Red meat intake and risk of coronary heart disease among US men: prospective cohort study
Al-Shaar L, Satija A, Wang DD, Rimm EB, Smith-Warner SA, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB, Willett WC
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 132 citations
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
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- National Institutes of Health
Based on 1 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2020-12-02 · BMJ · vol. 371 · p. m4141
- Cited
- 200 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 17.3× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 43 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY-NC
- Research areas
- Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Meat and Animal Product Quality
- Keywords
- Red meat, Hazard ratio, Medicine, Confidence interval, Prospective cohort study, Proportional hazards model, Cohort study, Myocardial infarction, Cohort, Internal medicine, Environmental health
- MeSH
- humans, coronary disease, myocardial infarction, dietary proteins, diet, multivariate analysis, proportional hazards models, risk factors, cohort studies, prospective studies, food handling, dairy products, eggs, adult, aged, middle aged, health personnel, united states, male, whole grains, red meat
8 authors
From US
- Laila Al‐ShaarHarvard University
- Ambika SatijaHarvard University
- Dong D. WangBrigham and Women's Hospital; Harvard University
- Eric B. RimmBrigham and Women's Hospital; Harvard University
- Stephanie A. Smith‐WarnerHarvard University
- Meir J. StampferBrigham and Women's Hospital; Harvard University
Abstract
Objectives
To study total, processed, and unprocessed red meat in relation to risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and to estimate the effects of substituting other protein sources for red meat with CHD risk.
Design
Prospective cohort study with repeated measures of diet and lifestyle factors.
Setting
Health Professionals Follow-Up Study cohort, United States, 1986-2016.
Participants
43 272 men without cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline.
Main outcome measures
The primary outcome was total CHD, comprised of acute non-fatal myocardial infarction or fatal CHD. Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals across categories of red meat consumption. Substitution analyses were conducted by comparing coefficients for red meat and the alternative food in models, including red meat and alternative foods as continuous variables.
Results
During 1 023 872 person years of follow-up, 4456 incident CHD events were documented of which 1860 were fatal. After multivariate adjustment for dietary and non-dietary risk factors, total, unprocessed, and processed red meat intake were each associated with a modestly higher risk of CHD (hazard ratio for one serving per day increment: 1.12 (95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.18) for total red meat, 1.11 (1.02 to 1.21) for unprocessed red meat, and 1.15 (1.06 to 1.25) for processed red meat). Compared with red meat, the intake of one serving per day of combined plant protein sources (nuts, legumes, and soy) was associated with a lower risk of CHD (0.86 (0.80 to 0.93) compared with total red meat, 0.87 (0.79 to 0.95) compared with unprocessed red meat, and 0.83 (0.76 to 0.91) compared with processed red meat). Substitutions of whole grains and dairy products for total red meat and eggs for processed red meat were also associated with lower CHD risk.
Conclusions
Substituting high quality plant foods such as legumes, nuts, or soy for red meat might reduce the risk of CHD. Substituting whole grains and dairy products for total red meat, and eggs for processed red meat, might also reduce this risk.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC).
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.