure, TC Total Cholesterol, TG Triglyceride, HDL-C High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, LDL-C Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, HOMA-IR Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance, QUICKI Quantitative Insulin sensitivity Check Index, OR Odds ratio, CI Confidence interval
Table 5
Biochemical variables of study participants by tertile of low FODMAP
Variable
Tertile of Low FODMAP
1st (N=112)
2nd (N=111)
3rd (N=112)
OR(CI)
P-value
OR(CI)
P-value
SBP (mmHg)
 Model I
1 REF
1.008 (0.992–1.025)
0.30
1.004 (0.989–1.021)
0.58
 Model II
1.005 (0.988–1.023)
0.58
0.999 (0.982–1.016)
0.92
 Model III
1.007 (0.976–1.039)
0.67
0.990 (0.956–1.026)
0.59
DBP (mmHg)
 Model I
1 REF
1.020 (0.997–1.043)
0.09
1.002 (0.980–1.025)
0.83
 Model II
1.017 (0.993–1.042)
0.17
0.998 (0.975–1.022)
0.86
 Model III
1.031 (0.992–1.072)
0.12
1.027 (0.984–1.071)
0.22
FBS (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
1.006 (0.990–1.022)
0.46
1.009 (0.994–1.025)
0.23
 Model II
1.005 (0.989–1.022)
0.54
1.008 (0.992–1.024)
0.31
 Model III
1.006 (0.979–1.033)
0.66
1.009 (0.981–1.037)
0.54
TC (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
1.000 (0.993–1.007)
0.98
0.997 (0.990–1.004)
0.42
 Model II
1.015 (0.985–1.045)
0.335
0.996 (0.989–1.004)
0.33
 Model III
1.006 (0.993–1.018)
0.38
1.004 (0.991–1.018)
0.51
TG (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
1.002 (0.999–1.005)
0.19
0.999 (0.996–1.002)
0.44
 Model II
1.000 (0.997–1.004)
0.32
0.998 (0.994–1.001)
0.16
 Model III
1.007 (0.999–1.015)
0.10
1.004 (0.996–1.013)
0.30
HDL (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
0.997 (0.970–1.025)
0.82
0.997 (0.970–1.025)
0.83
 Model II
1.000 (0.972–1.028)
0.97
1.004 (0.976–1.033)
0.76
 Model III
0.990 (0.945–1.036)
0.65
0.999 (0.950–1.050)
0.95
LDL (mg/dl)
 Model I
1 REF
0.990 (0.954–1.028)
0.60
1.002 (0.976–1.030)
0.85
 Model II
0.997 (0.989–1.005)
0.51
0.993 (0.985–1.002)
0.11
 Model III
1.003 (0.990–1.017)
0.62
1.003 (0.989–1.018)
0.68
Insulin (mIU/l)
 Model I
1 REF
1.011 (0.988–1.035)
0.34
0.975 (0.944–1.007)
0.12
 Model II
1.011 (0.987–1.037)
0.37
0.978 (0.946–1.011)
0.19
 Model III
0.986 (0.942–1.032)
0.55
0.959 (0.910–1.011)
0.12
HOMA-IR
 Model I
1 REF
1.047 (0.953–1.151)
0.33
0.941 (0.834–1.062)
0.32
 Model II
1.047 (0.947–1.157)
0.36
0.950 (0.840–1.075)
0.41
 Model III
0.956 (0.809–1.129)
0.59
0.918 (0.758–1.112)
0.38
QUICKI
 Model I
1 REF
0.007 (8.253E-7–52.461)
0.27
6.835 (.002–28120.029)
0.65
 Model II
0.005 (5.607E-7–42.133)
0.25
3.065 (.001–16848.704)
0.79
 Model III
0.030 (1.213E-8–73209.130)
0.64
26.691 (6.507E-6–109485962.649)
0.67
The multivariate multinomial logistic regression was used for estimation of ORs and confidence interval (CI). Model I: crude, Model II: adjusted for age and sex, Model III: adjusted for age, BMI, sex, SES, physical activity and energy intake
SBP Systolic Blood Pressure, DBP Diastolic Blood Pressure, TC Total Cholesterol, TG Triglyceride, HDL-C High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, LDL-C Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, HOMA-IR Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance, QUICKI Quantitative Insulin sensitivity Check Index, OR Odds ratio, CI Confidence interval
Table 6
Dietary intake of participants across different tertiels of High FODMAP, Moderate FODMAP and Low FODMAP intake
Variables
High FODMAP
(0.02–1.22g/ kcal)
Moderate FODMAP
(0.03–0.39 g/ kcal)
Low FODMAP
(0.13–2.96 g/ kcal)
T1 (n = 113)
T2 (n = 113)
T3 (n = 113)
*P
T1 (n = 113)
T2 (n = 113)
T3 (n = 113)
*P
T1 (n = 113)
T2 (n = 113)
T3 (n = 113)
*P
Energy (kcal/day)
2394.15 (752.22)
2965.64 (922.67)
3680.23 (1172.71)
 < 0.001
2300.23 (751.17)
3008.89 (916.42)
3746.94 (1083.18)
 < 0.001
2410.52 (729.82)
2965.82 (908.69)
3685.71 (1208.14)
 < 0.001
Protein (g/day)
77.01 (22.75)
98.46 (28.21)
123.49 (41.96)
 < 0.001
75.84 (22.20)
102.32 (36.55)
121.08 (35.92)
 < 0.001
82.64 (25.90)
98.63 (31.59)
118.12 (43.16)
 < 0.001
Fat (g/day)
81.60 (36.58)
98.72 (42.19)
120.20 (52.59)
 < 0.001
79.53 (41.09)
99.72 (41.94)
122.27 (48.30)
 < 0.001
81.57 (34.49)
99.72 (44.10)
120.41 (53.10)
 < 0.001
CHO (g/day)
352.55 (119.67)
442.29 (136.67)
559.35 (180.87)
 < 0.001
338.42 (119.25)
449.61 (132.09)
567.67 (170.38)
 < 0.001
355.19 (109.01)
441.69 (141.90)
559.79 (184.85)
 < 0.001
Total Fiber (g/day)
55.08 (30.99)
68.30 (41.05)
74.55 (40.66)
0.01
40.39 (13.18)
59.03 (19.01)
98.65 (46.40)
 < 0.001
47.78 (20.13)
62.05 (29.38)
88.78 (48.74)
 < 0.001
SFA (g/day)
21.71 (9.01)
27.98 (10.29)
38.16 (18.72)
 < 0.001
23.56 (12.93)
29.78 (13.37)
34.65 (16.39)
 < 0.001
24.61 (11.45)
28.93 (14.26)
34.49 (17.14)
 < 0.001
MUFA (g/day)
27.91 (14.18)
32.71 (16.23)
38.77 (17.40)
 < 0.001
26.68 (14.78)
32.70 (14.34)
40.44 (17.92)
 < 0.001
27.35 (12.20)
32.67 (16.00)
39.86 (18.93)
 < 0.001
PUFA(g/day)
20.18 (11.49)
22.59 (13.20)
24.64 (14.10)
0.37
17.55 (10.62)
22.20 (12.49)
28.05 (14.31)
 < 0.001
17.88 (8.54)
21.97 (12.17)
28.01 (16.04)
 < 0.001
Cholesterol (mg/day)
262.46 (260.87)
286.28 (146.88)
342.17 (165.04)
0.08
262.14 (250.77)
291.23 (152.06)
336.79 (175.81)
0.01
256.15 (248.76)
295.91 (153.92)
338.51 (175.69)
0.08
Sodium (mg/day)
4018.01 (1494.22)
4948.49 (2501.65)
5093.06 (2435.91)
 < 0.001
3392.70 (1425.93)
4692.32 (1891.29)
5980.32 (2460.93)
 < 0.001
3817.03 (1582.76)
4462.57 (1715.54)
5805.45 (2759.34)
 < 0.001
Iron (mg/day)
20.21 (11.69)
23.64 (8.43)
27.45 (10.74)
 < 0.001
16.61 (4.98)
23.51 (10.87)
31.28 (9.91)
 < 0.001
18.39 (5.34)
23.83 (11.77)
29.28 (11.11)
 < 0.001
Magnesium (mg/day)
414.79 (153.80)
531.24 (161.59)
683.27 (275.09)
 < 0.001
393.90 (132.45)
561.92 (235.92)
