Dataset Information

Comparison of Major Protein-Source Foods and Other Food Groups in Meat-Eaters and Non-Meat-Eaters in the EPIC-Oxford Cohort.

ABSTRACT: Differences in health outcomes between meat-eaters and non-meat-eaters might relate to differences in dietary intakes between these diet groups. We assessed intakes of major protein-source foods and other food groups in six groups of meat-eaters and non-meat-eaters participating in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Oxford study. The data were from 30,239 participants who answered questions regarding their consumption of meat, fish, dairy or eggs and completed a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) in 2010. Participants were categorized as regular meat-eaters, low meat-eaters, poultry-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans. FFQ foods were categorized into 45 food groups and analysis of variance was used to test for differences between age-adjusted mean intakes of each food group by diet group. Regular meat-eaters, vegetarians and vegans, respectively, consumed about a third, quarter and a fifth of their total energy intake from high protein-source foods. Compared with regular meat-eaters, low and non-meat-eaters consumed higher amounts of high-protein meat alternatives (soy, legumes, pulses, nuts, seeds) and other plant-based foods (whole grains, vegetables, fruits) and lower amounts of refined grains, fried foods, alcohol and sugar-sweetened beverages. These findings provide insight into potential nutritional explanations for differences in health outcomes between diet groups.

SUBMITTER: Papier K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6521004 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Major Protein-Source Foods and Other Food Groups in Meat-Eaters and Non-Meat-Eaters in the EPIC-Oxford Cohort.

Papier Keren K Tong Tammy Yn TY Appleby Paul N PN Bradbury Kathryn E KE Fensom Georgina K GK Knuppel Anika A Perez-Cornago Aurora A Schmidt Julie A JA Travis Ruth C RC Key Timothy J TJ

Nutrients 20190411 4

Differences in health outcomes between meat-eaters and non-meat-eaters might relate to differences in dietary intakes between these diet groups. We assessed intakes of major protein-source foods and other food groups in six groups of meat-eaters and non-meat-eaters participating in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Oxford study. The data were from 30,239 participants who answered questions regarding their consumption of meat, fish, dairy or eggs and complete ...[more]

PMID: 30979052

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine the associations of vegetarianism with risks of ischaemic heart disease and stroke. DESIGN:Prospective cohort study. SETTING:The EPIC-Oxford study, a cohort in the United Kingdom with a large proportion of non-meat eaters, recruited across the country between 1993 and 2001. PARTICIPANTS:48 188 participants with no history of ischaemic heart disease, stroke, or angina (or cardiovascular disease) were classified into three distinct diet groups: meat eaters (participants who consumed meat, regardless of whether they consumed fish, dairy, or eggs; n=24 428), fish eaters (consumed fish but no meat; n=7506), and vegetarians including vegans (n=16 254), based on dietary information collected at baseline, and subsequently around 2010 (n=28 364). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Incident cases of ischaemic heart disease and stroke (including ischaemic and haemorrhagic types) identified through record linkage until 2016. RESULTS:Over 18.1 years of follow-up, 2820 cases of ischaemic heart disease and 1072 cases of total stroke (519 ischaemic stroke and 300 haemorrhagic stroke) were recorded. After adjusting for sociodemographic and lifestyle confounders, fish eaters and vegetarians had 13% (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.99) and 22% (0.78, 0.70 to 0.87) lower rates of ischaemic heart disease than meat eaters, respectively (P<0.001 for heterogeneity). This difference was equivalent to 10 fewer cases of ischaemic heart disease (95% confidence interval 6.7 to 13.1 fewer) in vegetarians than in meat eaters per 1000 population over 10 years. The associations for ischaemic heart disease were partly attenuated after adjustment for self reported high blood cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, and body mass index (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.00 in vegetarians with all adjustments). By contrast, vegetarians had 20% higher rates of total stroke (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.40) than meat eaters, equivalent to three more cases of total stroke (95% confidence interval 0.8 to 5.4 more) per 1000 population over 10 years, mostly due to a higher rate of haemorrhagic stroke. The associations for stroke did not attenuate after further adjustment of disease risk factors. CONCLUSIONS:In this prospective cohort in the UK, fish eaters and vegetarians had lower rates of ischaemic heart disease than meat eaters, although vegetarians had higher rates of haemorrhagic and total stroke.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a growing trend for vegetarian and vegan diets in many Western countries. Epidemiological evidence suggesting that such diets may help in maintaining good health is rising. However, dietary and sociodemographic characteristics of vegetarians and vegans are not well known. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to describe sociodemographic and nutritional characteristics of self-reported, adult vegetarians and vegans, compared to meat-eaters, from the French NutriNet-Santé study.MethodsParticipants were asked if they were following a specific diet. They were then classified into three self-reported diet groups: 90,664 meat-eaters, 2370 vegetarians, and 789 vegans. Dietary data were collected using three repeated 24-h dietary records. Multivariable polytomic logistic regression models were perfomed to assess the association between the sociodemographic characteristics and type of diet. The prevalence of nutrient intake inadequacy was estimated, by sex and age for micronutrients, as well as by type of self-reported diet.ResultsCompared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level. Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to be women, younger individuals, and to be self-employed or never employed rather than managerial staff. Vegetarians and vegans substituted animal protein-dense products with a higher consumption of plant protein-dense products (e.g., soy-based products or legumes). Vegetarians had the most balanced diets in terms of macronutrients, but also had a better adherence to French dietary guidelines. Vegetarians exhibited a lower estimated prevalence of inadequacies for micronutrients such as antioxidant vitamins (e.g., for vitamin E, 28.9% for vegetarian women <55 years of age vs. 41.6% in meat-eaters) while vegans exhibited a higher estimated prevalence of inadequacies for some nutrients, in particular vitamin B12 (69.9% in men and 83.4% in women <55 years of age), compared to meat-eaters.ConclusionsOur study highlighted that, overall, self-reported vegetarians and vegans may meet nutritional recommendations.

