TABLE 4.
Mean WC (cm) and covariate-adjusted regression model results for clusters representing temporal dietary patterns of US adults aged 20–65 y as drawn from the NHANES 2003–20061
| Adjusted models2 | n (%) | WC (cm)3 | β4 ± SEE (95% CI) compared to Cluster 2 | β4 ± SEE (95% CI) compared to Cluster 3 | β4 ± SEE (95% CI) compared to Cluster 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster 1 | 214 (13.2) | 99.4 ± 15.4 | 0.4 ± 1.5 (–3.5, 4.4) | –2.5 ± 1.4 (–6.4, 1.4) | 10.2 ± 1.5 (6.2, 14.3*) |
| Cluster 2 | 340 (20.9) | 99.5 ± 15.1 | –2.9 ± 1.4 (–6.6, 0.9) | 9.8 ± 1.4 (6.1, 13.5*) | |
| Cluster 3 | 283 (17.4) | 100.2 ± 15.9 | 12.7 ± 1.2 (9.5, 15.8*) | ||
| Cluster 4 | 790 (48.6) | 96.1 ± 15.1 |
Differences among clusters in mean WC in the unadjusted model were similar to those in the adjusted model at P <0.01 (Supplemental Table 2).
Models were adjusted for survey year, sex, age, race/ethnicity, poverty to income ratio, and energy misreporting (EI:EER).
Values are mean ± SD.
ß represents the difference between mean WC of cluster and reference cluster. Differences in mean WC are different than those between raw means because they represent differences in least square means.
Significance level: *P <0.0001
EER, estimated energy requirement; EI, energy intake; SEE, standard error of the estimate; WC, waist circumference.