Cross-sectional findings report elevated blood pressure and fasting glucose in young adults, suggesting diet quality impacts cardiometabolic phenotypes.
Background: Albania is undergoing rapid nutrition transition, yet cardiometabolic (CM) risk in young adults is poorly characterized. We report baseline, cross-sectional findings from a WHO-aligned sentinel study examining diet, physical activity and early CM phenotypes, with fat quality examined as a modifiable exposure. Methods: Young adults recruited on campus (n = 262; median age, 21 years; 172 women, 90 men) underwent standardized anthropometry, seated blood pressure (BP) and fasting glucose (FG). Diet was assessed by two interviewer-administered 24 h recalls and activity outlined by the IPAQ-short form. We derived potential renal acid load (PRAL) and a MASLD-oriented nutrient score, computed a composite CM risk score (cCMRS: sex-standardized mean of WHtR, mean arterial pressure, FG) and fitted prespecified energy-partition models for isocaloric +5% of energy substitutions (SFA → PUFA; SFA → MUFA) with Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) control. Results: Despite normal average BMI (23.4), risk clustering was common: elevated BP in 63% of men and 30% of women, impaired FG (100–125 mg/dL) in almost one third and central adiposity (WHtR ≥ 0.5) in 51% of men and 24% of women. Diets were SFA-rich (~17–19%E), sodium-dense and low in fiber and several micronutrients (e.g., vitamin D, folate, potassium). In isocaloric models, SFA → PUFA was associated with more favorable nutrient signatures: MASLD-oriented score −28% (p < 0.001; FDR-significant) and PRAL −33% (p = 0.007; FDR-borderline/suggestive). Conclusions: A waist-centric CM subphenotype—central adiposity co-occurring with upward BP shifts and intermittent dysglycemia—was detectable in young adults despite normal average BMI, against a background of poor diet quality and low activity. These baseline surveillance signals are not causal effects. Integration into routine with WHO-aligned NCD surveillance is feasible. Prospective follow-up (biomarker calibration, device-based activity, repeated waves) will refine inferences and inform scalable proactive prevention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gurazi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: