4.5 Article

Characterization of meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer in Cordoba, Argentina

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 7-10

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0899-9007(02)00832-8

关键词

meats; Argentina; case-control studies; colorectal cancer; food habits; cholesterol; saturated fatty acids; fatty acids; animal proteins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The Argentinean food pattern, rich in beef and fats and poor in fibers,may be related to an risk of increased colorectal cancer (CRC). To examine the relation between CRC risk and meat type, we carried out a case-control study in Cordoba Argentina. METHODS: We interviewed 287 patients with colorectal adenocarcinomas and 566 control subjects admitted to the largest hospital's in greater Cordoba. Dietary habits were assessed by a food-frequency questionnaire and different meat types were evaluated., Regression analyses determined the contribution of meat to, total energy and macronutrients. Unconditional multiple logistic regression was performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Median intake of all meats, predominantly bovine, was high, reaching almost 300 g/d in men. Meats provided approximately 50% of total energy-intake and 64% to 67% of total protein. Patients obtained significantly more cholesterol and total lipids from meats than did controls. Consumption of total meat, red meat, and other types of meat were not related to increased risk of CRC. However, an increased risk of CRC was found for those consuming relatively large amounts of cold cuts and sausages (OR, 1.47; CI, 1.02-2.15) and bovine viscera (OR, 1.73; Cl, 1.18-2.54). Lean beef was associated with a decreased. risk of CRC at the second (OR, 0.64; Cl, 0.43-0.94) and third (OR, 0.67; CI, 0.40-0.97) tertiles. CONCLUSIONS: Red meat produced a different pattern of risk according to its fat content. Further studies should assess the possible role of cooking meat and other non-nutritional components. ; (C) Elsevier Science Inc. 2003.

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

4.5
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