Table 3.
Effect of combinations of dietary variables on education–BP inverse relationship: all 2195 US INTERMAP participants
Row | Variablesa in multiple linear regression model | SBP | DBP |
---|---|---|---|
A | Model 2: Education, age, sample, ethnicity (African-American), | −0.4122a | −0.1920a |
CVD disease/diabetes diagnosis, special diet, gender | (−4.098)a | (−2.788)a | |
B | Model 3: Model 2 + BMI | −0.2646 | −0.1073 |
(−2.752) | (−1.606) | ||
−35.8%b | 44.1%b | ||
C | Model 3+24-h urinary Na and 24-h urinary K | −0.2315 | −0.0910 |
(−2.378) | (−1.344) | ||
−43.8%b | −52.6%b | ||
−12.5%c | −15.2%c | ||
D | Model 3+24-h urinary Na and 24-h urinary K, 14-day | −0.2210 | −0.0861 |
alcohol intake (g/day) | (−2.279) | (−1.274) | |
−46.4% | −55.2% | ||
−16.5% | −19.8% | ||
E | Model 3+macronutrients: Vegetable Protein and Keys score | −0.2166 | −0.0802 |
(−2.234) | (−1.188) | ||
−47.5% | −58.2% | ||
−18.1% | −25.3% | ||
F | Model 3+Minerals: Mg, Ca, P, Fe | −0.2138 | −0.0902 |
(−2.203) | (−1.337) | ||
−48.1% | −53.0% | ||
−19.2% | −15.9% | ||
G | Model 3+fibre and vitamins: C, B6, folate, thiamin, riboflavin | −0.2151 | −0.0947 |
(−2.207) | (−1.396) | ||
−47.8% | −50.7% | ||
−18.7% | −11.7% | ||
H | Model 3 + 24-h urinary Na and K, 14-day alcohol intake, | −0.1901 | −0.0684 |
Vegetable protein, and Keys dietary lipid score | (−1.950) | (−1.006) | |
−53.9% | −64.4% | ||
−28.2% | −36.3% | ||
I | Model 3+ 24-h urinary Na and K, 14-day alcohol intake, | −0.1753 | −0.0633 |
Vegetable protein, Keys dietary lipid score, Mg, Ca, P, Fe | (−1.795) | (−0.931) | |
−57.5% | −67.0% | ||
−33.7% | −41.0% | ||
J | Model 3+ 24-h urinary Na and K, 14-day alcohol intake, | −0.1886 | −0.0784 |
Vegetable protein, Keys dietary lipid score, fibre, vitamins C, B6, | (−1.931) | (−1.152) | |
Folate, thiamin, riboflavin | −54.2% | −59.2% | |
−28.7% | −26.9% |
Units for dietary variables as in Table 2.
Coefficient for the education–BP inverse relation in this multiple linear regression model.
Z-score.
Percent reduction in education-SBP coefficient compared to Model 2.
Percent reduction in education-SBP coefficient compared to Model 3.