Table 4.

Relations of three LCD scores to CMRF-INTERLIPID Study, Japan

Outcome variables	Log CRP	HDLc	LDLc	TC	UA	HbA1c
Usual LCD score
Model 1
β	−0.008 ± 0.005	0.905 ± 0.146	−0.547 ± 0.310	0.511 ± 0.329	0.010 ± 0.011	0.004 ± 0.006
P	0.079	<0.001	0.078	0.121	0.385	0.524
Model 2
β	−0.005 ± 0.005	0.731 ± 0.144	−0.359 ± 0.315	0.496 ± 0.336	0.002 ± 0.012	0.004 ± 0.006
P	0.240	<0.001	0.255	0.141	0.864	0.499
Animal-based LCD score
Model 1
β	−0.006 ± 0.005	0.940 ± 0.148	−0.452 ± 0.316	0.669 ± 0.335	0.009 ± 0.012	0.007 ± 0.006
P	0.232	<0.001	0.153	0.046	0.456	0.248
Model 2
β	−0.003 ± 0.005	0.702 ± 0.148	−0.206 ± 0.324	0.634 ± 0.345	−0.002 ± 0.012	0.007 ± 0.007
P	0.502	<0.001	0.525	0.067	0.900	0.307
Plant-based LCD score
Model 1
β	−0.013 ± 0.004	0.678 ± 0.142	−0.474 ± 0.300	0.031 ± 0.319	−0.004 ± 0.011	−0.002 ± 0.006
P	0.003	<0.001	0.114	0.922	0.709	0.754
Model 2
β	−0.010 ± 0.004	0.648 ± 0.148	−0.405 ± 0.303	0.066 ± 0.323	−0.008 ± 0.011	−0.00002 ± 0.006
P	0.018	<0.001	0.181	0.838	0.483	0.997

Coefficients (β) ± standard errors, and P values from multiple linear regression models used to examine relations of deciles of the three LCD scores to CMRF are shown. Model 1 included site, age, sex, and BMI; Model 2, Model 1 variables + smoking (cigarettes/day), and alcohol intake (% kcal), the Framingham physical activity score, and years of education (≤9, 10–12, 13–15, ≥16 year; ≤9 year as reference)

Italic values indicate statistical significance at the 5 % level

LCD low-carbohydrate diet, CMRF cardiometabolic risk factors, BMI body mass index, LDLc serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, HDLc serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, TC serum total cholesterol concentration, UA serum uric acid concentration, CRP C-reactive protein, HbA1c hemoglobin A1c