30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Effects of red meat, white meat, and nonmeat protein sources on atherogenic lipoprotein measures in the context of low compared with high saturated fat intake: a randomized controlled trial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Dietary recommendations to limit red meat are based on observational studies linking intake to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk together with the potential of its saturated fatty acid (SFA) content to raise low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. However, the relation of white meat to CVD risk, and the effects of dietary protein source on lipoprotein particle subfractions, have not been extensively evaluated. We tested whether levels of atherogenic lipids and lipoproteins differed significantly following consumption of diets with high red meat content compared with diets with similar amounts of protein derived from white meat or nonmeat sources, and whether these effects were modified by concomitant intake of high compared with low SFAs. Generally healthy men and women, 21–65 y, body mass index 20–35 kg/m 2 , were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 parallel arms (high or low SFA) and within each, allocated to red meat, white meat, and nonmeat protein diets consumed for 4 wk each in random order. The primary outcomes were LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B (apoB), small + medium LDL particles, and total/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Analysis included participants who completed all 3 dietary protein assignments (61 for high SFA; 52 for low SFA). LDL cholesterol and apoB were higher with red and white meat than with nonmeat, independent of SFA content ( P  < 0.0001 for all, except apoB: red meat compared with nonmeat [ P  = 0.0004]). This was due primarily to increases in large LDL particles, whereas small + medium LDL and total/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were unaffected by protein source ( P  = 0.10 and P  = 0.51, respectively). Primary outcomes did not differ significantly between red and white meat. Independent of protein source, high compared with low SFA increased LDL cholesterol ( P  = 0.0003), apoB ( P  = 0.0002), and large LDL ( P  = 0.0002). The findings are in keeping with recommendations promoting diets with a high proportion of plant-based food but, based on lipid and lipoprotein effects, do not provide evidence for choosing white over red meat for reducing CVD risk. This trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01427855.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dietary Intake Among US Adults, 1999-2012.

          Most studies of US dietary trends have evaluated major macronutrients or only a few dietary factors. Understanding trends in summary measures of diet quality for multiple individual foods and nutrients, and the corresponding disparities among population subgroups, is crucial to identify challenges and opportunities to improve dietary intake for all US adults.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Unprocessed red and processed meats and risk of coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes--an updated review of the evidence.

            Growing evidence suggests that effects of red meat consumption on coronary heart disease (CHD) and type 2 diabetes could vary depending on processing. We reviewed the evidence for effects of unprocessed (fresh/frozen) red and processed (using sodium/other preservatives) meat consumption on CHD and diabetes. In meta-analyses of prospective cohorts, higher risk of CHD is seen with processed meat consumption (RR per 50 g: 1.42, 95 %CI = 1.07-1.89), but a smaller increase or no risk is seen with unprocessed meat consumption. Differences in sodium content (~400 % higher in processed meat) appear to account for about two-thirds of this risk difference. In similar analyses, both unprocessed red and processed meat consumption are associated with incident diabetes, with higher risk per g of processed (RR per 50 g: 1.51, 95 %CI = 1.25-1.83) versus unprocessed (RR per 100 g: 1.19, 95 % CI = 1.04-1.37) meats. Contents of heme iron and dietary cholesterol may partly account for these associations. The overall findings suggest that neither unprocessed red nor processed meat consumption is beneficial for cardiometabolic health, and that clinical and public health guidance should especially prioritize reducing processed meat consumption.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meat intake and mortality: a prospective study of over half a million people.

              High intakes of red or processed meat may increase the risk of mortality. Our objective was to determine the relations of red, white, and processed meat intakes to risk for total and cause-specific mortality. The study population included the National Institutes of Health-AARP (formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons) Diet and Health Study cohort of half a million people aged 50 to 71 years at baseline. Meat intake was estimated from a food frequency questionnaire administered at baseline. Cox proportional hazards regression models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) within quintiles of meat intake. The covariates included in the models were age, education, marital status, family history of cancer (yes/no) (cancer mortality only), race, body mass index, 31-level smoking history, physical activity, energy intake, alcohol intake, vitamin supplement use, fruit consumption, vegetable consumption, and menopausal hormone therapy among women. Main outcome measures included total mortality and deaths due to cancer, cardiovascular disease, injuries and sudden deaths, and all other causes. There were 47 976 male deaths and 23 276 female deaths during 10 years of follow-up. Men and women in the highest vs lowest quintile of red (HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.27-1.35], and HR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.30-1.43], respectively) and processed meat (HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.12-1.20], and HR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.20-1.31], respectively) intakes had elevated risks for overall mortality. Regarding cause-specific mortality, men and women had elevated risks for cancer mortality for red (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.16-1.29], and HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.12-1.30], respectively) and processed meat (HR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.06-1.19], and HR, 1.11 [95% CI 1.04-1.19], respectively) intakes. Furthermore, cardiovascular disease risk was elevated for men and women in the highest quintile of red (HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.20-1.35], and HR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.37-1.65], respectively) and processed meat (HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15], and HR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.26-1.51], respectively) intakes. When comparing the highest with the lowest quintile of white meat intake, there was an inverse association for total mortality and cancer mortality, as well as all other deaths for both men and women. Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0002-9165
                1938-3207
                June 04 2019
                June 04 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, CA
                [2 ]Department of Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Touro University California, Vallejo, CA
                [3 ]Department of Genome Sciences, Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
                Article
                10.1093/ajcn/nqz035
                6599736
                31161217
                eaf7828c-1098-43a7-92ea-9367412388b5
                © 2019

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article