4.7 Article

Dietary Intake of High-Protein Foods and Other Major Foods in Meat-Eaters, Poultry-Eaters, Fish-Eaters, Vegetarians, and Vegans in UK Biobank

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu9121317

关键词

UK Biobank; vegetarian; vegan; dietary intakes; food groups

资金

  1. Girdlers' New Zealand Health Research Council Fellowship
  2. UK Medical Research Council [MR/M012190/1]
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. MRC [MR/M012190/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Cancer Research UK [16491] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Medical Research Council [MC_qA137853, MR/M012190/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vegetarian diets are defined by the absence of meat and fish, but differences in the intake of other foods between meat-eaters and low or non-meat eaters are also important to document. We examined intakes of high-protein foods (meat, poultry, fish, legumes, nuts, vegetarian protein alternatives, dairy products, and eggs) and other major food groups (fruit, vegetables, bread, pasta, rice, snack foods, and beverages) in regular meat-eaters, low meat-eaters, poultry-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans of white ethnicity participating in UK Biobank who had completed at least one web-based 24-h dietary assessment (n = 199,944). In regular meat-eaters, around 25% of total energy came from meat, fish, dairy and plant milk, cheese, yogurt, and eggs. In vegetarians, around 20% of energy came from dairy and plant milk, cheese, yoghurt, eggs, legumes, nuts, and vegetarian protein alternatives, and in vegans around 15% came from plant milk, legumes, vegetarian alternatives, and nuts. Low and non-meat eaters had higher intakes of fruit and vegetables and lower intakes of roast or fried potatoes compared to regular meat-eaters. The differences in the intakes of meat, plant-based high-protein foods, and other foods between meat-eaters and low and non-meat eaters in UK Biobank may contribute to differences in health outcomes.

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

4.7
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