675.29 (219.48)
 < 0.001
424.36 (142.20)
524.93 (156.10)
683.99 (288.95)
 < 0.001
Zinc (mg/day)
11.27 (3.97)
14.53 (4.30)
18.59 (9.04)
 < 0.001
10.86 (3.62)
15.51 (7.94)
18.04 (6.33)
 < 0.001
11.99 (3.84)
14.32 (4.72)
18.14 (9.33)
 < 0.001
Phosphorus (mg/day)
1329.29 (388.43)
1780.02 (477.14)
2307.49 (682.05)
 < 0.001
1357.86 (420.84)
1864.23 (627.61)
2195.72 (626.44)
 < 0.001
1492.36 (490.30)
1780.78 (558.87)
2149.71 (745.55)
 < 0.001
Calcium (mg/day)
863.28 (276.11)
1245.52 (361.30)
1761.90 (599.67)
 < 0.001
963.32 (399.33)
1316.35 (567.03)
1591.79 (540.91)
 < 0.001
1042.95 (425.20)
1272.72 (488.78)
1560.10 (649.40)
 < 0.001
Potassium (mg/day)
3205.38 (1022.82)
4504.79 (1095.49)
6534.92 (2182.49)
 < 0.001
3753.55 (1636.09)
4894.63 (1938.79)
5586.84 (1221.20)
 < 0.001
3763.87 (1570.68)
4570.17 (1575.04)
5919.11 (2318.83)
 < 0.001
Copper (mg/day)
1.97 (0.93)
2.46 (1.00)
2.98 (1.27)
0.008
1.75 (0.71)
2.45 (1.01)
3.22 (1.17)
 < 0.001
1.91 (0.62)
2.41 (0.88)
3.12 (1.46)
 < 0.001
Manganese (mg/day)
8.04 (3.94)
9.17 (3.50)
9.58 (3.89)
 < 0.001
6.19 (2.17)
9.09 (3.11)
11.54 (3.90)
 < 0.001
6.28 (2.19)
8.50 (2.48)
12.11 (4.00)
 < 0.001
Selenium (mg/day)
133.37 (57.09)
157.12 (59.23)
166.01 (65.69)
 < 0.001
105.58 (38.08)
150.50 (39.92)
200.83 (63.08)
 < 0.001
124.31 (46.65)
148.40 (55.92)
184.81 (67.08)
 < 0.001
Fluorine (mg/day)
3478.65 (3660.77)
3351.47 (2421.67)
3563.03 (2982.08)
0.78
2861.04 (2406.17)
3618.24 (3817.32)
3905.10 (2699.92)
0.02
1408.95 (793.45)
2894.18 (1061.32)
6125.63 (3857.18)
 < 0.001
Chromium (mg/day)
0.13 (0.11)
0.17 (0.12)
0.16 (0.11)
0.05
0.08 (0.05)
0.16 (0.08)
0.22 (0.14)
 < 0.001
0.12 (0.09)
0.15 (0.10)
0.19 (0.14)
 < 0.001
Vitamin C (mg/day)
126.97 (89.40)
217.94 (117.76)
374.54 (208.92)
 < 0.001
198.48 (173.16)
244.51 (159.96)
276.30 (195.16)
0.04
192.90 (144.29)
238.48 (157.80)
288.69 (216.38)
 < 0.001
VitaminB1 (mg/day)
2.24 (0.84)
2.65 (1.04)
2.96 (1.16)
 < 0.001
1.78 (0.46)
2.55 (0.66)
3.53 (1.09)
 < 0.001
2.04 (0.62)
2.55 (0.87)
3.28 (1.21)
 < 0.001
VitaminB2 (mg/day)
1.89 (0.75)
2.51 (0.76)
3.27 (1.06)
 < 0.001
1.89 (0.67)
2.60 (0.93)
3.19 (1.02)
 < 0.001
2.05 (0.72)
2.52 (0.93)
3.12 (1.12)
 < 0.001
VitaminB3 (mg/day)
24.93 (8.35)
29.89 (10.70)
33.66 (12.14)
 < 0.001
21.20 (5.78)
29.35 (7.62)
38.03 (11.61)
 < 0.001
23.78 (7.21)
28.99 (9.29)
35.92 (12.59)
 < 0.001
VitaminB6 (mg/day)
1.77 (0.72)
2.24 (0.61)
2.97 (0.91)
 < 0.001
1.76 (0.58)
2.43 (0.89)
2.80 (0.88)
 < 0.001
1.88 (0.64)
2.33 (0.81)
2.78 (1.00)
 < 0.001
VitaminB9 (μg/day)
608.40 (213.10)
723.97 (287.16)
830.78 (323.58)
 < 0.001
530.98 (147.63)
689.68 (195.77)
944.26 (329.74)
 < 0.001
4.18 (2.96)
5.18 (6.07)
6.68 (7.71)
 < 0.001
VitaminB12 (μg/day)
4.19 (7.03)
5.20 (5.45)
6.64 (5.07)
 < 0.001
4.20 (4.74)
5.88 (7.32)
5.94 (5.47)
0.04
5.80 (1.95)
6.81 (2.19)
8.04 (2.70)
0.07
VitaminB5 (mg/day)
4.97 (1.42)
6.68 (1.52)
8.97 (2.46)
 < 0.001
5.53 (1.93)
7.12 (2.30)
7.98 (2.50)
 < 0.001
5.80 (1.95)
6.81 (2.19)
8.04 (2.70)
 < 0.001
VitaminB8 (mg/day)
29.47 (12.04)
40.92 (13.50)
54.35 (19.32)
 < 0.001
31.03 (11.81)
42.17 (15.34)
51.44 (20.60)
 < 0.001
35.13 (16.55)
40.45 (14.30)
49.17 (20.85)
 < 0.001
Vitamin A (RAE/day)
665.47 (707.01)
830.55 (545.97)
1204 (682.61)
 < 0.001
712.79 (544.46)
927.92 (745.26)
1065.15 (708.63)
 < 0.001
727.32 (461.78)
874.49 (658.81)
1107.22 (836.46)
 < 0.001
Vitamin D (μg/day)
1.27 (0.80)
1.92 (1.26)
2.92 (1.79)
 < 0.001
1.85 (1.36)
2.14 (1.57)
2.03 (1.50)
0.29
1.87 (1.45)
2.07 (1.53)
2.15 (1.53)
0.34
Vitamin K (μg/day)
185.36 (155.17)
224.39 (153.78)
336.66 (323.78)
 < 0.001
200.88 (162.96)
228.40 (167.97)
328.50 (340.42)
 < 0.001
199.73 (168.96)
257.46 (215.20)
301.90 (317.70)
0.07
Vitamin E (mg/day)
13.98 (7.98)
16.16 (8.38)
18.26 (7.64)
 < 0.001
13.33 (7.78)
15.63 (7.02)
19.71 (8.80)
 < 0.001
13.21 (6.60)
16.25 (8.79)
19.28 (8.32)
 < 0.001
All data are mean (± SD)
CHO Carbohydrate, SFA Saturated fatty acids, MUFA Mono-unsaturated fatty acids, PUFA Polyunsaturated fatty acids
*P values derived from One-Way ANOVA
Table 7
Food groups intake of study participants across different tertiels of High FODMAP, Moderate FODMAP and Low FODMAP intake
Variables
High FODMAP
(0.02–1.22 g/ kcal)
Moderate FODMAP
(0.03–0.39 g/ kcal)
Low FODMAP
(0.13–2.96 g/ kcal)
T1 (n = 113)
T2 (n = 113)
T3 (n = 113)
*P
T1 (n = 113)
T2 (n = 113)
T3 (n = 113)
*P
T1 (n = 113)
T2 (n = 113)
T3 (n = 113)
*P
Fruits (g/d)
2.90 (3.18)
4.28 (2.45)
6.30 (2.70)
 < 0.001
3.46 (2.27)
4.77 (4.11)
4.36 (2.89)
0.06
3.30 (1.99)
4.34 (3.32)
4.76 (3.58)
0.02
Vegetables (g/d)
2.95 (1.54)
3.65 (1.46)
5.75 (3.09)
 < 0.001
1.58 (0.19)
3.64 (1.57)
4.78 (2.81)
 < 0.001
3.06 (1.81)
3.73 (1.55)
4.67 (2.83)
 < 0.001
MFP (g/d)
2.78 (1.53)
3.22 (1.70)
4.13 (1.93)
 < 0.001
2.69 (1.21)
3.60 (1.95)
3.51 (1.91)
 < 0.001
2.84 (1.49)
3.24 (1.64)
3.61 (1.99)
0.04
Dairy (g/d)
1.13 (0.48)
2.14 (0.80)
3.70 (1.29)
 < 0.001
1.89 (1.13)
2.27 (1.56)
2.10 (1.25)
0.30
1.88 (1.40)
2.12 (1.20)
2.20 (1.31)
0.36
Grains (g/d)
13.14 (5.78)
15.37 (7.18)
14.46 (8.22)
0.15
8.32 (2.90)
13.90 (3.67)
19.88 (6.75)
 < 0.001
10.62 (4.34)
13.67 (6.22)
17.99 (7.60)
 < 0.001
Nuts(g/day)
11.63 (20.13)
14.33 (15.06)
25.94 (65.62)
0.02
11.94 (19.98)
21.73 (55.33)
18.10 (38.97)
0.19
11.52 (14.12)
15.94 (21.72)
24.36 (65.53)
0.049
Beans(g/day)
0.55 (0.39)
0.87 (0.89)
0.89 (0.78)
 < 0.001
0.63 (0.55)
0.70 (0.58)
0.87 (0.87)
0.12
0.62 (0.52)
0.69 (0.40)
0.89 (0.98)
0.09
Fiber (g/day)
61.10 (33.26)
78.37 (45.27)
82.37 (54.80)
0.01
38.97 (10.94)
65.25 (19.86)
107.00 (49.39)
 < 0.001
50.63 (23.14)
67.45 (34.45)
95.29 (53.92)
 < 0.001
All data are mean (± SD)
MFP Meat, fish and poultry
*P values derived from One-Way ANOVA

