The Experts below are selected from a list of 61722 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Alicja Wolk - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Differences in survival associated with processed and with nonprocessed red Meat Consumption
The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2014Co-Authors: Andrea Bellavia, Susanna C Larsson, Alicja Wolk, Matteo Bottai, Nicola OrsiniAbstract:Background: High red Meat Consumption is associated with an increased mortality risk. This association is partly explained by the negative effect of processed Meat Consumption, which is widely established. The role of nonprocessed Meat is unclear.Objective: The objective was to examine the combined association of processed and nonprocessed Meat Consumption with survival in a Swedish large prospective cohort.Design: In a population-based cohort of 74,645 Swedish men (40,089) and women (34,556), red Meat Consumption was assessed through a self-administered questionnaire. We estimated differences in survival [15th percentile differences (PDs), differences in the time by which the first 15% of the cohort died] according to levels of total red Meat and combined levels of processed and nonprocessed red Meat Consumption.Results: During 15 y of follow-up (January 1998 to December 2012), we documented 16,683 deaths (6948 women; 9735 men). Compared with no Consumption, Consumption of red Meat >100 g/d was progressively associated with shorter survival—up to 2 y for participants consuming an average of 300 g/d (15th PD: –21 mo; 95% CI: –31, –10). Compared with no Consumption, high Consumption of processed red Meat (100 g/d) was associated with shorter survival (15th PD: –9 mo; 95% CI: –16, –2). High and moderate intakes of nonprocessed red Meat were associated with shorter survival only when accompanied by a high intake of processed red Meat.Conclusions: We found that high total red Meat Consumption was associated with progressively shorter survival, largely because of the Consumption of processed red Meat. Consumption of nonprocessed red Meat alone was not associated with shorter survival. The Swedish Mammography Cohort and the Cohort of Swedish Men were registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01127698 and NCT01127711, respectively.
-
red and processed Meat Consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer meta analysis of prospective studies
British Journal of Cancer, 2012Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Alicja WolkAbstract:BACKGROUND: Whether red and processed Meat Consumption is a risk factor for pancreatic cancer remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarise the evidence from prospective studies of red and processed Meat Consumption and pancreatic cancer risk. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases through November 2011. Study-specific results were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Eleven prospective studies, with 6643 pancreatic cancer cases, were included in the meta-analysis. An increase in red Meat Consumption of 120g per day was associated with an overall relative risk (RR) of 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) ¼0.93–1.39; Pheterogeneityo0.001). Red Meat Consumption was positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk in men (RR ¼1.29; 95% CI ¼1.08–1.53; Pheterogeneity ¼0.28; five studies), but not in women (RR ¼0.93; 95% CI ¼0.74–1.16; Pheterogeneity ¼0.21; six studies). The RR of pancreatic cancer for a 50g per day increase in processed Meat Consumption was 1.19 (95% CI ¼1.04–1.36; Pheterogeneity ¼0.46). CONCLUSION: Findings from this meta-analysis indicate that processed Meat Consumption is positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Red Meat Consumption was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in men. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
-
Red Meat Consumption and risk of stroke in Swedish men
The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2011Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Jarmo Virtamo, Alicja WolkAbstract:Background: Red and processed Meat Consumption has been implicated in several diseases. However, data on Meat Consumption in relation to stroke incidence are sparse. Objective: Our objective was to examine the associations of red Meat and processed Meat Consumption with stroke incidence in men. Design: We prospectively followed 40,291 men aged 45–79 y who had no history of cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. Meat Consumption was assessed with a self-administered questionnaire in 1997. Results: During a mean follow-up of 10.1 y, 2409 incident cases of stroke (1849 cerebral infarctions, 350 hemorrhagic strokes, and 210 unspecified strokes) were identified from the Swedish Hospital Discharge Registry. Consumption of processed Meat, but not of fresh red Meat, was positively associated with risk of stroke. The multivariable relative risks (RRs) of total stroke for the highest compared with the lowest quintiles of Consumption were 1.23 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.40; P for trend = 0.004) for processed Meat and 1.07 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.24; P for trend = 0.77) for fresh red Meat. Processed Meat Consumption was also positively associated with risk of cerebral infarction in a comparison of the highest with the lowest quintile (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.38; P for trend = 0.03). Conclusion: The findings from this prospective cohort of men indicate that processed Meat Consumption is positively associated with risk of stroke. The Cohort of Swedish Men is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01127711. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94:417–21.
