Table 3 Multivariable-adjusted odds ratio for MUO (based on IDF criteria) across tertiles of dietary total, plant, and animal protein intake (n = 203)1.

From: Dietary total, plant and animal protein intake in relation to metabolic health status in overweight and obese adolescents

 

Tertiles of dietary protein intake

Per 1 SD increase

T1

T2

T3

Ptrend

Total protein

Median (% of energy)

12.5

14.2

16.3

 

2.0

Participants/cases (n)

67/42

68/18

68/19

  

Crude

1.00

0.21 (0.10–0.45)

0.23 (0.11–0.48)

< 0.001

0.58 (0.42–0.80)

Model 1

1.00

0.18 (0.08–0.39)

0.24 (0.11–0.51)

< 0.001

0.58 (0.41–0.81)

Model 2

1.00

0.20 (0.08–0.49)

0.32 (0.13–0.77)

0.01

0.69 (0.48–0.98)

Model 3

1.00

0.20 (0.08–0.49)

0.32 (0.13–0.77)

0.01

0.69 (0.48–0.99)

Plant protein

Median (% of energy)

6.1

7.1

8.6

 

1.6

Participants/cases (n)

67/28

68/27

68/24

  

Crude

1.00

0.92 (0.46–1.82)

0.76 (0.38–1.52)

0.44

1.01 (0.76–1.34)

Model 1

1.00

0.89 (0.43–1.83)

0.57 (0.27–1.19)

0.14

0.93 (0.69–1.26)

Model 2

1.00

0.93 (0.41–2.10)

0.52 (0.22–1.20)

0.14

0.92 (0.66–1.30)

Model 3

1.00

0.69 (0.27–1.79)

0.30 (0.10–0.91)

0.03

0.85 (0.57–1.26)

Animal protein

Median (% of energy)

5.1

6.7

9.2

 

2.0

Participants/cases (n)

67/40

68/25

68/14

  

Crude

1.00

0.39 (0.20–0.79)

0.18 (0.08–0.38)

< 0.001

0.57 (0.42–0.79)

Model 1

1.00

0.42 (0.20–0.85)

0.19 (0.08–0.42)

< 0.001

0.60 (0.43–0.84)

Model 2

1.00

0.61 (0.27–1.35)

0.28 (0.11–0.68)

0.01

0.72 (0.50–1.04)

Model 3

1.00

0.54 (0.24–1.24)

0.20 (0.08–0.54)

0.001

0.63 (0.42–0.95)

  1. 1All values are odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Model 1: Adjusted for age, gender, energy intake. Model 2: More adjustments for physical activity levels, socioeconomic status. Model 3: Further adjustments for total dietary fat intake, plant protein (for animal protein), animal protein (for plant protein) and BMI.