Discussion

To our knowledge, this research was the first to examine the relationship between high, moderate, and low FODMAP diets and MetS risk factors among people with obesity in Tabriz and Tehran, Iran. Before this study, another similar study was conducted at the Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH) of the Chinese University of Hong Kong on individuals with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) [10]. This study found that participants with IGT had the lowest daily FODMAP intake compared to their non-overweight and non-obese counterparts, despite having similar total daily energy intake. The total content of FODMAPs was negatively correlated with body fat [10]. This study found that higher consumption of moderate FODMAP and low FODMAP groups was associated with lower WHR and higher FFM. To explain this association, we have proposed the following hypothesis: a moderate increase in FODMAP consumption was linked to an absolute rise and a relative abundance of microbiota that produce SCFAs [4143]. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ (PPAR-γ) is a transcription factor whose activity can be modulated by SCFA in this. In addition to reducing ectopic fat buildup and improving lipid and glucose metabolism, the latter may also control adipocyte differentiation [44, 45].
Additionally, these bacterial metabolites can stimulate the sympathetic nervous system and restore the activity of gastrointestinal and endocrine cells by increasing the secretion of gut hormones like PYY, GLP-1, and cholecystokinin (CKK). Examples of these metabolites include Akkermansia muciniphila phospholipids. Gluconeogenesis, glycogenolysis, and lipolysis from adipose tissues can all be systemically regulated by these changes in the metabolic and hormonal milieu [46, 47]. Additionally, these hormones may act on the brain-gut axis to control food consumption by enhancing epigastric fullness and satiety [48, 49]. Animal [50, 51] and human trials [52, 53] revealed an inverse relationship between body fat content and Akkermansia muciniphila. From these explanations, high amounts of low and moderate FODMAP foods may be associated with better lipid and glucose metabolism and lower food intake. Therefore, individuals with this condition may have a higher FFM and a lower WHR.
The relationship between high amounts of high FODMAP intake and blood pressure did not remain significant after adjusting for age, sex, SES, energy intake, and physical activity. It is shown that with aging [54] and increasing BMI [55], SBP rises. According to the study of Moghaddam et al. [56], the association between dietary patterns and SBP became non-significant after adjusting for age, sex, marital, smoking, income, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, family history of hypertension, energy intake and physical activity level. Another interesting finding of this study was that consuming moderate FODMAP foods was associated with lower SBP, a significant in the second tertile. It is proven that moderate and low FODMAP foods contain high amounts of potassium [57]. In our research of scientific resources, we found that potassium alters the neural mechanisms in either the central or peripheral systems that control blood pressure.
Moreover, potassium-rich diets might lower blood pressure by inducing relaxation in the smooth muscle of blood vessels and directly decreasing resistance in the peripheral vasculature [58]. We showed that higher serum insulin levels, HOMA-IR, and lower QUICKI were observed in individuals consuming higher amounts of high FODMAP foods. Lower values of QUICKI may indicate greater insulin resistance [59], and high HOMA-IR values indicate low insulin sensitivity [60]. In the literature, we found different and even contradictory results. As mentioned, high-FODMAP foods contain high amounts of fructose [61]. Exposure of the liver to high fructose levels induces lipogenesis and TG buildup acceleration, which reduces insulin sensitivity and increases hepatic insulin resistance and glucose intolerance [62].
In contrast, a study showed that, compared to a low FODMAP diet, a 24-h high FODMAP diet in healthy subjects decreased the amount of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) binding protein. It is known that LPS and persistent subclinical inflammation both raise insulin intolerance [63, 64]. The summarized mechanistic pathways of the possible health effects of dietary FODMAP are represented in Fig. 1.

Limitation

This study was a cross-sectional study to assess the association between FODMAP diet and metabolic syndrome. Several limitations of this study should be addressed; first of all, the causality inference is impossible due to the study’s observational design. Therefore, performing clinical trials is suggested which reduces insulin sensitivity and increase dress this issue. Also, using FFQ as a subjective tool to collect dietary information is a matter of recall bias. However, it should be noted that our semi-quantitative FFQ was a valid and reliable tool adopted by the Iranian population.
In conclusion, this study evaluated the association of foods with different amounts of FODMAP and metabolic syndrome in the Iranian population. The findings of this study revealed that consuming low and moderate FODMAP foods is associated with lower WHR, higher FFM, and SBP. Conversely, consuming higher amounts of high-FODMAP foods is associated with insulin resistance. It can be suggested that high-FODMAP foods might be harmful to people with metabolic syndrome. These findings highlight the potential role of FODMAP in managing metabolic syndrome and open a new field of research.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all the study participants for their sincere collaboration. We also thank the Research Undersecretary of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for their financial support (Grant number: 72120).

Source of funding

The work has been granted by the Research Undersecretary of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (Code:IR.TBZMED.REC.1402.330).

