Explore the vast range of titles available.

Processed meat and red meat have been associated with increased mortality, but studies are inconsistent and few have investigated substitution by other protein sources. The relationship of overall and causes-specific mortality with red meat, processed meat, and other dietary protein sources was investigated in The Netherlands Cohort Study. In 1986, 120,852 men and women aged 55–69 years provided information on dietary and lifestyle habits. Mortality follow-up until 1996 consisted of linkage to statistics Netherlands. Multivariable case-cohort analyses were based on 8823 deaths and 3202 subcohort members with complete data on diet and confounders. Red meat (unprocessed) intake was not associated with overall and cause-specific mortality. Processed meat intake was significantly positively related to overall mortality: HR (95% CI) comparing highest versus lowest quintile, 1.21 (1.02–1.44) with Ptrend = 0.049. Significant associations were observed for cardiovascular [HR Q5 vs. Q1, 1.26 (1.01–1.26)] and respiratory [HR = 1.79 (1.19–2.67)], but not cancer mortality [HR = 1.16 (0.97–1.39)]. Adjustment for nitrite intake attenuated these associations which became nonsignificant: HRs Q5 versus Q1 (95% CI) were: 1.10 (0.77–1.55) for total, 1.09 (0.71–1.67) for cardiovascular, 1.44 (0.68–3.05) for respiratory, and 1.11 (0.78–1.58) for cancer mortality. Nitrite was significantly associated with overall, CVD and respiratory mortality. Poultry intake was significantly inversely related to cancer and overall mortality. While fish intake showed positive associations, nut intake showed inverse associations with all endpoints. Replacing processed meat with a combination of poultry, eggs, fish, pulses, nuts and low-fat dairy was associated with lower risks of overall, cardiovascular and respiratory mortality. Processed meat was related to increased overall, CVD and respiratory mortality, potentially due to nitrite. Substituting processed meat with other protein sources was associated with lower mortality risks.

To examine and quantify the potential dose-response relationship between red and processed meat consumption and risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, CINHAL, Scopus, the Cochrane library and reference lists of retrieved articles up to 30 November 2014 without language restrictions. We retrieved prospective cohort studies that reported risk estimates for all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality by red and/or processed meat intake levels. The dose-response relationships were estimated using data from red and processed meat intake categories in each study. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risks and 95 % confidence intervals and to incorporate between-study variations. Nine articles with seventeen prospective cohorts were eligible in this meta-analysis, including a total of 150 328 deaths. There was evidence of a non-linear association between processed meat consumption and risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, but not for cancer mortality. For processed meat, the pooled relative risk with an increase of one serving per day was 1·15 (95 % CI 1·11, 1·19) for all-cause mortality (five studies; P<0·001 for linear trend), 1·15 (95 % CI 1·07, 1·24) for cardiovascular mortality (six studies; P<0·001) and 1·08 (95 % CI 1·06, 1·11) for cancer mortality (five studies; P<0·001). Similar associations were found with total meat intake. The association between unprocessed red meat consumption and mortality risk was found in the US populations, but not in European or Asian populations. The present meta-analysis indicates that higher consumption of total red meat and processed meat is associated with an increased risk of total, cardiovascular and cancer mortality.

A well known, epidemiologically reproducible risk factor for human carcinomas is the long-term consumption of “red meat” of mammalian origin. Although multiple theories have attempted to explain this human-specific association, none have been conclusively proven. We used an improved method to survey common foods for free and glycosidically bound forms of the nonhuman sialic acidN-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), showing that it is highly and selectively enriched in red meat. The bound form of Neu5Gc is bioavailable, undergoing metabolic incorporation into human tissues, despite being a foreign antigen. Interactions of this antigen with circulating anti-Neu5Gc antibodies could potentially incite inflammation. Indeed, when human-like Neu5Gc-deficient mice were fed bioavailable Neu5Gc and challenged with anti-Neu5Gc antibodies, they developed evidence of systemic inflammation. Such mice are already prone to develop occasional tumors of the liver, an organ that can incorporate dietary Neu5Gc. Neu5Gc-deficient mice immunized against Neu5Gc and fed bioavailable Neu5Gc developed a much higher incidence of hepatocellular carcinomas, with evidence of Neu5Gc accumulation. Taken together, our data provide an unusual mechanistic explanation for the epidemiological association between red meat consumption and carcinoma risk. This mechanism might also contribute to other chronic inflammatory processes epidemiologically associated with red meat consumption.

