Cargando…

Systematic review of clinical studies related to pork intake and metabolic syndrome or its components

Globally, both the incidence of type 2 diabetes and the consumption of meat, in particular pork meat, have increased, concurrently. Processed meats have been associated with an increased risk for diabetes in observational studies. Therefore, it is important to understand the possible mechanisms of t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stettler, Nicolas, Murphy, Mary M, Barraj, Leila M, Smith, Kimberly M, Ahima, Rexford S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3792009/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24106428
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S51440
_version_ 1782286783326715904
author Stettler, Nicolas
Murphy, Mary M
Barraj, Leila M
Smith, Kimberly M
Ahima, Rexford S
author_facet Stettler, Nicolas
Murphy, Mary M
Barraj, Leila M
Smith, Kimberly M
Ahima, Rexford S
author_sort Stettler, Nicolas
collection PubMed
description Globally, both the incidence of type 2 diabetes and the consumption of meat, in particular pork meat, have increased, concurrently. Processed meats have been associated with an increased risk for diabetes in observational studies. Therefore, it is important to understand the possible mechanisms of this association and the impact of meats from different species. The goal of this systematic review was to assess experimental human studies of the impact of pork intake compared with other protein sources on early markers for the development of diabetes, ie, insulin resistance, glucose intolerance, and the components of the metabolic syndrome. A systematic review was conducted searching PubMed and EMBASE and using the Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. Eight studies were eligible and critically reviewed. Five studies were based on a single meal or single day exposure to pork, as compared with other sources of protein. The glucose-insulin response following the pork meals did not differ compared with beef, shrimp, or mixed sources of proteins. However, compared with eggs, ham (processed meat) led to a larger insulin response in nonobese subjects. Compared with whey, ham led to a smaller insulin response and a larger glucose response. These findings suggest possible mechanisms for the association between processed meat and the development of diabetes. Nonprocessed pork meats were not compared with eggs or whey. The three longer interventions (11 days to 6 months) did not show a significant impact of pork on the components of the metabolic syndrome, with the exception of a possible benefit on waist circumference and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (one study each with significant limitations). Most of the findings are weak and there is a lack of solid evidence. The literature on the topic is limited and important research gaps are identified. Considering recent trends and projections for diabetes and pork intake, this is an important global public health question that requires more attention in order to provide improved evidence-based dietary recommendations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3792009
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37920092013-10-08 Systematic review of clinical studies related to pork intake and metabolic syndrome or its components Stettler, Nicolas Murphy, Mary M Barraj, Leila M Smith, Kimberly M Ahima, Rexford S Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes Review Globally, both the incidence of type 2 diabetes and the consumption of meat, in particular pork meat, have increased, concurrently. Processed meats have been associated with an increased risk for diabetes in observational studies. Therefore, it is important to understand the possible mechanisms of this association and the impact of meats from different species. The goal of this systematic review was to assess experimental human studies of the impact of pork intake compared with other protein sources on early markers for the development of diabetes, ie, insulin resistance, glucose intolerance, and the components of the metabolic syndrome. A systematic review was conducted searching PubMed and EMBASE and using the Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. Eight studies were eligible and critically reviewed. Five studies were based on a single meal or single day exposure to pork, as compared with other sources of protein. The glucose-insulin response following the pork meals did not differ compared with beef, shrimp, or mixed sources of proteins. However, compared with eggs, ham (processed meat) led to a larger insulin response in nonobese subjects. Compared with whey, ham led to a smaller insulin response and a larger glucose response. These findings suggest possible mechanisms for the association between processed meat and the development of diabetes. Nonprocessed pork meats were not compared with eggs or whey. The three longer interventions (11 days to 6 months) did not show a significant impact of pork on the components of the metabolic syndrome, with the exception of a possible benefit on waist circumference and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (one study each with significant limitations). Most of the findings are weak and there is a lack of solid evidence. The literature on the topic is limited and important research gaps are identified. Considering recent trends and projections for diabetes and pork intake, this is an important global public health question that requires more attention in order to provide improved evidence-based dietary recommendations. Dove Medical Press 2013-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC3792009/ /pubmed/24106428 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S51440 Text en © 2013 Stettler et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Ltd, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Ltd, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Review
Stettler, Nicolas
Murphy, Mary M
Barraj, Leila M
Smith, Kimberly M
Ahima, Rexford S
Systematic review of clinical studies related to pork intake and metabolic syndrome or its components
title Systematic review of clinical studies related to pork intake and metabolic syndrome or its components
title_full Systematic review of clinical studies related to pork intake and metabolic syndrome or its components
title_fullStr Systematic review of clinical studies related to pork intake and metabolic syndrome or its components
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of clinical studies related to pork intake and metabolic syndrome or its components
title_short Systematic review of clinical studies related to pork intake and metabolic syndrome or its components
title_sort systematic review of clinical studies related to pork intake and metabolic syndrome or its components
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3792009/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24106428
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S51440
work_keys_str_mv AT stettlernicolas systematicreviewofclinicalstudiesrelatedtoporkintakeandmetabolicsyndromeoritscomponents
AT murphymarym systematicreviewofclinicalstudiesrelatedtoporkintakeandmetabolicsyndromeoritscomponents
AT barrajleilam systematicreviewofclinicalstudiesrelatedtoporkintakeandmetabolicsyndromeoritscomponents
AT smithkimberlym systematicreviewofclinicalstudiesrelatedtoporkintakeandmetabolicsyndromeoritscomponents
AT ahimarexfords systematicreviewofclinicalstudiesrelatedtoporkintakeandmetabolicsyndromeoritscomponents