-
Red Meat Consumption and Risk of Stroke in Swedish Women
Stroke, 2010Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Jarmo Virtamo, Alicja WolkAbstract:Background and Purpose—High red Meat Consumption has been associated with increased risk of some cancers and may also be a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. However, epidemiological studies of red Meat Consumption in relation to risk of stroke are very limited. Our objective was to examine the association between red Meat Consumption and stroke incidence in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Methods—We prospectively followed 34 670 women without cardiovascular disease and cancer at baseline. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire on diet and other risk factors for cardiovascular diseases in 1997. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RR) and 95% CI. Results—During a mean follow-up of 10.4 years, we ascertained 1680 incident cases of stroke, comprising 1310 cerebral infarction, 154 intracerebral hemorrhage, 79 subarachnoid hemorrhage, and 137 unspecified stroke. Total red Meat and processed Meat Consumption was associated with a s...
-
Processed Meat Consumption and stomach cancer risk : A meta-analysis
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2006Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Nicola Orsini, Alicja WolkAbstract:Background: The relationship between processed Meat Consumption and the risk of stomach cancer is controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize available evidence from cohort and case – control studies on this issue. Methods: We searched Medline for studies of processed Meat Consumption and stomach cancer published from January 1966 through March 2006. Random-effects models were used to pool the relative risks from individual studies. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Six prospective cohort studies (involving 2209 stomach cancer patients) and nine case – control studies (2495 case patients) were eligible for inclusion in the dose–response meta-analysis of processed Meat Consumption. The estimated summary relative risks of stomach cancer for an increase in processed Meat Consumption of 30 g/day, approximately half of an average serving, were 1.15 (95% confi dence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 1.27) for the cohort studies and 1.38 (95% CI = 1.19 to 1.60) for the case – control studies. There was no statistically signifi cant heterogeneity among the cohort studies ( P = .42) or among the case – control studies ( P = .19). In three cohort and four case – control studies that examined the association between bacon Consumption and stomach cancer, the summary relative risk was 1.37 (95% CI = 1.17 to 1.61) for the highest versus lowest intake categories of bacon, without heterogeneity among these studies ( P = .66). Conclusion: Increased Consumption of processed Meat is associated with an increased risk of stomach cancer. However, the possibility that the association may be confounded or modifi ed by other factors cannot be ruled out. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98: 1078 – 87 ]
Susanna C Larsson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Differences in survival associated with processed and with nonprocessed red Meat Consumption
The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2014Co-Authors: Andrea Bellavia, Susanna C Larsson, Alicja Wolk, Matteo Bottai, Nicola OrsiniAbstract:Background: High red Meat Consumption is associated with an increased mortality risk. This association is partly explained by the negative effect of processed Meat Consumption, which is widely established. The role of nonprocessed Meat is unclear.Objective: The objective was to examine the combined association of processed and nonprocessed Meat Consumption with survival in a Swedish large prospective cohort.Design: In a population-based cohort of 74,645 Swedish men (40,089) and women (34,556), red Meat Consumption was assessed through a self-administered questionnaire. We estimated differences in survival [15th percentile differences (PDs), differences in the time by which the first 15% of the cohort died] according to levels of total red Meat and combined levels of processed and nonprocessed red Meat Consumption.Results: During 15 y of follow-up (January 1998 to December 2012), we documented 16,683 deaths (6948 women; 9735 men). Compared with no Consumption, Consumption of red Meat >100 g/d was progressively associated with shorter survival—up to 2 y for participants consuming an average of 300 g/d (15th PD: –21 mo; 95% CI: –31, –10). Compared with no Consumption, high Consumption of processed red Meat (100 g/d) was associated with shorter survival (15th PD: –9 mo; 95% CI: –16, –2). High and moderate intakes of nonprocessed red Meat were associated with shorter survival only when accompanied by a high intake of processed red Meat.Conclusions: We found that high total red Meat Consumption was associated with progressively shorter survival, largely because of the Consumption of processed red Meat. Consumption of nonprocessed red Meat alone was not associated with shorter survival. The Swedish Mammography Cohort and the Cohort of Swedish Men were registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01127698 and NCT01127711, respectively.
