Skip to main content
. 2017 Feb 8;105(3):736–745. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.147090

TABLE 2.

Type 2 diabetes risk across categories of increasing total whole-fruit consumption stratified by sex in the SCHS1

Total whole-fruit consumption
<1 serving/wk 1 serving/wk 2–3 servings/wk 4–6 servings/wk 1 serving/d 2 servings/d ≥3 servings/d Per 3 servings/wk2 P-trend
All
 Intake, servings/wk 0.13 1.5 3.0 5.5 9.6 16.6 25.3
 Cases/person-years, n 288/29,373 247/23,218 675/57,797 1051/98,594 1832/178,751 726/70,869 388/36,139
 Model 1 1.00 (reference)4 1.09 (0.92, 1.29) 1.21 (1.05, 1.38) 1.10 (0.97, 1.25) 1.06 (0.94, 1.20) 1.06 (0.92, 1.22) 1.11 (0.94, 1.29) 0.99 (0.98, 1.01) 0.43
 Model 2 1.00 (reference) 1.09 (0.92, 1.29) 1.15 (1.00, 1.32) 1.11 (0.98, 1.27) 1.06 (0.93, 1.20) 1.07 (0.93, 1.24) 1.07 (0.92, 1.26) 0.99 (0.98, 1.01) 0.34
 Model 3 1.00 (reference) 1.10 (0.92, 1.30) 1.15 (1.00, 1.32) 1.11 (0.98, 1.27) 1.06 (0.93, 1.21) 1.08 (0.93, 1.25) 1.08 (0.91, 1.27) 0.99 (0.98, 1.01) 0.37
Men
 Intake, servings/wk 0.0 1.5 3.0 5.5 9.7 16.7 25.5
 Cases/person-years, n 107/12,608 80/9461 244/22,388 424/39,741 773/75,903 350/31,718 217/17,429
 Model 1 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (0.75, 1.33) 1.29 (1.03, 1.62) 1.26 (1.02, 1.56) 1.22 (0.99, 1.49) 1.32 (1.06, 1.64) 1.49 (1.17, 1.89) 1.03 (1.01, 1.04) 0.004
 Model 2 1.00 (reference) 1.01 (0.76, 1.35) 1.25 (0.99, 1.57) 1.25 (1.01, 1.55) 1.16 (0.94, 1.43) 1.24 (0.99, 1.55) 1.34 (1.05, 1.71) 1.01 (1.00, 1.03) 0.14
 Model 3 1.00 (reference) 1.01 (0.75, 1.35) 1.24 (0.99, 1.56) 1.25 (1.00, 1.54) 1.16 (0.94, 1.43) 1.24 (0.99, 1.56) 1.33 (1.04, 1.71) 1.01 (0.99, 1.03) 0.17
Women
 Intake, servings/wk 0.2 1.5 3.0 5.5 9.6 16.6 25.1
 Cases/person-years, n 181/16,765 167/13,757 431/35,409 627/58,853 1059/102,848 376/39,151 171/18,710
 Model 1 1.00 (reference) 1.14 (0.92, 1.40) 1.15 (0.97, 1.37) 1.01 (0.86, 1.20) 0.98 (0.83, 1.15) 0.91 (0.76, 1.09) 0.86 (0.69, 1.07) 0.97 (0.95, 0.99) <0.0015
 Model 2 1.00 (reference) 1.13 (0.91, 1.39) 1.10 (0.92, 1.31) 1.03 (0.87, 1.22) 1.00 (0.85, 1.17) 0.96 (0.80, 1.16) 0.87 (0.70, 1.09) 0.97 (0.96, 0.99) 0.004
 Model 3 1.00 (reference) 1.14 (0.92, 1.41) 1.11 (0.93, 1.32) 1.04 (0.88, 1.23) 1.00 (0.85, 1.18) 0.97 (0.81, 1.17) 0.88 (0.71, 1.11) 0.97 (0.96, 0.99) 0.008
1

Model 1 was adjusted for age at baseline interview (years), sex, dialect group (Hokkien or Cantonese), year of baseline interview (1993–1995 or 1996–1998), and total daily energy intake (kilocalories per day). Model 2 was adjusted as for model 1 and for physical activity (no moderate, vigorous, or strenuous activity; <4 h moderate activity/wk or <2 h vigorous or strenuous activity/wk; and ≥4 h moderate activity/wk or ≥2 h vigorous or strenuous activity/wk), education (no formal education; primary school education; and secondary school, A levels, or university), smoking status (never smoker, ex-smoker, and current smoker of 1–12 or ≥13 cigarettes/d), alcohol intake (0, <5, and ≥5 g/d), and BMI (in kg/m2). Model 3 was adjusted as for model 2 and for total vegetable intake (grams per day), unsweetened soy intake (servings per day), saturated fat intake (percentage of kilocalories), dairy intake (grams per day), soft drink consumption (glasses per day), coffee intake (cups per day), black and green tea intake (cups per day), and fruit- and vegetable-juice intake (servings per day). P-interaction by sex for all models was significant (model 1: <0.001; model 2: 0.002; and model 3: 0.003). Data were analyzed with the use of Cox proportional hazards regression. Sex was not included as a covariate in sex-stratified models. SCHS, Singapore Chinese Health Study.

2

Estimated on the basis of every increment of 3 servings/wk.

3

Median (all such values).

4

HR; 95% CI in parentheses (all such values).

5

Significant after Bonferroni correction.