Declarations

All subjects provided written informed consent before participating in the study. We confirm that methods were performed by the Declaration of Helsinki’s guidelines and regulations. Also, the legal guardians of the illiterate participants provided written informed consent. The study protocol was approved and registered by the ethics committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (registration code: IR.TBZMED.REC.1402.330).
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Nerkar D, Mukherjee A, Mehta BK, Banerjee S. Metabolic syndrome associated complications. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2015;7(7):22–5. Nerkar D, Mukherjee A, Mehta BK, Banerjee S. Metabolic syndrome associated complications. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2015;7(7):22–5.
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Gallegos-Gonzalez G, Pineda-García G, Serrano-Medina A, Martinez AL, Ochoa-Ruiz E. Association between stress and metabolic syndrome and its mediating factors in university students. Am J Health Behav. 2021;45(6):1091–102.PubMedCrossRef Gallegos-Gonzalez G, Pineda-García G, Serrano-Medina A, Martinez AL, Ochoa-Ruiz E. Association between stress and metabolic syndrome and its mediating factors in university students. Am J Health Behav. 2021;45(6):1091–102.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Lennon L, Morris RW. Metabolic syndrome vs Framingham risk score for prediction of coronary heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2644–50.PubMedCrossRef Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Lennon L, Morris RW. Metabolic syndrome vs Framingham risk score for prediction of coronary heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2644–50.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Engin A. The definition and prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome. In: Obesity and lipotoxicity. 2017. p. 1–17.CrossRef Engin A. The definition and prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome. In: Obesity and lipotoxicity. 2017. p. 1–17.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Guerra ZC, Moore JR, Londoño T, Castro Y. Associations of acculturation and gender with obesity and physical activity among Latinos. Am J Health Behav. 2022;46(3):324–36.PubMedCrossRef Guerra ZC, Moore JR, Londoño T, Castro Y. Associations of acculturation and gender with obesity and physical activity among Latinos. Am J Health Behav. 2022;46(3):324–36.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Locke AE, Kahali B, Berndt SI, Justice AE, Pers TH, Day FR, et al. Genetic studies of body mass index yield new insights for obesity biology. Nature. 2015;518(7538):197–206.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Locke AE, Kahali B, Berndt SI, Justice AE, Pers TH, Day FR, et al. Genetic studies of body mass index yield new insights for obesity biology. Nature. 2015;518(7538):197–206.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Gomes AC, Hoffmann C, Mota JF. The human gut microbiota: metabolism and perspective in obesity. Gut Microbes. 2018;9(4):308–25.PubMedPubMedCentral Gomes AC, Hoffmann C, Mota JF. The human gut microbiota: metabolism and perspective in obesity. Gut Microbes. 2018;9(4):308–25.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Zurück zum Zitat He M, Shi B. Gut microbiota as a potential target of metabolic syndrome: the role of probiotics and prebiotics. Cell Biosci. 2017;7(1):1–14.CrossRef He M, Shi B. Gut microbiota as a potential target of metabolic syndrome: the role of probiotics and prebiotics. Cell Biosci. 2017;7(1):1–14.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Chu NH, He J, Ling J, Leung K, Ma RC, Lee J, et al. Higher habitual FODMAP intake is associated with lower body mass index, lower insulin resistance and higher short-chain fatty acid-producing microbiota in people with prediabetes. bioRxiv. 2022:2022.10. 26.513956. Preprint. Chu NH, He J, Ling J, Leung K, Ma RC, Lee J, et al. Higher habitual FODMAP intake is associated with lower body mass index, lower insulin resistance and higher short-chain fatty acid-producing microbiota in people with prediabetes. bioRxiv. 2022:2022.10. 26.513956. Preprint.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Nanayakkara WS, Skidmore PM, O’Brien L, Wilkinson TJ, Gearry RB. Efficacy of the low FODMAP diet for treating irritable bowel syndrome: the evidence to date. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2016;9:131–42.PubMedPubMedCentral Nanayakkara WS, Skidmore PM, O’Brien L, Wilkinson TJ, Gearry RB. Efficacy of the low FODMAP diet for treating irritable bowel syndrome: the evidence to date. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2016;9:131–42.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Staudacher HM, Whelan K. The low FODMAP diet: recent advances in understanding its mechanisms and efficacy in IBS. Gut. 2017;66(8):1517–27.PubMedCrossRef Staudacher HM, Whelan K. The low FODMAP diet: recent advances in understanding its mechanisms and efficacy in IBS. Gut. 2017;66(8):1517–27.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Guzior DV, Quinn RA. Microbial transformations of human bile acids. Microbiome. 2021;9(1):1–13.CrossRef Guzior DV, Quinn RA. Microbial transformations of human bile acids. Microbiome. 2021;9(1):1–13.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Den Besten G, Van Eunen K, Groen AK, Venema K, Reijngoud D-J, Bakker BM. The role of short-chain fatty acids in the interplay between diet, gut microbiota, and host energy metabolism. J Lipid Res. 2013;54(9):2325–40.CrossRef Den Besten G, Van Eunen K, Groen AK, Venema K, Reijngoud D-J, Bakker BM. The role of short-chain fatty acids in the interplay between diet, gut microbiota, and host energy metabolism. J Lipid Res. 2013;54(9):2325–40.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Crooks B, Stamataki NS, McLaughlin JT. Appetite, the enteroendocrine system, gastrointestinal disease and obesity. Proc Nutr Soc. 2021;80(1):50–8.PubMedCrossRef Crooks B, Stamataki NS, McLaughlin JT. Appetite, the enteroendocrine system, gastrointestinal disease and obesity. Proc Nutr Soc. 2021;80(1):50–8.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Lundgren P, Thaiss CA. The microbiome-adipose tissue axis in systemic metabolism. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2020;318(4):G717–24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Lundgren P, Thaiss CA. The microbiome-adipose tissue axis in systemic metabolism. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2020;318(4):G717–24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Gupta A, Gupta S, Mani R, Durgapal P, Goyal B, Rajput D, et al. Expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, survivin, enhancer of zeste homolog-2, cyclooxygenase-2, p53 and p16 molecular markers in gall bladder carcinoma. J Carcinog. 2021;20:7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gupta A, Gupta S, Mani R, Durgapal P, Goyal B, Rajput D, et al. Expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, survivin, enhancer of zeste homolog-2, cyclooxygenase-2, p53 and p16 molecular markers in gall bladder carcinoma. J Carcinog. 