Co-consumption of Vegetables and Fruit, Whole Grains, and Fiber Reduces the Cancer Risk of Red and Processed Meat in a Large Prospective Cohort of Adults from Alberta's Tomorrow Project
Maximova K, Khodayari Moez E, Dabravolskaj J, Ferdinands AR, Dinu I, Lo Siou G, Al Rajabi A, Veugelers PJ
Nutrients · 16 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Cohort study (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Food frequency questionnaire
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- Alberta Health Services
- Nonprofit
- Alberta Cancer Foundation
- Nonprofit
- Canadian Cancer Society
- Nonprofit
- Partenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
- Government
- Health Canada
- Government
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Government
- CIHR
- Grants
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (151568); Alberta Cancer Foundation (702936); Alberta Cancer Foundation (151568); Canadian Institutes of Health Research (702936); Canadian Cancer Society (702936)
Based on 7 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2020-07-29 · Nutrients · vol. 12 · issue 8 · p. 2265
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Cited
- 26 citations · more than 90% of similar papers · 2.4× the field average
- References
- 74 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Cancer Risks and Factors
- Keywords
- Red meat, Medicine, Hazard ratio, Prospective cohort study, Incidence (geometry), Confounding, Environmental health, Proportional hazards model, Cohort, Cancer, Population, Cohort study, Refined grains, Cancer prevention, Cancer incidence, Processed meat, Lower risk, Whole grains, Food science, Confidence interval, Internal medicine, Biology
- MeSH
- humans, fruit, vegetables, neoplasms, diet, diet surveys, incidence, risk factors, prospective studies, time factors, dietary fiber, meat products, adult, aged, middle aged, alberta, female, male, whole grains, red meat
8 authors
From CA, AE
- Katerina Maximova · correspondingUniversity of Alberta
- Elham Khodayari MoezUniversity of Alberta
- Julia DabravolskajUniversity of Alberta
- Alexa Rae FerdinandsUniversity of Alberta
- Irina A DinuUniversity of Alberta
- Géraldine Lo SiouAlberta Health Services
Abstract
We examined whether co-consumption of red and processed meat with key foods items and food constituents recommended for cancer prevention (vegetables and fruit, whole grains, and fiber) mitigates cancer incidence. In a prospective cohort of 26,218 adults aged 35-69 years at baseline, dietary intake was collected through 124-item past-year food frequency questionnaire. Incidence of all-cause and 15 cancers previously linked to red and processed meat intake was obtained through data linkage with a cancer registry (average follow-up 13.5 years). Competing risk Cox Proportional Hazard models estimated cancer risk and Accelerated Failure Time models estimated time-to-cancer occurrence for different combinations of intake levels while considering mortality from vital statistics and established confounders. Co-consumption of low vegetables and fruit intake with high processed meat was associated with higher incidence of all-cause and 15 cancers (men: HR = 1.85, 1.91; women: HR = 1.44, 1.49) and accelerated time-to-cancer occurrence (men: 6.5 and 7.1 years and women: 5.6 and 6.3 years, respectively), compared to high vegetables and fruit with low processed meat intake. Less pronounced and less consistent associations were observed for whole grains and fiber and for red meat. The findings provide initial evidence toward refining existing cancer prevention recommendations to optimize the intake and combination of foods in the general adult population.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.