4.3 Article

Ultra-processed food intake and mortality in the USA: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994)

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 22, Issue 10, Pages 1777-1785

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980018003890

Keywords

Ultra-processed food; NOVA classification; Nutritional characteristics; Nutritional quality; Mortality

Funding

  1. Mentored Research Scientist Development Award from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [K01 DK107782]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To evaluate the association between ultra-processed food intake and all-cause mortality and CVD mortality in a nationally representative sample of US adults. Design Prospective analyses of reported frequency of ultra-processed food intake in 1988-1994 and all-cause mortality and CVD mortality through 2011. Setting The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994). Participants Adults aged >= 20 years (n 11898). Results Over a median follow-up of 19 years, individuals in the highest quartile of frequency of ultra-processed food intake (e.g. sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverages, sweetened milk, sausage or other reconstructed meats, sweetened cereals, confectionery, desserts) had a 31% higher risk of all-cause mortality, after adjusting for demographic and socio-economic confounders and health behaviours (adjusted hazard ratio=1 center dot 31; 95% CI 1 center dot 09, 1 center dot 58; P-trend = 0 center dot 001). No association with CVD mortality was observed (P-trend=0 center dot 86). Conclusions Higher frequency of ultra-processed food intake was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality in a representative sample of US adults. More longitudinal studies with dietary data reflecting the modern food supply are needed to confirm our results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available