2021;20:7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Hadri Z, Rasoamanana R, Fromentin G, Azzout-Marniche D, Even PC, Gaudichon C, et al. Fructo-oligosaccharides reduce energy intake but do not affect adiposity in rats fed a low-fat diet but increase energy intake and reduce fat mass in rats fed a high-fat diet. Physiol Behav. 2017;182:114–20.PubMedCrossRef Hadri Z, Rasoamanana R, Fromentin G, Azzout-Marniche D, Even PC, Gaudichon C, et al. Fructo-oligosaccharides reduce energy intake but do not affect adiposity in rats fed a low-fat diet but increase energy intake and reduce fat mass in rats fed a high-fat diet. Physiol Behav. 2017;182:114–20.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Dai Z, Feng S, Liu AB, Wang H, Zeng X, Yang CS. Protective effects of α-galacto-oligosaccharides against a high-fat/western-style diet-induced metabolic abnormalities in mice. Food Funct. 2019;10(6):3660–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Dai Z, Feng S, Liu AB, Wang H, Zeng X, Yang CS. Protective effects of α-galacto-oligosaccharides against a high-fat/western-style diet-induced metabolic abnormalities in mice. Food Funct. 2019;10(6):3660–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Hong KB, Kim JH, Kwon HK, Han SH, Park Y, Suh HJ. Evaluation of prebiotic effects of high-purity galactooligosaccharides in vitro and in vivo. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2016;54(2):156.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Hong KB, Kim JH, Kwon HK, Han SH, Park Y, Suh HJ. Evaluation of prebiotic effects of high-purity galactooligosaccharides in vitro and in vivo. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2016;54(2):156.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Canfora EE, van der Beek CM, Hermes GD, Goossens GH, Jocken JW, Holst JJ, et al. Supplementation of diet with galacto-oligosaccharides increases bifidobacteria, but not insulin sensitivity, in obese prediabetic individuals. Gastroenterology. 2017;153(1):87-97. e3.PubMedCrossRef Canfora EE, van der Beek CM, Hermes GD, Goossens GH, Jocken JW, Holst JJ, et al. Supplementation of diet with galacto-oligosaccharides increases bifidobacteria, but not insulin sensitivity, in obese prediabetic individuals. Gastroenterology. 2017;153(1):87-97. e3.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen S, Zhou Z, Ren K. Influence of sports value on adolescent participation and preference of sci-tech experience activities. Rev Psicol Deporte. 2021;30(4):1. Chen S, Zhou Z, Ren K. Influence of sports value on adolescent participation and preference of sci-tech experience activities. Rev Psicol Deporte. 2021;30(4):1.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Xavier J, Farias CP, Soares MSP, Silveira GDO, Spanevello RM, Yonamine M, et al. Ayahuasca prevents oxidative stress in a rat model of depression elicited by unpredictable chronic mild stress. Arch Clin Psychiatry. 2021;48:90–8. Xavier J, Farias CP, Soares MSP, Silveira GDO, Spanevello RM, Yonamine M, et al. Ayahuasca prevents oxidative stress in a rat model of depression elicited by unpredictable chronic mild stress. Arch Clin Psychiatry. 2021;48:90–8.
24.
Zurück zum Zitat AbbasalizadFarhangi M, Vajdi M, Nikniaz L, Nikniaz Z. The interaction between dietary inflammatory index and 6 P21 rs2010963 gene variants in metabolic syndrome. Eat Weight Disord. 2020;25:1049–60.CrossRef AbbasalizadFarhangi M, Vajdi M, Nikniaz L, Nikniaz Z. The interaction between dietary inflammatory index and 6 P21 rs2010963 gene variants in metabolic syndrome. Eat Weight Disord. 2020;25:1049–60.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Khodarahmi M, Asghari-Jafarabadi M, Abbasalizad FM. A structural equation modeling approach for the association of a healthy eating index with metabolic syndrome and cardio-metabolic risk factors among obese individuals. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(7):e0219193.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Khodarahmi M, Asghari-Jafarabadi M, Abbasalizad FM. A structural equation modeling approach for the association of a healthy eating index with metabolic syndrome and cardio-metabolic risk factors among obese individuals. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(7):e0219193.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Garcia MH, Nussbaum H, Grant R, Dimartino-Nardi J. National cholesterol education program, adult treatment panel III (NCEP-ATPIII) criteria for the metabolic syndrome (MS) are unreliable in children. In Diabetes (Vol. 53, pp. A68-A68). Alexandria: American Diabetes Association; 2004. Garcia MH, Nussbaum H, Grant R, Dimartino-Nardi J. National cholesterol education program, adult treatment panel III (NCEP-ATPIII) criteria for the metabolic syndrome (MS) are unreliable in children. In Diabetes (Vol. 53, pp. A68-A68). Alexandria: American Diabetes Association; 2004.
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Zelenović M, Kontro T, Dumitru RC, Aksovic N, Bjelica B, Alexe DI, Corneliu DC. Leisure-time physical activity and all-cause mortality: a systematic review. Rev Psicol Deporte. 2022;31(1):1–16. Zelenović M, Kontro T, Dumitru RC, Aksovic N, Bjelica B, Alexe DI, Corneliu DC. Leisure-time physical activity and all-cause mortality: a systematic review. Rev Psicol Deporte. 2022;31(1):1–16.
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Kamolthip R, Fung XC, Lin CY, Latner JD, O’Brien KS. Relationships among physical activity, health-related quality of life, and weight stigma in children in Hong Kong. Am J Health Behav. 2021;45(5):828–42.PubMedCrossRef Kamolthip R, Fung XC, Lin CY, Latner JD, O’Brien KS. Relationships among physical activity, health-related quality of life, and weight stigma in children in Hong Kong. Am J Health Behav. 2021;45(5):828–42.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Hyder KM, Mohan J, Varma V, Sivasankaran P, Raja D. Effects of muscle-specific exercises compared to existing interventions on insulin resistance among prediabetes population of South India. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2021;12(2):230.CrossRef Hyder KM, Mohan J, Varma V, Sivasankaran P, Raja D. Effects of muscle-specific exercises compared to existing interventions on insulin resistance among prediabetes population of South India. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2021;12(2):230.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Mirmiran P, Esfahani FH, Mehrabi Y, Hedayati M, Azizi F. Reliability and relative validity of an FFQ for nutrients in the Tehran lipid and glucose study. Public Health Nutr. 2010;13(5):654–62.PubMedCrossRef Mirmiran P, Esfahani FH, Mehrabi Y, Hedayati M, Azizi F. Reliability and relative validity of an FFQ for nutrients in the Tehran lipid and glucose study. Public Health Nutr. 2010;13(5):654–62.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Ghaffarpour M, Houshiar-Rad A, Kianfar H. The manual for household measures, cooking yields factors and edible portion of foods. Tehran: Nashre Olume Keshavarzy. 1999;7(213):42–58. Ghaffarpour M, Houshiar-Rad A, Kianfar H. The manual for household measures, cooking yields factors and edible portion of foods. Tehran: Nashre Olume Keshavarzy. 1999;7(213):42–58.