Purpose Several epidemiologic investigations have found associations between the consumption of red meat and the metabolic syndrome (MetS). Very few studies have looked at populations undergoing the nutrition transition with smaller levels of red meat consumption than those in Westernized countries. In this population-based cross-sectional study, we examined the association between red meat consumption and MetS in Costa Rican adults, a population with comparably lower consumption of red meat. Methods Prevalence ratios (PRs) of MetS across quintiles of total, unprocessed, and processed red meat consumption were estimated with log-binomial regression models among 2058 adults from the Costa Rican Heart Study. Least-squares mean values of individual components of MetS across quintiles of red meat consumption were estimated with linear regression models. Results We observed a significant positive association between total red meat consumption and MetS (PR for highest compared to lowest quintile: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.42; P for trend = 0.0113) but not for unprocessed or processed red meat consumption when analyzed separately after mutual adjustments. We additionally observed a significant positive association between total, unprocessed, and processed red meat consumption and abdominal obesity. Conclusion In this Hispanic population undergoing the nutrition transition, total red meat intake may have an impact on MetS. Based on the relatively low consumption of red meat in Costa Rica compared to other Westernized countries, we hypothesize that a “threshold effect” may exist for unprocessed and processed red meat.

The associations of red/processed meat consumption and cancer-related health outcomes have been well discussed. The umbrella review aimed to summarise the associations of red/processed meat consumption and various non-cancer-related outcomes in humans. We systematically searched the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of associations between red/processed meat intake and health outcomes from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases. The umbrella review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42021218568). A total of 40 meta-analyses were included. High consumption of red meat, particularly processed meat, was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality, CVD and metabolic outcomes. Dose–response analysis revealed that an additional 100 g/d red meat intake was positively associated with a 17 % increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), 15 % increased risk of CHD, 14 % of hypertension and 12 % of stroke. The highest dose–response/50 g increase in processed meat consumption at 95 % confident levels was 1·37, 95 % CI (1·22, 1·55) for T2DM, 1·27, 95 % CI (1·09, 1·49) for CHD, 1·17, 95 % CI (1·02, 1·34) for stroke, 1·15, 95 % CI (1·11, 1·19) for all-cause mortality and 1·08, 95 % CI (1·02, 1·14) for heart failure. In addition, red/processed meat intake was associated with several other health-related outcomes. Red and processed meat consumption seems to be more harmful than beneficial to human health in this umbrella review. It is necessary to take the impacts of red/processed meat consumption on non-cancer-related outcomes into consideration when developing new dietary guidelines, which will be of great public health importance. However, more additional randomised controlled trials are warranted to clarify the causality.

To examine the association between red/processed meat consumption and glycaemic conditions (i.e. prediabetes (preDM) and diabetes mellitus (DM)) among middle-aged residents in rural Khánh Hòa, Vietnam. In this cross-sectional study, a multinomial logistic regression model was used to examine the association between daily consumption of red/processed meat (0-99 g, 100-199 g or ≥ 200 g) and preDM/DM with adjustments for socio-demographic, lifestyle-related and health-related variables. Khánh Hòa Province, Vietnam. The study used data collected through a baseline survey conducted during a prospective cohort study on CVD among 3000 residents, aged 40-60 years, living in rural communes in Khánh Hòa Province. The multinomial regression model revealed that the relative-risk ratios for DM were 1·00 (reference), 1·11 (95 % CI = 0·75, 1·62) and 1·80 (95 % CI = 1·40, 2·32) from the lowest to the highest red/processed meat consumption categories ( = 0·006). The corresponding values for preDM were 1·00 (reference), 1·25 (95 % CI = 1·01, 1·54) and 1·67 (95 % CI = 1·20, 2·33) ( = 0·004). We did not find any evidence of statistical significance in relation to poultry consumption. Increased red/processed meat consumption, but not poultry consumption, was positively associated with the prevalence of preDM/DM in rural communes in Khánh Hòa Province, Vietnam. Dietary recommendations involving a reduction in red/processed meat consumption should be considered in low- and middle-income countries.