-
red and processed Meat Consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer meta analysis of prospective studies
British Journal of Cancer, 2012Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Alicja WolkAbstract:BACKGROUND: Whether red and processed Meat Consumption is a risk factor for pancreatic cancer remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarise the evidence from prospective studies of red and processed Meat Consumption and pancreatic cancer risk. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases through November 2011. Study-specific results were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Eleven prospective studies, with 6643 pancreatic cancer cases, were included in the meta-analysis. An increase in red Meat Consumption of 120g per day was associated with an overall relative risk (RR) of 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI) ¼0.93–1.39; Pheterogeneityo0.001). Red Meat Consumption was positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk in men (RR ¼1.29; 95% CI ¼1.08–1.53; Pheterogeneity ¼0.28; five studies), but not in women (RR ¼0.93; 95% CI ¼0.74–1.16; Pheterogeneity ¼0.21; six studies). The RR of pancreatic cancer for a 50g per day increase in processed Meat Consumption was 1.19 (95% CI ¼1.04–1.36; Pheterogeneity ¼0.46). CONCLUSION: Findings from this meta-analysis indicate that processed Meat Consumption is positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Red Meat Consumption was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in men. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
-
Red Meat Consumption and risk of stroke in Swedish men
The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2011Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Jarmo Virtamo, Alicja WolkAbstract:Background: Red and processed Meat Consumption has been implicated in several diseases. However, data on Meat Consumption in relation to stroke incidence are sparse. Objective: Our objective was to examine the associations of red Meat and processed Meat Consumption with stroke incidence in men. Design: We prospectively followed 40,291 men aged 45–79 y who had no history of cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. Meat Consumption was assessed with a self-administered questionnaire in 1997. Results: During a mean follow-up of 10.1 y, 2409 incident cases of stroke (1849 cerebral infarctions, 350 hemorrhagic strokes, and 210 unspecified strokes) were identified from the Swedish Hospital Discharge Registry. Consumption of processed Meat, but not of fresh red Meat, was positively associated with risk of stroke. The multivariable relative risks (RRs) of total stroke for the highest compared with the lowest quintiles of Consumption were 1.23 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.40; P for trend = 0.004) for processed Meat and 1.07 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.24; P for trend = 0.77) for fresh red Meat. Processed Meat Consumption was also positively associated with risk of cerebral infarction in a comparison of the highest with the lowest quintile (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.38; P for trend = 0.03). Conclusion: The findings from this prospective cohort of men indicate that processed Meat Consumption is positively associated with risk of stroke. The Cohort of Swedish Men is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01127711. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94:417–21.
-
Red Meat Consumption and Risk of Stroke in Swedish Women
Stroke, 2010Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Jarmo Virtamo, Alicja WolkAbstract:Background and Purpose—High red Meat Consumption has been associated with increased risk of some cancers and may also be a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. However, epidemiological studies of red Meat Consumption in relation to risk of stroke are very limited. Our objective was to examine the association between red Meat Consumption and stroke incidence in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Methods—We prospectively followed 34 670 women without cardiovascular disease and cancer at baseline. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire on diet and other risk factors for cardiovascular diseases in 1997. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RR) and 95% CI. Results—During a mean follow-up of 10.4 years, we ascertained 1680 incident cases of stroke, comprising 1310 cerebral infarction, 154 intracerebral hemorrhage, 79 subarachnoid hemorrhage, and 137 unspecified stroke. Total red Meat and processed Meat Consumption was associated with a s...
-
Processed Meat Consumption and stomach cancer risk : A meta-analysis
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2006Co-Authors: Susanna C Larsson, Nicola Orsini, Alicja WolkAbstract:Background: The relationship between processed Meat Consumption and the risk of stomach cancer is controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize available evidence from cohort and case – control studies on this issue. Methods: We searched Medline for studies of processed Meat Consumption and stomach cancer published from January 1966 through March 2006. Random-effects models were used to pool the relative risks from individual studies. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Six prospective cohort studies (involving 2209 stomach cancer patients) and nine case – control studies (2495 case patients) were eligible for inclusion in the dose–response meta-analysis of processed Meat Consumption. The estimated summary relative risks of stomach cancer for an increase in processed Meat Consumption of 30 g/day, approximately half of an average serving, were 1.15 (95% confi dence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 1.27) for the cohort studies and 1.38 (95% CI = 1.19 to 1.60) for the case – control studies. There was no statistically signifi cant heterogeneity among the cohort studies ( P = .42) or among the case – control studies ( P = .19). In three cohort and four case – control studies that examined the association between bacon Consumption and stomach cancer, the summary relative risk was 1.37 (95% CI = 1.17 to 1.61) for the highest versus lowest intake categories of bacon, without heterogeneity among these studies ( P = .66). Conclusion: Increased Consumption of processed Meat is associated with an increased risk of stomach cancer. However, the possibility that the association may be confounded or modifi ed by other factors cannot be ruled out. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98: 1078 – 87 ]
Ivan Solà - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Health-Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Consumption: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.