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Akhavanfar R, Hojati A, Kahrizi MS, Farhangi MA, Ardekani AM. Adherence to lifelines diet score and risk factors of metabolic syndrome among overweight and obese adults: a cross-sectional study. Front Nutr. 2022;9:961468.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Akhavanfar R, Hojati A, Kahrizi MS, Farhangi MA, Ardekani AM. Adherence to lifelines diet score and risk factors of metabolic syndrome among overweight and obese adults: a cross-sectional study. Front Nutr. 2022;9:961468.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Gibson PR, Shepherd SJ. Evidence-based dietary management of functional gastrointestinal symptoms: the FODMAP approach. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25(2):252–8.PubMedCrossRef Gibson PR, Shepherd SJ. Evidence-based dietary management of functional gastrointestinal symptoms: the FODMAP approach. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25(2):252–8.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Rifai N. Tietz textbook of clinical chemistry and molecular diagnostics-e-book. 6th Edition. USA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2017. Rifai N. Tietz textbook of clinical chemistry and molecular diagnostics-e-book. 6th Edition. USA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2017.
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang X, Ji X. Sample size estimation in clinical research: from randomized controlled trials to observational studies. Chest. 2020;158(1):S12–20.PubMedCrossRef Wang X, Ji X. Sample size estimation in clinical research: from randomized controlled trials to observational studies. Chest. 2020;158(1):S12–20.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Aazifah N, Bujang A, Hafizah NI, Chew BH. Key points in sample size workshop. Recrus Res Newsl. 2022;2(13):210–5. Aazifah N, Bujang A, Hafizah NI, Chew BH. Key points in sample size workshop. Recrus Res Newsl. 2022;2(13):210–5.
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Murray AE, McMorrow AM, O’Connor E, Kiely C, Mac Ananey O, O’Shea D, et al. Dietary quality in a sample of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Ireland; a cross-sectional case control study. Nutr J. 2013;12:1–11.CrossRef Murray AE, McMorrow AM, O’Connor E, Kiely C, Mac Ananey O, O’Shea D, et al. Dietary quality in a sample of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Ireland; a cross-sectional case control study. Nutr J. 2013;12:1–11.CrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Ou J, Carbonero F, Zoetendal EG, DeLany JP, Wang M, Newton K, et al. Diet, microbiota, and microbial metabolites in colon cancer risk in rural Africans and African Americans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(1):111–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Ou J, Carbonero F, Zoetendal EG, DeLany JP, Wang M, Newton K, et al. Diet, microbiota, and microbial metabolites in colon cancer risk in rural Africans and African Americans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(1):111–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Williams BA, Mikkelsen D, Flanagan BM, Gidley MJ. “Dietary fibre”: moving beyond the “soluble/insoluble” classification for monogastric nutrition, with an emphasis on humans and pigs. J Anim Biotechnol. 2019;10(1):1–12. Williams BA, Mikkelsen D, Flanagan BM, Gidley MJ. “Dietary fibre”: moving beyond the “soluble/insoluble” classification for monogastric nutrition, with an emphasis on humans and pigs. J Anim Biotechnol. 2019;10(1):1–12.
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Obaidi ZMJ, Abdul-Rasheed OF, Mahdi MF, Raauf AM. Biological evaluation of newly synthesized spebrutinib analogues: potential candidates with enhanced activity and reduced toxicity profiles. Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2019;9(03):339–46. Al-Obaidi ZMJ, Abdul-Rasheed OF, Mahdi MF, Raauf AM. Biological evaluation of newly synthesized spebrutinib analogues: potential candidates with enhanced activity and reduced toxicity profiles. Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2019;9(03):339–46.
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Torres J-L, Usategui-Martin R, Hernandez-Cosido L, Bernardo E, Manzanedo-Bueno L, Hernandez-Garcia I, et al. PPAR-γ gene expression in human adipose tissue is associated with weight loss after sleeve gastrectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;26(2):286–97.PubMedCrossRef Torres J-L, Usategui-Martin R, Hernandez-Cosido L, Bernardo E, Manzanedo-Bueno L, Hernandez-Garcia I, et al. PPAR-γ gene expression in human adipose tissue is associated with weight loss after sleeve gastrectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;26(2):286–97.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Wilson B, Rossi M, Kanno T, Parkes GC, Anderson S, Mason AJ, et al. β-Galactooligosaccharide in conjunction with low FODMAP diet improves irritable bowel syndrome symptoms but reduces fecal bifidobacteria. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115(6):906–15.PubMedCrossRef Wilson B, Rossi M, Kanno T, Parkes GC, Anderson S, Mason AJ, et al. β-Galactooligosaccharide in conjunction with low FODMAP diet improves irritable bowel syndrome symptoms but reduces fecal bifidobacteria. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115(6):906–15.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Asmar M, Asmar A, Simonsen L, Gasbjerg LS, Sparre-Ulrich AH, Rosenkilde MM, et al. The gluco-and liporegulatory and vasodilatory effects of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) are abolished by an antagonist of the human GIP receptor. Diabetes. 2017;66(9):2363–71.PubMedCrossRef Asmar M, Asmar A, Simonsen L, Gasbjerg LS, Sparre-Ulrich AH, Rosenkilde MM, et al. The gluco-and liporegulatory and vasodilatory effects of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) are abolished by an antagonist of the human GIP receptor. Diabetes. 2017;66(9):2363–71.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Bae M, Cassilly CD, Liu X, Park S-M, Tusi BK, Chen X, et al. Akkermansia muciniphila phospholipid induces homeostatic immune responses. Nature. 2022;608(7921):168–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Bae M, Cassilly CD, Liu X, Park S-M, Tusi BK, Chen X, et al. Akkermansia muciniphila phospholipid induces homeostatic immune responses. Nature. 2022;608(7921):168–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat El-Salhy M, Gundersen D. Diet in irritable bowel syndrome. Nutr J. 2015;14(1):1–11.CrossRef El-Salhy M, Gundersen D. Diet in irritable bowel syndrome. Nutr J. 2015;14(1):1–11.CrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Van de Wouw M, Schellekens H, Dinan TG, Cryan JF. Microbiota-gut-brain axis: modulator of host metabolism and appetite. J Nutr. 2017;147(5):727–45.PubMedCrossRef Van de Wouw M, Schellekens H, Dinan TG, Cryan JF. Microbiota-gut-brain axis: modulator of host metabolism and appetite. J Nutr. 2017;147(5):727–45.