Study2024Open access

Implications of food ultra-processing on cardiovascular risk considering plant origin foods: an analysis of the UK Biobank cohort

Rauber F, Laura da Costa Louzada M, Chang K, Huybrechts I, Gunter MJ, Monteiro CA, Vamos EP, Levy RB

The Lancet regional health. Europe · 30 citations

Review labels

No stated lifestyle adjustment

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 (classified by our AI screen)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Clinical events such as disease or death
Intake measured by
Food diaries or recalls

Who paid for it

Funding
Independent funding
Government
World Health Organization
Nonprofit
World Cancer Research Fund International
Nonprofit
World Cancer Research Fund

Based on 3 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.

Publication

Published
2024-06-13 · Lancet Reg Health Eur · vol. 43 · p. 100948
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Cited
61 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 23.3× the field average
Impact
Top 10% most cited in its field
References
31 works
Access
Open access (journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Keywords
Biobank, Cohort, Environmental health, Cohort study, Medicine, Risk analysis (engineering), Biology, Bioinformatics, Internal medicine

8 authors

From BR, VN, GB, FR

  • Fernanda RauberUniversidade de São Paulo; General Department of Preventive Medicine
  • Maria Laura da Costa LouzadaUniversidade de São Paulo
  • Kiara ChangImperial College London
  • Inge HuybrechtsCentre international de recherche sur le cancer
  • Marc James GunterCentre international de recherche sur le cancer; Imperial College London
  • Carlos Augusto MonteiroUniversidade de São Paulo

Abstract

Background

Comprehensive research evidence is lacking on the role of ultra-processed foods (UPF) in the relationship between the consumption of plant-sourced foods and their impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. This study aims to assess CVD risk associated with the dietary contribution of food groups that consider both plant or animal origin and food processing categories, within a large cohort of British adults.

Methods

Data from the UK Biobank participants (40-69 y) who completed at least two 24-h dietary recalls between 2009 and 2012 (n = 126,842; median follow-up: 9 y), with subsequent data linkage to hospital and mortality records, were used. Food groups were classified as either plant-sourced or non-plant/animal-sourced foods. These groups were further divided into non-UPF and UPF, and expressed as a percentage of total energy intake.

Findings

Every 10 percentage points increase in plant-sourced non-UPF consumption was associated with a 7% lower risk of CVD (95% CI 0.91-0.95) and a 13% lower risk of CVD mortality (0.80-0.94). Conversely, plant-sourced UPF consumption was associated with a 5% increased risk (1.03-1.07) and a 12% higher mortality (1.05-1.20). The contribution of all UPF was linked to higher CVD risk and mortality, and no evidence for an association between contribution of all plant-sourced foods and CVD incidence and mortality was observed.

Interpretation

The dietary contribution of plant-sourced non-UPF inversely linked to CVD risk, while plant-sourced UPF contribution showed a positive association. Recognizing the role of food processing is crucial for favourable CVD outcomes, even in plant-sourced diets.

Funding

World Cancer Research Fund.

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?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something 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 in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.