Meat consumption after disaggregation of meat dishes in a cohort of British adults in 1989 and 1999 in relation to diet quality

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The aim of the study was to quantify more precisely the meat intake of a cohort of adults in the UK by disaggregating composite meat dishes. Subjects/Methods: Subjects were members of the Medical Research Council National Survey of Health and Development, 1946 birth cohort. Five-day diaries were collected from 2256 men and women in 1989 and 1772 men and women in 1999. From the details provided, composite meat dishes were broken down into their constituent parts and the meat fraction was added to meat portions only. Meat intake was classified as red meat, processed meat and poultry. Results: Meat consumption without disaggregation of meat dishes resulted in a mean overestimation of 50% in men and 33% in women. Red meat consumption fell between 1989 and 1999 from 51.7 to 41.5 g per day in men and 35.7 to 30.1 g per day in women. Poultry consumption rose from 21.6 to 32.2 g per day in men and 18.2 to 29.4 g per day in women. Re-calculating red meat intakes resulted in the percentage of subjects in 1999 consuming more than the recommendation of the World Cancer Research Fund falling from 30 to 12%. Increasing consumption of red and processed meat was associated with increased intakes of energy, fat, haem iron, zinc and vitamin B 12 , and lower intake of fibre. Increased sodium intake was associated with increased consumption of processed meat. Conclusions: Disaggregation of meat dishes provided a more precise estimate of meat consumption. The quantity of red or processed meat in the diet was reflected in the nutrient content of the entire diet.

Meat, poultry and fish and risk of colorectal cancer: pooled analysis of data from the UK dietary cohort consortium

“…Based on work within the NSHD cohort 7 , as well as using information from recipes published in the McCance and Widdowson "The Composition of Foods" series 19 and its supplements and food product manufacturers, the percentage by weight of meat, poultry or fish was assigned for each individual food item containing these ingredients. In the work by Prynne and coworkers, after disaggregating the component parts of composite foods, the group estimates of consumption were lower by approximately 50-70% for red meat, 30-48% for processed meat, and 20-43% for poultry 7 . Thus, the intakes reported here are likely to be lower than those reported in studies which have used the total weight of a composite food item containing meat to be the estimate of meat intake.…”

“…This pooled analysis used standardised dietary data from diet diaries in case control studies nested within prospective cohorts. Particular attention was paid to quantifying disaggregated intakes of meat, poultry and fish from all sources including mixed dishes 7 , with the aim of clarifying dose response relationships.…”

Disaggregating composite food codes in the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey food composition databank

“…However, it would be unclear whether any variations in intake could be attributed to trends in consumption or as a result of the disaggregation work. The importance of accurately reporting meat intake has already been documented (Cosgrove et al, 2005, Prynne et al, 2008. Further examination of the disaggregation data will enable accurate comparisons to be made of current UK intakes against World Cancer Research Fund recommendations of 71 g per day (World Cancer Research Fund, 2007).…”

“…This is particularly relevant to NDNS when comparing reported dietary intake data with adherence to UK public health nutrition messages, such as five-a-day for fruit and vegetables (Department of Health, 2002) and the consumption of two portions of fish, including one portion of oily fish, per week (Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, 2004). Previous NDNS separated different types of meat into beef, lamb and pork, for example, but because of constraints in the food grouping systems of the NDNS food composition databank (FCDB) (Smithers, 1993), composite dishes were also included intact into these subdivisions (Prynne et al, 2008). For example, a lasagne containing minced beef is held within the food group 'Beef and veal dishes', which were historically regarded as 100% meat, although the dish is known to also contain significant proportions of cereals and vegetables.…”

Consumption patterns of meat, poultry, and fish after disaggregation of mixed dishes: secondary analysis of the Australian National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey 2011–12

“…The recipe file is based on information found in common Australian cook books and recipe websites, known commercial kitchen preparation procedures and product preparation instructions, gross composition data, and cooking and preparation practices observed during the survey time period [19]. This method has been applied in previous analyses in the UK and Ireland to capture a more precise estimation of meat consumption [20,21]. All meat/poultry/fish reported from 'mixed dishes where meat/poultry/fish was a major or minor component' were disaggregated (n = 1545).…”