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Everard A, Belzer C, Geurts L, Ouwerkerk JP, Druart C, Bindels LB, et al. Cross-talk between Akkermansia muciniphila and intestinal epithelium controls diet-induced obesity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110(22):9066–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Everard A, Belzer C, Geurts L, Ouwerkerk JP, Druart C, Bindels LB, et al. Cross-talk between Akkermansia muciniphila and intestinal epithelium controls diet-induced obesity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110(22):9066–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Shin NR, Lee JC, Lee HY, Kim MS, Whon TW, Lee MS, Bae JW. An increase in the Akkermansia spp. population induced by metformin treatment improves glucose homeostasis in diet-induced obese mice. Gut. 2014;63(5):727–35.PubMedCrossRef Shin NR, Lee JC, Lee HY, Kim MS, Whon TW, Lee MS, Bae JW. An increase in the Akkermansia spp. population induced by metformin treatment improves glucose homeostasis in diet-induced obese mice. Gut. 2014;63(5):727–35.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Dao MC, Everard A, Aron-Wisnewsky J, Sokolovska N, Prifti E, Verger EO, et al. Akkermansia muciniphila and improved metabolic health during a dietary intervention in obesity: relationship with gut microbiome richness and ecology. Gut. 2016;65(3):426–36.PubMedCrossRef Dao MC, Everard A, Aron-Wisnewsky J, Sokolovska N, Prifti E, Verger EO, et al. Akkermansia muciniphila and improved metabolic health during a dietary intervention in obesity: relationship with gut microbiome richness and ecology. Gut. 2016;65(3):426–36.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Depommier C, Everard A, Druart C, Plovier H, Van Hul M, Vieira-Silva S, et al. Supplementation with Akkermansia muciniphila in overweight and obese human volunteers: a proof-of-concept exploratory study. Nat Med. 2019;25(7):1096–103.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Depommier C, Everard A, Druart C, Plovier H, Van Hul M, Vieira-Silva S, et al. Supplementation with Akkermansia muciniphila in overweight and obese human volunteers: a proof-of-concept exploratory study. Nat Med. 2019;25(7):1096–103.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh JN, Nguyen T, Kerndt CC, Dhamoon AS. Physiology, blood pressure age related changes. In: StatPearls. St. Petersburg: StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Singh JN, Nguyen T, Kerndt CC, Dhamoon AS. Physiology, blood pressure age related changes. In: StatPearls. St. Petersburg: StatPearls Publishing; 2022.
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Tesfaye F, Nawi N, Van Minh H, Byass P, Berhane Y, Bonita R, Wall S. Association between body mass index and blood pressure across three populations in Africa and Asia. J Hum Hypertens. 2007;21(1):28–37.PubMedCrossRef Tesfaye F, Nawi N, Van Minh H, Byass P, Berhane Y, Bonita R, Wall S. Association between body mass index and blood pressure across three populations in Africa and Asia. J Hum Hypertens. 2007;21(1):28–37.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Dabbagh-Moghaddam A, Kamali M, Hojjati A, Foroughi M, Ghiasvand R, Askari G, Hosseinzadeh J. The relationship between dietary patterns with blood pressure in Iranian army staffs. Adv Biomed Res. 2018;7:127.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Dabbagh-Moghaddam A, Kamali M, Hojjati A, Foroughi M, Ghiasvand R, Askari G, Hosseinzadeh J. The relationship between dietary patterns with blood pressure in Iranian army staffs. Adv Biomed Res. 2018;7:127.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Treasure J, Ploth D. Role of dietary potassium in the treatment of hypertension. Hypertension. 1983;5(6):864–72.PubMedCrossRef Treasure J, Ploth D. Role of dietary potassium in the treatment of hypertension. Hypertension. 1983;5(6):864–72.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Bonora E, Formentini G, Calcaterra F, Lombardi S, Marini F, Zenari L, et al. HOMA-estimated insulin resistance is an independent predictor of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetic subjects: prospective data from the Verona Diabetes Complications Study. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(7):1135–41.PubMedCrossRef Bonora E, Formentini G, Calcaterra F, Lombardi S, Marini F, Zenari L, et al. HOMA-estimated insulin resistance is an independent predictor of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetic subjects: prospective data from the Verona Diabetes Complications Study. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(7):1135–41.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Basciano H, Federico L, Adeli K. Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia. Nutr Metab. 2005;2(1):1–14.CrossRef Basciano H, Federico L, Adeli K. Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia. Nutr Metab. 2005;2(1):1–14.CrossRef
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Gaskell SK, Taylor B, Muir J, Costa RJ. Impact of 24-h high and low fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharide, and polyol diets on markers of exercise-induced gastrointestinal syndrome in response to exertional heat stress. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020;45(6):569–80.PubMedCrossRef Gaskell SK, Taylor B, Muir J, Costa RJ. Impact of 24-h high and low fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharide, and polyol diets on markers of exercise-induced gastrointestinal syndrome in response to exertional heat stress. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020;45(6):569–80.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Zurück zum Zitat Şenormancı G, Turan Ç, Çelik SK, Çelik A, Edgünlü TG, Bilgi C, et al. Gene variants and serum levels of synaptic vesicle and presynaptic plasma membrane proteins in alcohol dependence and their relationship with impulsivity and temperament. Arch Clin Psychiatry. 2021;48:99–104. Şenormancı G, Turan Ç, Çelik SK, Çelik A, Edgünlü TG, Bilgi C, et al. Gene variants and serum levels of synaptic vesicle and presynaptic plasma membrane proteins in alcohol dependence and their relationship with impulsivity and temperament. Arch Clin Psychiatry. 2021;48:99–104.
Metadaten
Titel
Investigation of the association between habitual dietary FODMAP intake, metabolic parameters, glycemic status, and anthropometric features among apparently healthy overweight and obese individuals
verfasst von
Reyhaneh Mokhtari Hemami
Amir Shakarami
Abnoos Mokhtari Ardekani
Sara Aghaii
Dorna Makarem
Negin Nikrad
Mahdieh Abbasalizad Farhangi
Mohammad Sadegh Pour Abbasi
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2023
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Endocrine Disorders / Ausgabe 1/2023
Elektronische ISSN: 1472-6823
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-023-01458-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

