Dietary fat intake as risk factor for the development of diabetes - Multinational, multicenter study of the Mediterranean Group for the Study of Diabetes (MGSD)

OBJECTIVE - To investigate the role of dietary factors in the development of type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - in the context of the Multinational MGSD Nutrition Study, three groups of subjects were studied: 204 subjects with recently diagnosed diabetes (RDM), 42 subjects with undiagnosed diabetes (UDM) (American Diabetes Association criteria-fasting plasma glucose [FPG] greater than or equal to126 mg/dl), and 55 subjects with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) (FPG greater than or equal to110 and <126 mg/dl). Each group was compared with a control group of nondiabetic subjects, matched one by one for center, sex, age, and BMI. Nutritional habits were evaluated by a dietary history method, validated against the 3-day diet diary. In RDM, the questionnaire referred to the nutritional habits before the diagnosis of diabetes. Demographic data were collected, and anthropometrical and biochemical measurements were taken. RESULTS - Compared with control subjects, RDM more frequently had a family history of diabetes (49.0 vs. 14.2%; P < 0.001), exercised less (exercise index 53.5 vs. 64.4; P < 0.01), and more frequently had sedentary professions (47.5 vs. 27.4%; P < 0.001). Carbohydrates contributed less to their energy intake (53.5 vs. 55.1%; P < 0.05), whereas total fat (30.2 +/- 0.5 vs. 27.8 +/- 0.5%; P < 0.001) and animal fat (12.2 +/- 0.3 vs. 10.8 +/- 0.3%; P < 0.01) contributed more and the plant-to-animal fat ratio was lower (1.5 +/- 0.1 vs. 1.8 +/- 0.1; P < 0.01). UDM more frequently had a family history of diabetes (38.1 vs. 19.0%; P < 0.05) and sedentary professions (58.5 vs. 34.1%; P < 0.05), carbohydrates contributed less to their energy intake (47.6 +/- 1.7 vs. 52.8 +/- 1.4%; P < 0.05), total fat (34.7 +/- 1.5 vs. 30.4 +/- 1.2%; P < 0.05) and animal fat (14.2 +/- 0.9 vs 10.6 +/- 0.7%; P < 0.05) contributed more, and the plant-to-animal fat ratio was lower (1.6 +/- 0.2 vs. 2.3 +/- 0.4; P < 0.05). IFG differed only in the prevalence of family history of diabetes (32.7 vs. 16.4%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS - Our data support the view that increased animal fat intake is associated with the presence of diabetes.