Annals of internal medicine, 2019Co-Authors: Claudia Valli, Montserrat Rabassa, Bradley C. Johnston, Ruben Kuijpers, Anna Prokop-dorner, Joanna Zajac, Dawid Storman, Monika Storman, Malgorzata M Bala, Ivan SolàAbstract:This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. A person's Meat Consumption is often determined by their values and preferences. To identify and evaluate evidence addressing health-related values and preferences regarding Meat Consumption. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences Abstracts, International System for Agricultural Science and Technology, and Food Science and Technology Abstracts were searched from inception to July 2018 without language restrictions. Pairs of reviewers independently screened search results and included quantitative and qualitative studies reporting adults' health-related values and preferences regarding Meat Consumption. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were synthesized into narrative form, and summaries were tabulated and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Of 19 172 initial citations, 41 quantitative studies (38 addressed reasons for Meat Consumption and 5 addressed willingness to reduce Meat Consumption) and 13 qualitative studies (10 addressed reasons for Meat Consumption and 4 addressed willingness to reduce Meat Consumption) were eligible for inclusion. Thirteen studies reported that omnivores enjoy eating Meat, 18 reported that these persons consider Meat an essential component of a healthy diet, and 7 reported that they believe they lack the skills needed to prepare satisfactory meals without Meat. Omnivores are generally unwilling to change their Meat Consumption. The certainty of evidence was low for both "reasons for Meat Consumption" and "willingness to reduce Meat Consumption in the face of undesirable health effects." Limited generalizability of findings to lower-income countries, low-certainty evidence for willingness to reduce Meat Consumption, and limited applicability to specific types of Meat (red and processed Meat). Low-certainty evidence suggests that omnivores are attached to Meat and are unwilling to change this behavior when faced with potentially undesirable health effects. None. (PROSPERO: CRD42018088854).
-
Health-Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Consumption
Annals of Internal Medicine, 2019Co-Authors: Claudia Valli, Montserrat Rabassa, Bradley C. Johnston, Ruben Kuijpers, Anna Prokop-dorner, Joanna Zajac, Dawid Storman, Monika Storman, Malgorzata M Bala, Ivan SolàAbstract:This systematic review evaluates evidence about people's preferences and values regarding Meat Consumption.
A. Baylin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Red Meat Consumption and metabolic syndrome in the Costa Rica Heart Study
European Journal of Nutrition, 2020Co-Authors: D. Luan, D. Wang, H. Campos, A. BaylinAbstract:Purpose Several epidemiologic investigations have found associations between the Consumption of red Meat and the metabolic syndrome (MetS). Very few studies have looked at populations undergoing the nutrition transition with smaller levels of red Meat Consumption than those in Westernized countries. In this population-based cross-sectional study, we examined the association between red Meat Consumption and MetS in Costa Rican adults, a population with comparably lower Consumption of red Meat. Methods Prevalence ratios (PRs) of MetS across quintiles of total, unprocessed, and processed red Meat Consumption were estimated with log-binomial regression models among 2058 adults from the Costa Rican Heart Study. Least-squares mean values of individual components of MetS across quintiles of red Meat Consumption were estimated with linear regression models. Results We observed a significant positive association between total red Meat Consumption and MetS (PR for highest compared to lowest quintile: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.42; P for trend = 0.0113) but not for unprocessed or processed red Meat Consumption when analyzed separately after mutual adjustments. We additionally observed a significant positive association between total, unprocessed, and processed red Meat Consumption and abdominal obesity. Conclusion In this Hispanic population undergoing the nutrition transition, total red Meat intake may have an impact on MetS. Based on the relatively low Consumption of red Meat in Costa Rica compared to other Westernized countries, we hypothesize that a “threshold effect” may exist for unprocessed and processed red Meat.
