Skip to main content
. 2017 Aug 17;9(8):886. doi: 10.3390/nu9080886

Table 4.

Lipid comparisons between diets and correlations with log HOMA.

Red Meat Dairy Control T-Test T-Test Correlation Aus Diab Assn
nmol/mL nmol/mL nmol/mL RM/DD DD/CD Wi th Log
HOMA
with
PreDiabetes 1
(p value) (p value) (p value) (0R)
CE 14:0 14 (9–20) 17 (13–24) 13 (8–18) 0.009 <0.001 0.73 2.2 (1.4–3.3)
CE 15:0 21 (17–27) 24 (22–33) 18 (13–24) 0.003 <0.001 0.55 1.4 (0.9–2.1)
CE 16:1 86 (68–134) 98 (72–135) 85 (60–111) 0.22 0.004 0.56 2.1 (1.4–3.1)
CE 16:2 3.8 (2.0–5.0) 4.3 (3.1–5.5) 3.6 (2.7–4.7) 0.15 0.002 0.53 2.3 (1.5–3.5)
CE 17:0 179 (163–205) 188 (172–205) 177 (162–207) 0.89 0.032 0.65 0.93 (0.6–1.4)
LPC 14:0 1.2 (0.9–1.5) 1.4 (1.2–1.6) 1.1 (0.9–1.3) 0.004 <0.001 0.004 1.7 (1.2–2.4)
LPC 15:0 0.7 (0.6–0.8) 0.8 (0.6–0.9) 0.6 (0.5–0.7) 0.03 <0.001 0.055 1.1 (0.7–1.6)
LPC 17.0 1.4 (1.1–1.8) 1.4 (1.2–1.6) 1.2 (0.9–1.4) 0.092 <0.001 0.46
PC 16:0/20:4 114 (102–140) 112 (92–131) 113 (96–138) 0.003 0.002 0.62
PC 28:0 0.3 (0.1–0.4) 0.4 (0.2–0.5) 0.2 (0.1–0.3) 0.002 <0.001 0.005
PC 30:0 3.4 (2.4–4.1) 4.3 (3.1–5.7) 3.1 (2.2–3.9) 0.003 <0.001 0.010
PC 38:4 82 (67–93) 75 (62–91) 79 (66–95) <0.001 <0.001 0.30
PC(O-34:2) 4.8 (3.8–5.7) 3.8 (2.8–4.2) 4.1 (3.6–4.6) <0.001 <0.001 0.73 0.60 (0.38–0.96)
PC(O-18:1/18:1) 0.8 (0.6–0.9) 0.6 (0.5–0.8) 0.7 (0.5–0.9) <0.001 0.012 0.080
PC(O-18:1/18:2) 3.2 (2.9–3.7) 2.8 (2.3–3.2) 3.2 (2.8–3.5) <0.001 <0.001 0.47
PC(O-36:4) 13 (11–15) 10 (8–12) 11 (10–13) <0.001 <0.001 0.22 0.63 (0.42–0.92)
PC(O-38:5) 12 (11–15) 11 (9–12) 13 (11–14) <0.001 <0.001 0.20 0.58 (0.37–0.90)
PC(O-40:5) 1.7 (1.4–2.0) 1.4 (1.2–1.7) 1.6 (1.3–1.8) <0.001 0.004 0.022
PC(O-40:6) 1.3 (1.1–1.7) 1.1 (0.9–1.4) 1.2 (1.0–1.5) <0.001 <0.001 0.093
PC(O-40:7) 2.7 (2.1–3.3) 2.3 (1.8–2.99) 2.9 (2.3–3.7) 0.001 <0.001 0.50
PC(P-34:1) 2.4 (1.9–2.9) 2.0 (1.7–2.4) 2.1 (1.8–2.6) <0.001 0.006 0.076 0.57 (0.36–0.91)
PC(P-34:2) 7.9 (6.6–9.6) 6.0 (5.2–6.8) 6.4 (5.5–7.4) <0.001 0.002 0.29
PC(P-36:2) 1.5 (1.1–2.1) 0.8 (0.6–1.2) 0.9 (0.8–1.2) <0.001 <0.001 0.29 0.53 (0.34–0.84)
PC(P-36:4) 9.8 (8.3–11.0) 6.6 (5.6–7.4) 7.8 (6.3–9.1) <0.001 <0.001 0.082
PC(P-38:4) 2.5 (2.0–3.3) 1.4 (1.1–1.7) 1.6 (1.3–2.1) <0.001 <0.001 0.10
