Fanny Petermann-Rocha1,2, Solange Parra-Soto1,2, Stuart Gray2, Jana Anderson1, Paul Welsh2, Jason Gill2, Naveed Sattar2, Frederick K Ho1, Carlos Celis-Morales1,2,3,4, Jill P Pell1. 1. Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK. 2. British Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 3. Centre of Exercise Physiology Research (CIFE), Universidad Mayor, Santiago, Chile. 4. Research Group in Education, Physical Activity and Health, University Catolica del Maule, Talca, Chile.
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the incidence and mortality risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) [CVD and also ischaemic heart disease (IHD), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure (HF)] among people with different types of diets-including vegetarians, fish eaters, fish and poultry eaters, and meat-eaters-using data from UK Biobank. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 422 791 participants (55.4% women) were included in this prospective analysis. Using data from a food frequency questionnaire, four types of diets were derived. Associations between types of diets and health outcomes were investigated using Cox proportional hazard models. Meat-eaters comprised 94.7% of the cohort and were more likely to be obese than other diet groups. After a median follow-up of 8.5 years, fish eaters, compared with meat-eaters, had lower risks of incident CVD {hazard ratios (HR): 0.93 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.88-0.97]}, IHD [HR: 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70-0.88)], MI [HR: 0.70 (95% CI: 0.56-0.88)], stroke [HR: 0.79 (95% CI: 0.63-0.98)] and HF [HR: 0.78 (95% CI: 0.63-0.97)], after adjusting for confounders. Vegetarians had lower risk of CVD incidence [HR: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.96)] relative to meat-eaters. In contrast, the risk of adverse outcomes was not different in fish and poultry eaters compared with meat-eaters. No associations were identified between types of diets and CVD mortality. CONCLUSION: Eating fish rather than meat or poultry was associated with a lower risk of a range of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Vegetarianism was only associated with a lower risk of CVD incidence. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: To compare the incidence and mortality risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) [CVD and also ischaemic heart disease (IHD), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure (HF)] among people with different types of diets-including vegetarians, fish eaters, fish and poultry eaters, and meat-eaters-using data from UK Biobank. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 422 791 participants (55.4% women) were included in this prospective analysis. Using data from a food frequency questionnaire, four types of diets were derived. Associations between types of diets and health outcomes were investigated using Cox proportional hazard models. Meat-eaters comprised 94.7% of the cohort and were more likely to be obese than other diet groups. After a median follow-up of 8.5 years, fish eaters, compared with meat-eaters, had lower risks of incident CVD {hazard ratios (HR): 0.93 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.88-0.97]}, IHD [HR: 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70-0.88)], MI [HR: 0.70 (95% CI: 0.56-0.88)], stroke [HR: 0.79 (95% CI: 0.63-0.98)] and HF [HR: 0.78 (95% CI: 0.63-0.97)], after adjusting for confounders. Vegetarians had lower risk of CVD incidence [HR: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.96)] relative to meat-eaters. In contrast, the risk of adverse outcomes was not different in fish and poultry eaters compared with meat-eaters. No associations were identified between types of diets and CVD mortality. CONCLUSION: Eating fish rather than meat or poultry was associated with a lower risk of a range of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Vegetarianism was only associated with a lower risk of CVD incidence. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Hamish M E Foster; Carlos A Celis-Morales; Barbara I Nicholl; Fanny Petermann-Rocha; Jill P Pell; Jason M R Gill; Catherine A O'Donnell; Frances S Mair Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2018-11-20
Authors: Timothy J Key; Paul N Appleby; Elizabeth A Spencer; Ruth C Travis; Andrew W Roddam; Naomi E Allen Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Karen Barnett; Stewart W Mercer; Michael Norbury; Graham Watt; Sally Wyke; Bruce Guthrie Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Anna Fry; Thomas J Littlejohns; Cathie Sudlow; Nicola Doherty; Ligia Adamska; Tim Sprosen; Rory Collins; Naomi E Allen Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Tammy Y N Tong; Paul N Appleby; Kathryn E Bradbury; Aurora Perez-Cornago; Ruth C Travis; Robert Clarke; Timothy J Key Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-09-04
Authors: Mauro Lombardo; Giovanni Aulisa; Daniele Marcon; Gianluca Rizzo; Maria Grazia Tarsisano; Laura Di Renzo; Massimo Federici; Massimiliano Caprio; Antonino De Lorenzo Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Tamar S Polonsky; Amit Khera; Michael D Miedema; Douglas D Schocken; Peter W F Wilson Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Jirapitcha Boonpor; Fanny Petermann-Rocha; Solange Parra-Soto; Jill P Pell; Stuart R Gray; Carlos Celis-Morales; Frederick K Ho Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 6.408