-
Red Meat Consumption and metabolic syndrome in the Costa Rica Heart Study
European journal of nutrition, 2019Co-Authors: D. Luan, D. Wang, H. Campos, A. BaylinAbstract:Several epidemiologic investigations have found associations between the Consumption of red Meat and the metabolic syndrome (MetS). Very few studies have looked at populations undergoing the nutrition transition with smaller levels of red Meat Consumption than those in Westernized countries. In this population-based cross-sectional study, we examined the association between red Meat Consumption and MetS in Costa Rican adults, a population with comparably lower Consumption of red Meat. Prevalence ratios (PRs) of MetS across quintiles of total, unprocessed, and processed red Meat Consumption were estimated with log-binomial regression models among 2058 adults from the Costa Rican Heart Study. Least-squares mean values of individual components of MetS across quintiles of red Meat Consumption were estimated with linear regression models. We observed a significant positive association between total red Meat Consumption and MetS (PR for highest compared to lowest quintile: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.42; P for trend = 0.0113) but not for unprocessed or processed red Meat Consumption when analyzed separately after mutual adjustments. We additionally observed a significant positive association between total, unprocessed, and processed red Meat Consumption and abdominal obesity. In this Hispanic population undergoing the nutrition transition, total red Meat intake may have an impact on MetS. Based on the relatively low Consumption of red Meat in Costa Rica compared to other Westernized countries, we hypothesize that a “threshold effect” may exist for unprocessed and processed red Meat.
Kathryn E. Sieving - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Changing Wild Meat Consumption: An Experiment in the Central Amazon, Brazil
Conservation Letters, 2017Co-Authors: Willandia A. Chaves, Denis Valle, Martha C. Monroe, David Wilkie, Kathryn E. Sieving, Brooke SadowskyAbstract:Millions of people across the tropics rely on wildlife for food and income. However, overhunting to satisfy this demand is causing the decline of many species; an issue known as the wild Meat crisis. We applied a before-after control-intervention design to assess the effects of social marketing (an information campaign and community engagement) with and without an economic incentive (discount coupons for chicken) on wild Meat Consumption. Coupons increased chicken Consumption, as expected, but did not reduce wild Meat Consumption. In contrast, social marketing without the price incentive reduced wild Meat Consumption by ∼62%. This study demonstrates how social marketing and price incentives may be effective at reducing demand for Meat and other wildlife products. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
-
Market access and wild Meat Consumption in the central Amazon, Brazil
Biological Conservation, 2017Co-Authors: Willandia A. Chaves, Martha C. Monroe, David Wilkie, Kathryn E. SievingAbstract:Abstract Wild Meat is an important source of food and income for people across the tropics, but overhunting is driving species declines. Comprehension of the interrelated factors that influence wild Meat Consumption is needed to help address this important issue. A central hypothesis is that market access in the tropics drives Consumption. We tested this hypothesis by comparing households with high (living in a town) and low (living in rural areas) market access in the central Amazon. When comparing households in rural communities only, we used travel frequency to town and boat traffic as proxies for market access. To determine interrelationships, we assessed other factors that may influence Meat Consumption, such as occupation, wealth, and number of people in households. As predicted, town residents consumed more domesticated Meat and less wild Meat than rural residents. Among rural communities, travel frequency was negatively, and boat traffic was positively, associated with wild Meat Consumption. Occupation was an important predictor of Consumption, with farmers (occupation more common in rural areas) consuming more wild Meat than people with other occupations. Number of people in the household was negatively associated with beef Consumption. Wealth was associated with wild Meat and beef Consumption but its effect on Consumption was negligible (effect size near zero). When comparing urban and rural residents, we detected a strong relationship between market access and wild Meat Consumption, but this was influenced by the diversity of livelihood options available to town versus rural residents. Among rural residents, we detected a relationship between market access and wild Meat Consumption, but this relationship depended on the nature of the market access (household travel frequency to town versus boat traffic at rural communities). Our findings suggest that greater access to market may lead to a decrease in wild Meat Consumption at the household level. Key factors we did not address, however, require further research in rural communities; namely whether reduced Consumption leads to overall reduction in hunting or merely a shift from Consumption to trade.