Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Nutr Health Aging. 2011 Feb;15(2):147–152. doi: 10.1007/s12603-011-0028-2

TABLE 3.

Adjusteda rate ratiosb at follow-up (1990–1991) by standard deviation difference in protein intake at baseline (1988–1989) in the Framingham Original Cohort stratified by percent weight change

Weight loss (≥ −5%
change)
(n=116)
No weight loss
(n=639)

Protein intake Rate ratio (95% CI) Rate ratio (95% CI)
Total protein 0.46 (0.22, 0.93) 1.04 (0.79, 1.36)
Animal protein 0.53 (0.30, 0.93) 1.04 (0.84, 1.29)
Plant protein 0.48 (0.21, 1.08) 0.92 (0.69, 1.22)
a

Adjusted for sex, age, height, weight, total energy, and history of falls. Animal protein and plant protein intake were adjusted for each other when examined

b

Rate ratios were estimated using negative binomial regression models.