Funded in part by Funded by the Beef Checkoff
Red meat consumption and risk factors for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Sanders LM, Wilcox ML, Maki KC
European journal of clinical nutrition · 41 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
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Industry funded
- Industry group
- Funded by the Beef Checkoff
- Authors
- At least one author declares a financial tie to industry
Based on 1 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2022-05-05 · Eur J Clin Nutr · vol. 77 · issue 2 · pp. 156–165
- Publisher
- Springer Nature
- Cited
- 56 citations · more than 96% of similar papers · 3.4× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 51 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Meat and Animal Product Quality · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Keywords
- Red meat, Medicine, Type 2 diabetes, Postprandial, Meta-analysis, Internal medicine, Glycated hemoglobin, Insulin resistance, Diabetes mellitus, Randomized controlled trial, Insulin, Endocrinology
- MeSH
- animals, cattle, sheep, humans, diabetes mellitus, type 2, insulin resistance, glucose, blood glucose, risk factors, meat, glucagon-like peptide 1, randomized controlled trials as topic, red meat
3 authors
From US
- Lisa Sanders
- Meredith Leigh Wilcox
- Kevin Carl Maki · correspondingIndiana University Health; Indiana University Bloomington
Abstract
Background and objectives
Results from observational studies suggest an association of red meat intake with risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). However, results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not clearly supported a mechanistic link between red meat intake and T2D risk factors. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on RCTs evaluating the effects of diets containing red meat (beef, pork, lamb, etc.), compared to diets with lower or no red meat, on markers of glucose homeostasis in adults.
Methods
A search of PubMed and CENTRAL yielded 21 relevant RCTs. Pooled estimates were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) between the red meat intervention and the comparator intervention with less or no red meat.
Results
Compared to diets with reduced or no red meat intake, there was no significant impact of red meat intake on insulin sensitivity (SMD: -0.11; 95% CI: -0.39, 0.16), insulin resistance (SMD: 0.11; 95% CI: -0.24, 0.45), fasting glucose (SMD: 0.13; 95% CI: -0.04, 0.29), fasting insulin (SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.16, 0.32), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c; SMD: 0.10; 95% CI: -0.37, 0.58), pancreatic beta-cell function (SMD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.37, 0.10), or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1; SMD: 0.10; 95% CI: -0.37, 0.58). Red meat intake modestly reduced postprandial glucose (SMD: -0.44; 95% CI: -0.67, -0.22; P < 0.001) compared to meals with reduced or no red meat intake. The quality of evidence was low to moderate for all outcomes.
Conclusions
The results of this meta-analysis suggest red meat intake does not impact most glycemic and insulinemic risk factors for T2D. Further investigations are needed on other markers of glucose homeostasis to better understand whether a causal relationship exists between red meat intake and risk of T2D.
Prospero registration
CRD42020176059.
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.