Mingyang Song1, Teresa T Fung2, Frank B Hu3, Walter C Willett3, Valter D Longo4, Andrew T Chan5, Edward L Giovannucci3. 1. Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston2Department of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts3Department of Nutrition, Simmons College, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts4Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts5Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Longevity Institute, School of Gerontology, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles7FIRC (Italian Foundation for Cancer Research) Institute of Molecular Oncology, Milano, Italy. 5. Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston5Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts8Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Defining what represents a macronutritionally balanced diet remains an open question and a high priority in nutrition research. Although the amount of protein may have specific effects, from a broader dietary perspective, the choice of protein sources will inevitably influence other components of diet and may be a critical determinant for the health outcome. OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations of animal and plant protein intake with the risk for mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective cohort study of US health care professionals included 131 342 participants from the Nurses' Health Study (1980 to end of follow-up on June 1, 2012) and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986 to end of follow-up on January 31, 2012). Animal and plant protein intake was assessed by regularly updated validated food frequency questionnaires. Data were analyzed from June 20, 2014, to January 18, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause and cause-specific mortality. RESULTS: Of the 131 342 participants, 85 013 were women (64.7%) and 46 329 were men (35.3%) (mean [SD] age, 49 [9] years). The median protein intake, as assessed by percentage of energy, was 14% for animal protein (5th-95th percentile, 9%-22%) and 4% for plant protein (5th-95th percentile, 2%-6%). After adjusting for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, animal protein intake was not associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02 per 10% energy increment; 95% CI, 0.98-1.05; P for trend = .33) but was associated with higher cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.08 per 10% energy increment; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16; P for trend = .04). Plant protein was associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.90 per 3% energy increment; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95; P for trend < .001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.88 per 3% energy increment; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97; P for trend = .007). These associations were confined to participants with at least 1 unhealthy lifestyle factor based on smoking, heavy alcohol intake, overweight or obesity, and physical inactivity, but not evident among those without any of these risk factors. Replacing animal protein of various origins with plant protein was associated with lower mortality. In particular, the HRs for all-cause mortality were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.59-0.75) when 3% of energy from plant protein was substituted for an equivalent amount of protein from processed red meat, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84-0.92) from unprocessed red meat, and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.88) from egg. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: High animal protein intake was positively associated with cardiovascular mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, especially among individuals with at least 1 lifestyle risk factor. Substitution of plant protein for animal protein, especially that from processed red meat, was associated with lower mortality, suggesting the importance of protein source.
IMPORTANCE: Defining what represents a macronutritionally balanced diet remains an open question and a high priority in nutrition research. Although the amount of protein may have specific effects, from a broader dietary perspective, the choice of protein sources will inevitably influence other components of diet and may be a critical determinant for the health outcome. OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations of animal and plant protein intake with the risk for mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective cohort study of US health care professionals included 131 342 participants from the Nurses' Health Study (1980 to end of follow-up on June 1, 2012) and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986 to end of follow-up on January 31, 2012). Animal and plant protein intake was assessed by regularly updated validated food frequency questionnaires. Data were analyzed from June 20, 2014, to January 18, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause and cause-specific mortality. RESULTS: Of the 131 342 participants, 85 013 were women (64.7%) and 46 329 were men (35.3%) (mean [SD] age, 49 [9] years). The median protein intake, as assessed by percentage of energy, was 14% for animal protein (5th-95th percentile, 9%-22%) and 4% for plant protein (5th-95th percentile, 2%-6%). After adjusting for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, animal protein intake was not associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02 per 10% energy increment; 95% CI, 0.98-1.05; P for trend = .33) but was associated with higher cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.08 per 10% energy increment; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16; P for trend = .04). Plant protein was associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.90 per 3% energy increment; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95; P for trend < .001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.88 per 3% energy increment; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97; P for trend = .007). These associations were confined to participants with at least 1 unhealthy lifestyle factor based on smoking, heavy alcohol intake, overweight or obesity, and physical inactivity, but not evident among those without any of these risk factors. Replacing animal protein of various origins with plant protein was associated with lower mortality. In particular, the HRs for all-cause mortality were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.59-0.75) when 3% of energy from plant protein was substituted for an equivalent amount of protein from processed red meat, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84-0.92) from unprocessed red meat, and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.88) from egg. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: High animal protein intake was positively associated with cardiovascular mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, especially among individuals with at least 1 lifestyle risk factor. Substitution of plant protein for animal protein, especially that from processed red meat, was associated with lower mortality, suggesting the importance of protein source.
Authors: Lawrence J Appel; Frank M Sacks; Vincent J Carey; Eva Obarzanek; Janis F Swain; Edgar R Miller; Paul R Conlin; Thomas P Erlinger; Bernard A Rosner; Nancy M Laranjo; Jeanne Charleston; Phyllis McCarron; Louise M Bishop Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-11-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Naomi E Allen; Paul N Appleby; Gwyneth K Davey; Rudolf Kaaks; Sabina Rinaldi; Timothy J Key Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Benoît Lamarche; Sophie Desroches; David J A Jenkins; Cyril W C Kendall; Augustine Marchie; Dorothea Faulkner; Edward Vidgen; Karen G Lapsley; Elke A Trautwein; Tina L Parker; Robert G Josse; Lawrence A Leiter; Philip W Connelly Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Michelle D Holmes; Michael N Pollak; Walter C Willett; Susan E Hankinson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: F Landi; R Calvani; M Tosato; A M Martone; A Picca; E Ortolani; G Savera; S Salini; M Ramaschi; R Bernabei; E Marzetti Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: R Vicinanza; G Troisi; R Cangemi; M U De Martino; D Pastori; S Bernardini; F Crisciotti; F Di Violante; A Frizza; M Cacciafesta; P Pignatelli; V Marigliano Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Mariane de Mello Fontanelli; Cristiane Hermes Sales; Antonio Augusto Ferreira Carioca; Dirce Maria Marchioni; Regina Mara Fisberg Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Ambika Satija; Shilpa N Bhupathiraju; Donna Spiegelman; Stephanie E Chiuve; JoAnn E Manson; Walter Willett; Kathryn M Rexrode; Eric B Rimm; Frank B Hu Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 24.094