Literature DB >> 23078378

Meat intake in Britain in relation to other dietary components and to demographic and risk factor variables: analyses based on the National Diet and Nutrition Survey of 2000/2001.

L M Aston1, J N Smith, J W Powles.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Red and processed meat intakes have been positively associated with the risk of several major chronic diseases. Understanding population intakes is important when formulating dietary recommendations. The present study investigated the dispersion of intakes of red and processed meat and associations with dietary, socio-demographic and risk factors.
METHODS: The present study comprised a secondary analysis of the British National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2000/1, including 7-day dietary records, from 766 male and 958 female respondents aged 19-64 years. Composite dishes were disaggregated into primary ingredients. Self-reported vegetarians (V) were grouped into one stratum and other respondents were stratified into five groups (F1-F5) according to energy-adjusted red plus processed meat (RPM) intake, to give six strata. 7-day RPM intakes were adjusted to estimate 'usual' habitual intakes, using ratios of between-person to total variance in daily intakes.
RESULTS: Mean recorded intakes of red, processed, white and total meat were 48, 41, 40 and 129 g day(-1) , respectively, in males and 30, 22, 30 and 82 g day(-1) in females. Estimated habitual intakes of RPM standardised to sex-specific energy intakes across the six strata were: 12 (V), 56, 76, 90, 105 and 137 g day(-1) in males and 5 (V), 34, 46, 55, 65 and 88 g day(-1) in females. Lower RPM consumers tended to be of higher social class and educational level and to have more favourable levels of some risk factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Mean intakes of red, processed and white meat were of similar magnitude. Habitual intakes of RPM showed wide dispersion with one-quarter of males < 55 g day(-1) and one-quarter of females < 27 g day(-1) . Lowering overall RPM consumption could be achieved by seeking greater reductions among current high consumers.
© 2012 The Authors Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics © 2012 The British Dietetic Association Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23078378     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2012.01278.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Nutr Diet        ISSN: 0952-3871            Impact factor:   3.089


  10 in total

1.  Calcium and α-tocopherol suppress cured-meat promotion of chemically induced colon carcinogenesis in rats and reduce associated biomarkers in human volunteers.

Authors:  Fabrice H F Pierre; Océane C B Martin; Raphaelle L Santarelli; Sylviane Taché; Nathalie Naud; Françoise Guéraud; Marc Audebert; Jacques Dupuy; Nathalie Meunier; Didier Attaix; Jean-Luc Vendeuvre; Sidney S Mirvish; Gunter C G Kuhnle; Noel Cano; Denis E Corpet
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 7.045

2.  Objective evaluation of the first post-lockdown on physical activity, sedentary behavior and food choice in a sample of French young adult students.

Authors:  Sylvie Rousset; Maxime Douarre; Alix Poyet; Fadi Bounechada; Anne Descouls; Camille Girardin; Bruno Pereira; Frédéric Dutheil
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2022-06-13

3.  Regulation and Consumer Interest in an Antioxidant-Enriched Ham Associated with Reduced Colorectal Cancer Risks.

Authors:  Stéphan Marette; Françoise Guéraud; Fabrice Pierre
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 5.717

4.  Meat consumers and non-meat consumers in Germany: a characterisation based on results of the German National Nutrition Survey II.

Authors:  Franziska Koch; Thorsten Heuer; Carolin Krems; Erika Claupein
Journal:  J Nutr Sci       Date:  2019-06-07

5.  Associations between active travel and diet: cross-sectional evidence on healthy, low-carbon behaviours from UK Biobank.

Authors:  Michaela A Smith; Jan Rasmus Boehnke; Hilary Graham; Piran C L White; Stephanie L Prady
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  A cross-sectional survey of the readiness of consumers to adopt an environmentally sustainable diet.

Authors:  Amy Culliford; Jane Bradbury
Journal:  Nutr J       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 3.271

7.  Why They Eat What They Eat: Comparing 18 Eating Motives Among Omnivores and Veg*ns.

Authors:  Markus Müssig; Tamara M Pfeiler; Boris Egloff
Journal:  Front Nutr       Date:  2022-02-21

8.  Impact of a reduced red and processed meat dietary pattern on disease risks and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK: a modelling study.

Authors:  Louise M Aston; James N Smith; John W Powles
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Consumption patterns of meat, poultry, and fish after disaggregation of mixed dishes: secondary analysis of the Australian National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey 2011-12.

Authors:  Zhixian Sui; David Raubenheimer; Anna Rangan
Journal:  BMC Nutr       Date:  2017-07-01

10.  Attitudes, perceptions and behaviours regarding meat consumption in Germany: results of the NEMONIT study.

Authors:  Franziska Koch; Carolin Krems; Thorsten Heuer; Erika Claupein
Journal:  J Nutr Sci       Date:  2021-05-26
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.