Table 2.
Association of dietary total fiber and its sub-types per 5 g/day increase with annualized percent change in BMD (%ΔBMD, g/cm2)1 in men (n=792) and women (n=1,065) in the Framingham Offspring Study
| %Δ Femoral neck BMD | %Δ Trochanter BMD | %Δ Lumbar spine 2–4 BMD | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β2 | SE | p | β | SE | p | β | SE | p | |
| Dietary total fiber (g/d) | |||||||||
| Men | |||||||||
| Model 11 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.31 |
| Model 23 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.018 | 0.02 | 0.36 |
| Model 34 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.003 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.08 | −0.008 | 0.02 | 0.69 |
| Women | |||||||||
| Model 1 | 0.011 | 0.02 | 0.48 | 0.004 | 0.02 | 0.83 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| Model 2 | 0.001 | 0.02 | 0.94 | 0.003 | 0.02 | 0.90 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.21 |
| Model 3 | 0.009 | 0.02 | 0.58 | −0.008 | 0.03 | 0.75 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.24 |
|
| |||||||||
| Cereal fiber (g/d) | |||||||||
| Men | |||||||||
| Model 1 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.44 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.63 | −0.017 | 0.04 | 0.64 |
| Model 2 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.47 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.71 | −0.02 | 0.034 | 0.60 |
| Model 3 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.56 | −0.025 | 0.04 | 0.50 |
| Women | |||||||||
| Model 1 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.40 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.29 | −0.01 | 0.03 | 0.80 |
| Model 2 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.63 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.41 | −0.02 | 0.03 | 0.48 |
| Model 3 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.66 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.79 | −0.02 | 0.03 | 0.40 |
|
| |||||||||
| Fruit fiber (g/d) | |||||||||
| Men | |||||||||
| Model 1 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.007 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.01 |
| Model 2 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.009 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
| Model 3 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.008 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.31 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.10 |
| Women | |||||||||
| Model 1 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.34 | −0.01 | 0.06 | 0.83 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| Model 2 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.78 | −0.006 | 0.06 | 0.91 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.41 |
| Model 3 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.67 | −0.03 | 0.07 | 0.61 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.36 |
|
| |||||||||
| Vegetable fiber (g/d) | |||||||||
| Men | |||||||||
| Model 1 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.007 | 0.04 | 0.87 |
| Model 2 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.008 | 0.04 | 0.84 |
| Model 3 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.10 | −0.057 | 0.04 | 0.16 |
| Women | |||||||||
| Model 1 | −0.0003 | 0.04 | 0.99 | −0.006 | 0.05 | 0.90 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.002 |
| Model 2 | −0.01 | 0.04 | 0.79 | −0.004 | 0.05 | 0.93 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.006 |
| Model 3 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.76 | −0.003 | 0.06 | 0.96 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.01 |
|
| |||||||||
| Nut and legume fiber (g/d) | |||||||||
| Men | |||||||||
| Model 1 | −0.04 | 0.06 | 0.49 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.91 | −0.055 | 0.06 | 0.33 |
| Model 2 | −0.04 | 0.06 | 0.51 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.65 | −0.05 | 0.06 | 0.35 |
| Model 3 | −0.02 | 0.06 | 0.71 | 0.014 | 0.06 | 0.80 | −0.085 | 0.06 | 0.15 |
| Women | |||||||||
| Model 1 | −0.0004 | 0.05 | 0.99 | −0.06 | 0.07 | 0.42 | 0.0007 | 0.05 | 0.99 |
| Model 2 | −0.02 | 0.05 | 0.74 | −0.07 | 0.07 | 0.31 | −0.006 | 0.05 | 0.91 |
| Model 3 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.58 | −0.04 | 0.07 | 0.52 | −0.007 | 0.05 | 0.90 |
Percent change in BMD was measured from BMD at the baseline in 1996–2001 and the follow-up exams in 2002–2005 and 2005–2008.
Based on exchangeable correlation matrix using Generalized Estimating Equations; SE, standard error; p, p value; β represent difference of %ΔBMDassociated with per 5 g/d increase in dietary fiber.
Model 1 was unadjusted except exam period as part of the GEE model;
Model 2 was further adjusted for total energy intake (kcal/day), age (year), BMI (kg/m2), height (m);
Model 3 was further adjusted for current cigarette smoking (yes/no), physical activity (PASE), modified DGAI 2010 excluding fiber component, calcium supplement intake (yes/no), vitamin D supplement intake (yes/no), caffeine intake (mg/d), dietary calcium (in quartiles, mg/d), dietary vitamin D (in quartiles, I.U./d), menopausal status (yes, no, in women only), and current estrogen use (yes, no, in women only).