4.4 Article

Substitution of meat and fish with vegetables or potatoes and risk of myocardial infarction

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 116, 期 9, 页码 1602-1610

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114516003500

关键词

Myocardial infarction; Meat; Fish; Vegetables; Potatoes; Cohort studies; Substitution models

资金

  1. Danish Council for Strategic Research [0603-00488B]
  2. Graduate School of Health, Aarhus University
  3. Danish Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Red meat has been suggested to be adversely associated with risk of myocardial infarction (MI), whereas vegetable consumption has been found to be protective. The aim of this study was to investigate substitutions of red meat, poultry and fish with vegetables or potatoes for MI prevention. We followed up 29 142 women and 26 029 men in the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health study aged 50-64 years with no known history of MI at baseline. Diet was assessed by a validated 192-item FFQ at baseline. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI for MI associated with specified food substitutions of 150 g/week. During a median follow-up of 13.6 years, we identified 656 female and 1694 male cases. Among women, the HR for MI when replacing red meat with vegetables was 0.94 (95% CI 0.90, 0.98). Replacing fatty fish with vegetables was associated with a higher risk of MI (HR 1.23; 95% CI 1.05, 1.45), whereas an inverse, statistically non-significant association was found for lean fish (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.83, 1.05). Substituting poultry with vegetables was not associated with risk of MI (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.90, 1.11). Findings for substitution with potatoes were similar to findings for vegetables. Among men, a similar pattern was observed, but the associations were weak and mostly statistically non-significant. This study suggests that replacing red meat with vegetables or potatoes is associated with a lower risk of MI, whereas replacing fatty fish with vegetables or potatoes is associated with a higher risk of MI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据