Background There is limited prospective evidence on the association between meat consumption and many common, non-cancerous health outcomes. We examined associations of meat intake with risk of 25 common conditions (other than cancer). Methods We used data from 474,985 middle-aged adults recruited into the UK Biobank study between 2006 and 2010 and followed up until 2017 (mean follow-up 8.0 years) with available information on meat intake at baseline (collected via touchscreen questionnaire), and linked hospital admissions and mortality data. For a large sub-sample (~ 69,000), dietary intakes were re-measured three or more times using an online, 24-h recall questionnaire. Results On average, participants who reported consuming meat regularly (three or more times per week) had more adverse health behaviours and characteristics than participants who consumed meat less regularly, and most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI). In multi-variable adjusted (including BMI) Cox regression models corrected for multiple testing, higher consumption of unprocessed red and processed meat combined was associated with higher risks of ischaemic heart disease (hazard ratio (HRs) per 70 g/day higher intake 1.15, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.07–1.23), pneumonia (1.31, 1.18–1.44), diverticular disease (1.19, 1.11–1.28), colon polyps (1.10, 1.06–1.15), and diabetes (1.30, 1.20–1.42); results were similar for unprocessed red meat and processed meat intakes separately. Higher consumption of unprocessed red meat alone was associated with a lower risk of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA: HR per 50 g/day higher intake 0.80, 95% CIs 0.72–0.90). Higher poultry meat intake was associated with higher risks of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (HR per 30 g/day higher intake 1.17, 95% CIs 1.09–1.26), gastritis and duodenitis (1.12, 1.05–1.18), diverticular disease (1.10, 1.04–1.17), gallbladder disease (1.11, 1.04–1.19), and diabetes (1.14, 1.07–1.21), and a lower IDA risk (0.83, 0.76–0.90). Conclusions Higher unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry meat consumption was associated with higher risks of several common conditions; higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations. Higher unprocessed red meat and poultry meat consumption was associated with lower IDA risk.

High red and processed meat intake and genetic predisposition are risk factors of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, evidence of their independent and joint associations on the risk of colorectal neoplasms is limited. We assessed these associations among 4774 men and women undergoing screening colonoscopy. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) were calculated based on 140 loci related to CRC. We used multiple logistic regression models to evaluate the associations of red and processed meat intake and PRS with the risk of colorectal neoplasms. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were translated to genetic risk equivalents (GREs) to compare the strength of the associations with colorectal neoplasm risk of both factors. Compared to ≤1 time/week, processed meat intake >1 time/week was associated with a significantly increased risk of colorectal neoplasm [aOR (95% CI): 1.28 (1.12–1.46)]. This risk increase was equivalent to the risk increase associated with a 19 percentile higher PRS. The association of red meat intake with colorectal neoplasm was weaker and did not reach statistical significance. High processed meat intake and PRS contribute to colorectal neoplasm risk independently. Limiting processed meat intake may offset a substantial proportion of the genetically increased risk of colorectal neoplasms.

This study investigated the consumption behaviours of healthcare professionals in relation to red meat and processed red meat products. This study included a questionnaire conducted through face-to-face interviews with 149 health professionals. The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine the extent to which health professionals agreed with the WHO classification of red meat and processed red meat on their list of carcinogenic products. This research was carried out in İzmir, which is Turkey's third largest city. The survey was conducted in 2016 by holding face to face interviews with forty-three specialist doctors, sixteen doctors, twelve dentists, sixty-four nurses and fourteen pharmacists. Nationally representative sample of healthcare professionals in Turkey. People educated in healthcare are especially cautious about the consumption of processed red meat products. The results of the research revealed the importance of processing and cooking patterns in red meat consumption preferences. The consequences of the research, in terms of breaking down prejudices and overcoming the anxieties of those with health concerns who do not consume red meat, are important. In fact, the results show that healthcare professionals consume red meat, but they are more careful in their consumption of processed red meat products. This result is in line with the WHO report.

PurposeThe association between meat consumption and the risk of pancreatic cancer has not been comprehensively investigated by different types of meat. The current study was conducted to evaluate this association.MethodsPubMed and Web of Science databases were used to search for prospective cohort studies on meat consumption and pancreatic cancer risk through May 2022. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to combine study-specific relative risks (RR). The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale.ResultsTwenty prospective cohort studies including 3,934,909 participants and 11,315 pancreatic cancer cases were identified. The pooled RR of pancreatic cancer for the highest versus lowest white meat intake category was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.03–1.27). There was no significant association between consumption of red meat and processed meat and pancreatic cancer risk in the highest versus lowest analysis. In dose–response analyses, pooled RRs were 1.14 (95% CI: 1.01–1.28) for an increase in red meat consumption of 120 g per day and 1.26 (95% CI: 1.08–1.47) for an increase in white meat consumption of 100 g per day, respectively. Processed meat consumption showed neither a linear nor a non-linear association with pancreatic cancer risk.ConclusionFindings from this meta-analysis suggested that high consumption of red meat and white meat is associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Future prospective studies are warranted to confirm the association between meat consumption and the risk of pancreatic cancer.