Dietary Intake of Red Meat, Processed Meat, and Poultry and Risk of Colorectal Cancer and All-Cause Mortality in the Context of Dietary Guideline Compliance

Mejborn, Heddie; Møller, Sanne Pagh; Thygesen, Lau Caspar; Biltoft-Jensen, Anja Pia

doi:10.3390/nu13010032

Cited by 20 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We identified 20 prospective cohorts 27 , 28 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 54 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 63 , 72 , 73 , 75 and one nested case–control study 67 to assess the relationship between unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer among 2,413,032 individuals in total (sample size was calculated as the number of unique data source-location pairs with observations of risk exposure and outcome) over an average of 8.0 years per individual (range of mean/median follow-up per cohort, 4.1–32 years). Ten cohorts were carried out in Europe, eight in North America, two in Asia and one in Australia.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study

Lescinsky

Afshin

Ashbaugh

et al. 2022

Nat Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Characterizing the potential health effects of exposure to risk factors such as red meat consumption is essential to inform health policy and practice. Previous meta-analyses evaluating the effects of red meat intake have generated mixed findings and do not formally assess evidence strength. Here, we conducted a systematic review and implemented a meta-regression—relaxing conventional log-linearity assumptions and incorporating between-study heterogeneity—to evaluate the relationships between unprocessed red meat consumption and six potential health outcomes. We found weak evidence of association between unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease. Moreover, we found no evidence of an association between unprocessed red meat and ischemic stroke or hemorrhagic stroke. We also found that while risk for the six outcomes in our analysis combined was minimized at 0 g unprocessed red meat intake per day, the 95% uncertainty interval that incorporated between-study heterogeneity was very wide: from 0–200 g d−1. While there is some evidence that eating unprocessed red meat is associated with increased risk of disease incidence and mortality, it is weak and insufficient to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations. More rigorous, well-powered research is needed to better understand and quantify the relationship between consumption of unprocessed red meat and chronic disease.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study

Lescinsky

Afshin

Ashbaugh

et al. 2022

Nat Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fifteen unique studies (40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53) 10). When prostate cancer patients excluded from analysis RR was 1.04 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.08).…”

Section: Association Between Processed Meat/ Processed Red Meat Consu...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Association Between Ultra-Processed Food Intake and All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Taneri¹,

Wehrli²,

Roa‐Díaz³

et al. 2022

American Journal of Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption have increased in the world during the last decades since they are hyper-palatable, cheap and ready-to-consume products. However, uncertainty exists on their impact on health. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the association of UPF consumption with the all-cause mortality risk. Five bibliographic databases were searched for relevant studies. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Of 6,951 unique citations, 40 unique prospective cohort studies comprising 5,750,133 individuals were included. Publication date of the included studies ranged from 1984 to2021. Compared to low consumption, highest consumption of UPF (RR=1.29, 95% CI 1.17-1.42), sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) (RR=1.11, 95% CI, 1.04-1.18), artificially sweetened beverages (ASB) (RR=1.14, 95% CI, 1.05-1.22) and processed meat/red meat (RR=1.15, 95% CI, 1.10-1.21) were significantly associated with increased risk of mortality. On the contrary, breakfast cereals were associated with a lower mortality risk (RR=0.85, 95% CI, 0.79-0.92). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that high consumption of UPF, SSB, ASB, processed meat and processed red meat might increase all-cause mortality, while breakfast cereals might decrease it. Future studies are needed to address lack of standardized methods in UPF categorization.

show abstract

“…Animal models suggesting that beef consumption does not promote cancer, that bacon may be protective, and that unsaturated fat may have carcinogenic effects (130,131) all increase the likelihood that strong statements on animal foods and cancer are premature. Similarly, a growing number of reviews and meta-analyses weaken the links between meat consumption and cancer (132)(133)(134)(135)(136) and possibly overall health (137,138), with some showing inverse correlations between meat intake and overall mortality in specific cohorts (139) and lower rates of CRC in meat eaters than in vegetarians (140). Studies that correlate meat intake with CRC also suggest a complex etiology due to contributing factors, such as obesity and hyperinsulinemia (141).…”

Section: High-fat Diets the Gut And Crc-settled Science?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing Nutritional Microbiota Studies To Reflect an Inherent Metabolic Flexibility of the Human Gut: a Narrative Review Focusing on High-Fat Diets

Sholl

Mailing²,

Wood

2021

mBio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a broad consensus in nutritional-microbiota research that high-fat (HF) diets are harmful to human health, at least in part through their modulation of the gut microbiota. However, various studies also support the inherent flexibility of the human gut and our microbiota’s ability to adapt to a variety of food sources, suggesting a more nuanced picture. In this article, we first discuss some problems facing basic translational research and provide a different framework for thinking about diet and gut health in terms of metabolic flexibility. We then offer evidence that well-formulated HF diets, such as ketogenic diets, may provide healthful alternative fuel sources for the human gut. We place this in the context of cancer research, where this concern over HF diets is also expressed, and consider various potential objections concerning the effects of lipopolysaccharides, trimethylamine-N-oxide, and secondary bile acids on human gut health. We end by providing some general suggestions for how to improve research and clinical practice with respect to the gut microbiota when considering the framework of metabolic flexibility.

show abstract

Dietary Intake of Red Meat, Processed Meat, and Poultry and Risk of Colorectal Cancer and All-Cause Mortality in the Context of Dietary Guideline Compliance

Cited by 20 publications

References 28 publications

Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study

Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study

Association Between Ultra-Processed Food Intake and All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Reframing Nutritional Microbiota Studies To Reflect an Inherent Metabolic Flexibility of the Human Gut: a Narrative Review Focusing on High-Fat Diets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About