Project description:Heterogeneity in meat food groups hinders interpretation of research regarding meat intake and chronic disease risk. Our objective was to investigate how heterogeneity in red meat (RM) and poultry food groups influences US population intake estimates. Based on a prior systematic review, we created an ontology of methods used to estimate RM [1= unprocessed RM; 2 (reference)= unprocessed RM + processed RM; 3= unprocessed RM + processed RM + processed poultry; and 4=unprocessed RM + processed RM + processed poultry + chicken patties/nuggets/tenders (PNT)] and three for poultry [A=unprocessed poultry; B= unprocessed poultry + PNT; C (reference)= unprocessed poultry + processed poultry + PNT). We applied methods to 2015-18 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data to estimate RM and poultry intake prevalence and amount. We estimated and compared intakes within RM and within poultry methods via the NCI Method for individuals ≥2 years old (n = 15,038), adjusted for age, sex, and race/Hispanic origin. We compared the population percentage that exceeded age- and sex-specific RM and poultry allotments from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended eating patterns. The percent that consumed RM ranged from 47 ± 1.2% to 75 ± 0.8% across methods and mean amount ranged from 10.5 ± 0.28 to 18.2 ± 0.35 lean oz-equivalents/week; 38 ± 1.2% to 71 ± 0.7% and 9.8 ± 0.35 to 13.3 ± 0.35 lean oz-equivalents/week across poultry methods. Estimates for higher, but not lower, intake percentiles differed across RM methods. Compared to the reference, Method 1 was ≥3.0 oz-equivalents/week lower from 20th-70th percentiles, ≥6.0 oz-equivalents/week lower from 75th-90th percentiles, and ≥9.0 oz-equivalents/week lower for the 95th percentile. Method 4, but not Method 3, was ≥3.0 oz-equivalents/week higher than the reference from 50 to 95th percentiles. The population percentage that exceeded allotments was 27 ± 1.8% lower for Method 1, 9 ± 0.8% higher for Method 3, and 14 ± 0.9% higher for Method 4 compared to the reference. Differences were less pronounced for poultry. Our analysis quantifies the magnitude of bias introduced by heterogeneous meat food group methodology. Explicit descriptions of meat food groups are important for development of dietary recommendations to ensure that research studies are compared appropriately.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Major Protein-Source Foods and Other Food Groups in Meat-Eaters and Non-Meat-Eaters in the EPIC-Oxford Cohort.

Publications

Comparison of Major Protein-Source Foods and Other Food Groups in Meat-Eaters and Non-Meat-Eaters in the EPIC-Oxford Cohort.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure