首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Diabetes Care >Red and Processed Meats and Health Risks: How Strong Is the Evidence?
【2h】

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

机译:红色和加工的肉类和健康风险:证据有多强?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:盛行的膳食指南广泛推荐的饮食在红色和加工肉类中相对较低,并且在最微弱的植物食品中具有高度的预防慢性疾病。然而,涉及营养建议(NUTRIRECS)财团的特设研究组最近发布了“新饮食指南”令人鼓舞的个人由于“低确定性”的证据而继续他们目前的肉类消费习惯,难以改变肉类食物的习惯和偏好,缺乏需要考虑红肉消费的环境影响。由于用于审查和等级营养证据的有缺陷的方法,这些建议并不是合理的。证据评估主要基于建议,评估,发展和评估(等级)标准的评级,主要是旨在为临床干预措施级别奠定实力,特别是药物疗法。然而,在大多数膳食,生活方式和环境暴露中进行大型长期随机临床试验的不可行性使得在这些领域不合适的标准。一个单独的研究小组提出了一种修改和验证的系统,用于评估营养研究(Nutrigrade)的荟萃证据,以解决年级标准的若干限制。施用营养,关于红色和加工肉类和2型糖尿病之间的积极关联的证据被评为“高质量”,而红色和加工肉类与死亡率之间的关系的证据被评为“适度的质量”。 “另一个重要的限制是对可能更换红肉的注意力不足,是植物的蛋白质,精制碳水化合物或其他食物。总之,Nutrirecs的红色/加工肉类建议患有重要的方法局限性,并涉及营养证据的误解。为了改善人类和行星卫生,饮食指南应继续强调红色和加工肉类的膳食模式,并且在最低种植的植物食品中,如水果和蔬菜,全谷物,坚果和豆类。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号