PC(P-38:5) 5.7 (4.7–6.9) 4.6 (4.0–5.5) 5.2 (4.7–6.5) <0.001 <0.001 0.26
PC(P-38:6) 1.3 (1.1–1.8) 0.9 (0.7–1.3) 1.2 (0.9–1.6) <0.001 <0.001 0.21
PC(P-40:6) 0.6 (0.5–0.9) 0.4 (0.3–0.6) 0.5 (0.4–0.6) <0.001 <0.001 0.15
PE 32:1 0.04 (0.02–0.08) 0.07 (0.04–0.12) 0.04 (0.03–0.07) <0.001 <0.001 0.027 1.5 (1.1–2.1)
PE(O-18:1/20:3) 0.5 (0.4–0.6) 0.3 (0.2–0.4) 0.4 (0.3–0.6) <0.001 0.001 0.20
PE(O-18:2/18:2) 1.0 (0.8–1.3) 0.9 (0.6–1.2) 1.1 (0.9–1.3) 0.002 <0.001 0.59
PE(P-16:0/20:4) 6.6 (5.2–7.7) 5.4 (4.5–7.1) 6.5 (5.5–8.0) 0.005 <0.001 0.76
PE(P-18:0/20:4) 12 (9–14) 7.4 (5.6–9.0) 8.6 (7.5–10.8) <0.001 <0.001 0.37
PE(P-18:0/22:6) 2.8 (2.2–4.0) 2.2 (1.0–3.1) 2.7 (2.2–3.4) <0.001 <0.001 0.26
PE(P-18:1/20:4) 6.3 (5.2–7.4) 4.8 (3.7–6.1) 6.3 (5.3–7.3) <0.001 <0.001 0.57
PE(P-20:1/20:4) 0.2 (0.1–0.2) 0.3 (0.2–0.3) 0.3 (0.2–0.4) <0.001 <0.001 0.45
PE(P-20:1/22:6) 0.06 (0.04–0.09) 0.08 (0.06–0.12) 0.1 (0.08–0.16) <0.001 <0.001 0.77
PI 32:0 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 0.4 (0.3–0.8) 0.3 (0.2–0.6) 0.02 <0.001 0.009 1.5 (1.1–2.1)
PI 32:1 0.5 (0.3–1.0) 0.8 (0.4–1.5) 0.6 (0.3–1.0) 0.002 <0.001 0.070 1.9 (1.3–2.7)
PI 20:4/0:0 0.4 (0.3–0.5) 0.4 (0.3–0.5) 0.4 (0.4–0.5) <0.001 <0.001 0.23
SM 31:1 0.3 (0.2–0.4) 0.4 (0.3–0.5) 0.3 (0.2–0.4) 0.002 <0.001 0.20
SM 32:1 13 (10–15) 14 (12–18) 12 (10–16) 0.003 <0.001 0.34
PCO Class 59 (528–68) 48 (44–57) 54 (48–58) <0.001 0.005 0.52
PCP Class 35 (30–44) 26 (23–29) 29 (26–32) <0.001 <0.001 0.26
PEP Class 49 (44–63) 41 (34–50) 46 (41–52) <0.001 0.006 0.71

1 Two separate paired t tests were completed to compare lipid values on the dairy diet (DD) and the red meat (RM) and control diet (CD) after log transformation. Values shown are medians and interquartile ranges. In the AusDiab study the odds ratio (OR) was derived from logistic regression of the prediabetes group (n = 64) versus the normal glucose tolerance group (n = 168) for an interquartile range increase in lipid predictor. The regression was adjusted for age, sex, waist circumference, and SBP. Relations with log HOMA were assessed by one way ANOVA with subject ID as a fixed factor and log lipid species as a covariate to perform intra-individual correlations.