Skip to main content
. 2024 Apr 3;63(5):1651–1662. doi: 10.1007/s00394-024-03370-6

Table 4.

Multivariable-adjusted means of handgrip strength and appendicular skeletal muscle mass across tertiles of dietary patterns—General Linear Model test

Dietary pattern I Tertile (low level) (n = 176) II Tertile (medium level) (n = 176) III Tertile (high level) (n = 176) p-value Post-Hoc Analysis p-value
Western dietary pattern
 HGS (kg) 26.3 ± 10 26.8 ± 9 29.8 ± 10 0.001

1 vs 2 0.004

2 vs 3 0.017

 Model 1 28.2 ± 0.6 27.2 ± 0.5 27.5 ± 0.6 0.41 /
Mediterrean dietary pattern
 HGS (kg) 24.5 ± 9 28.3 ± 11 30.2 ± 10  < 0.001

1 vs 2 0.001

1 vs 3 < 0.001

 Model 1 26.3 ± 0.5 28.2 ± 0.5 28.3 ± 0.5 0.010

1 vs 2 0.007

1 vs 3 0.010

Dietary pattern I Tertile (low level) (n = 56) II Tertile (medium level) (n = 57) III Tertile (high level) (n = 57) p-value Post-Hoc analysis p-value
Western dietary pattern
 ASMM (kg) 17.5 ± 3 17.8 ± 4 19.3 ± 5 0.05 2 vs 3 0.07
Model 1* 18.3 ± 0.3 18.3 ± 0.3 17.9 ± 0.4 0.69 /
Mediterrean dietary pattern
ASMM (kg) 16.5 ± 3 19.0 ± 4 19.1 ± 5 0.001

1 vs 2 0.005

1 vs 3 0.004

Model 1* 17.7 ± 0.3 18.3 ± 0.3 18.6 ± 0.3 0.16 1 vs 3 0.06

HGS handgrip strength, ASMM appendicular skeletal muscle mass

Model 1: Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, physical activity, dietary energy, daily protein intake per kg of body weight, physical activity (only for Mediterranean pattern) and lipid-lowering agents (only for Western pattern)

*Model 1: Adjusted for age, gender, obesity, dietary energy and daily protein intake per kg of body weight