Adherence to the low carbohydrate diet and the risk of breast Cancer in Iran

Abstract

BackgroundPrevious studies on the link between macronutrients and breast cancer have mostly focused on individual macronutrients rather than their combination. This study investigates the association between adherence to a low carbohydrate diet and odds of breast cancer among women.MethodsThis hospital-based case-control study was carried out on 412 women with pathologically confirmed breast cancer within the past year and 456 apparently healthy controls that were matched in terms of age and residential place. Dietary data was collected using a 168-item validated FFQ. Participants were classified in terms of quintiles of percentages of energy intake from carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. Then, individuals in the highest quintile of fat and protein intake were given a score of 5 and those in the lowest quintile of these macronutrients were given a score of 1. Participants in the other quintiles of these macronutrients were given the corresponding score. In terms of carbohydrate intake, those in the highest quintile received a score of 1 and those in the lowest quintile received 5. The scores were then summed up to calculate the total low carbohydrate diet (LCD) score, which varied from 3 to 15. A higher score meant greater adherence to a low carbohydrate diet.ResultsThe mean age of study participants was 45.2 y and mean BMI was 28.4 kg/m2. Mean LCD score of participants was 8.9 ± 2.5 (8.9 ± 2.6 in cases and 9.0 ± 2.5 in controls). Although no significant association was observed between adherence to the LCD score and odds of breast cancer in the study population, a trend toward significant positive association was seen between consumption of LCD and odds of breast cancer in postmenopausal women; after controlling for several potential confounders, individuals in the third quartile of LCD score were 1.94 times more likely to have breast cancer than those in the lowest quartile (95% CI: 1.00, 3.76). This association strengthened after controlling for dietary variables (2.50; 1.18–5.32). Even after further adjustment for BMI, this association remained significant (2.64, 1.23–5.67). No significant relationship was observed in premenopausal women, either before or after controlling for confounders.ConclusionAdherence to LCD may be associated with increased odds of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Prospective cohort studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Adherence to “dietary approaches to stop hypertension” eating plan in relation to gastric cancer

“…Previous validation study of DHQ in this population revealed good correlation coefficients between nutrients assessed by DHQ and multiple 24-h recalls completed over a year [35]. Deattenuated spearman correlation coefficients of equal or greater than 0.5 were obtained for energy, carbohydrate, protein, fiber, vitamin A, carotene, niacin, folate, vitamin B12, biotin, vitamin C, sodium, magnesium, iron, zinc, selenium between DHQ and the average of 24-h dietary recalls [40].…”

“…We used a validated 146-item Diet History Questionnaire (DHQ) to assess participants' dietary intakes. A detailed description of DHQ, its development and validity has been explained in details elsewhere [35]. Briefly, it included 146 questions related to the past 12-month consumption of foods and Iranian mixed dishes.…”

Adherence to the DASH Diet and Risk of Breast Cancer

“…Subjects who didn't answer to more than 70 items of the FFQ (n=25, 9 patients and 25 controls) were excluded. Further description of this study is reported elsewhere [29].…”

The relation between low carbohydrate diet score and psychological disorders among Iranian adults

“…Several studies were performed regarding relation between LCD and risk of chronic disease such metabolic syndrome [12,24,25], diabetes [19,26], cardiovascular disease [20,27], and cancer [28,29]. Nevertheless, a few studies especially large scale studies have been evaluated association between LCD and psychological disorders and their findings were inconsistence [23,[30][31][32][33].…”