BMC Endocrine Disorders 1/2023 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Triglyzeridsenker schützt nicht nur Hochrisikopatienten

10.05.2024 Hypercholesterinämie Nachrichten

Patienten mit Arteriosklerose-bedingten kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen, die trotz Statineinnahme zu hohe Triglyzeridspiegel haben, profitieren von einer Behandlung mit Icosapent-Ethyl, und zwar unabhängig vom individuellen Risikoprofil.

Gibt es eine Wende bei den bioresorbierbaren Gefäßstützen?

In den USA ist erstmals eine bioresorbierbare Gefäßstütze – auch Scaffold genannt – zur Rekanalisation infrapoplitealer Arterien bei schwerer PAVK zugelassen worden. Das markiert einen Wendepunkt in der Geschichte dieser speziellen Gefäßstützen.

Vorsicht, erhöhte Blutungsgefahr nach PCI!

10.05.2024 Koronare Herzerkrankung Nachrichten

Nach PCI besteht ein erhöhtes Blutungsrisiko, wenn die Behandelten eine verminderte linksventrikuläre Ejektionsfraktion aufweisen. Das Risiko ist umso höher, je stärker die Pumpfunktion eingeschränkt ist.

Erhöhte Mortalität bei postpartalem Brustkrebs

07.05.2024 Mammakarzinom Nachrichten

Auch für Trägerinnen von BRCA-Varianten gilt: Erkranken sie fünf bis zehn Jahre nach der letzten Schwangerschaft an Brustkrebs, ist das Sterberisiko besonders hoch.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.