Cargando…

Red and Processed Meats and Health Risks: How Strong Is the Evidence?

Prevailing dietary guidelines have widely recommended diets relatively low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods for the prevention of chronic diseases. However, an ad hoc research group called the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) consortium recently issued “n...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Qian, Frank, Riddle, Matthew C., Wylie-Rosett, Judith, Hu, Frank B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Diabetes Association 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6971786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31959642
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0063
_version_ 1783489781654618112
author Qian, Frank
Riddle, Matthew C.
Wylie-Rosett, Judith
Hu, Frank B.
author_facet Qian, Frank
Riddle, Matthew C.
Wylie-Rosett, Judith
Hu, Frank B.
author_sort Qian, Frank
collection PubMed
description Prevailing dietary guidelines have widely recommended diets relatively low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods for the prevention of chronic diseases. However, an ad hoc research group called the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) consortium recently issued “new dietary guidelines” encouraging individuals to continue their current meat consumption habits due to “low certainty” of the evidence, difficulty of altering meat eaters’ habits and preferences, and the lack of need to consider environmental impacts of red meat consumption. These recommendations are not justified, in large part because of the flawed methodologies used to review and grade nutritional evidence. The evidence evaluation was largely based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, which are primarily designed to grade the strength of evidence for clinical interventions especially pharmacotherapy. However, the infeasibility for conducting large, long-term randomized clinical trials on most dietary, lifestyle, and environmental exposures makes the criteria inappropriate in these areas. A separate research group proposed a modified and validated system for rating the meta-evidence on nutritional studies (NutriGRADE) to address several limitations of the GRADE criteria. Applying NutriGRADE, the evidence on the positive association between red and processed meats and type 2 diabetes was rated to be of “high quality,” while the evidence on the association between red and processed meats and mortality was rated to be of “moderate quality.” Another important limitation is that inadequate attention was paid to what might be replacing red meat, be it plant-based proteins, refined carbohydrates, or other foods. In summary, the red/processed meat recommendations by NutriRECS suffer from important methodological limitations and involve misinterpretations of nutritional evidence. To improve human and planetary health, dietary guidelines should continue to emphasize dietary patterns low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6971786
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher American Diabetes Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69717862021-02-01 Red and Processed Meats and Health Risks: How Strong Is the Evidence? Qian, Frank Riddle, Matthew C. Wylie-Rosett, Judith Hu, Frank B. Diabetes Care Perspectives in Care Prevailing dietary guidelines have widely recommended diets relatively low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods for the prevention of chronic diseases. However, an ad hoc research group called the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) consortium recently issued “new dietary guidelines” encouraging individuals to continue their current meat consumption habits due to “low certainty” of the evidence, difficulty of altering meat eaters’ habits and preferences, and the lack of need to consider environmental impacts of red meat consumption. These recommendations are not justified, in large part because of the flawed methodologies used to review and grade nutritional evidence. The evidence evaluation was largely based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, which are primarily designed to grade the strength of evidence for clinical interventions especially pharmacotherapy. However, the infeasibility for conducting large, long-term randomized clinical trials on most dietary, lifestyle, and environmental exposures makes the criteria inappropriate in these areas. A separate research group proposed a modified and validated system for rating the meta-evidence on nutritional studies (NutriGRADE) to address several limitations of the GRADE criteria. Applying NutriGRADE, the evidence on the positive association between red and processed meats and type 2 diabetes was rated to be of “high quality,” while the evidence on the association between red and processed meats and mortality was rated to be of “moderate quality.” Another important limitation is that inadequate attention was paid to what might be replacing red meat, be it plant-based proteins, refined carbohydrates, or other foods. In summary, the red/processed meat recommendations by NutriRECS suffer from important methodological limitations and involve misinterpretations of nutritional evidence. To improve human and planetary health, dietary guidelines should continue to emphasize dietary patterns low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes. American Diabetes Association 2020-02 2020-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6971786/ /pubmed/31959642 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0063 Text en © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association. http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/licenseReaders may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.
spellingShingle Perspectives in Care
Qian, Frank
Riddle, Matthew C.
Wylie-Rosett, Judith
Hu, Frank B.
Red and Processed Meats and Health Risks: How Strong Is the Evidence?
title Red and Processed Meats and Health Risks: How Strong Is the Evidence?
title_full Red and Processed Meats and Health Risks: How Strong Is the Evidence?
title_fullStr Red and Processed Meats and Health Risks: How Strong Is the Evidence?
title_full_unstemmed Red and Processed Meats and Health Risks: How Strong Is the Evidence?
title_short Red and Processed Meats and Health Risks: How Strong Is the Evidence?
title_sort red and processed meats and health risks: how strong is the evidence?
topic Perspectives in Care
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6971786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31959642
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0063
work_keys_str_mv AT qianfrank redandprocessedmeatsandhealthriskshowstrongistheevidence
AT riddlematthewc redandprocessedmeatsandhealthriskshowstrongistheevidence
AT wylierosettjudith redandprocessedmeatsandhealthriskshowstrongistheevidence
AT hufrankb redandprocessedmeatsandhealthriskshowstrongistheevidence