Cited by 230Nutritional Studies and DietAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactDiet, Metabolism, and Disease

Changes in Red Meat Consumption and Subsequent Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Three Cohorts of US Men and Women

Open access
Pan, An, Sun, Qi, Bernstein, Adam M., Manson, JoAnn E., Willett, Walter C., Hu, Frank B.·2013·JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Red meat consumption has been consistently associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, whether changes in red meat intake are related to subsequent T2DM risk remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between changes in red meat consumption during a 4-year period and subsequent 4-year risk of T2DM in US adults. DESIGN AND SETTING: Three prospective cohort studies in US men and women. PARTICIPANTS: We followed up 26,357 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2006), 48,709 women in the Nurses' Health Study (1986-2006), and 74,077 women in the Nurses' Health Study II (1991-2007). Diet was assessed by validated food frequency questionnaires and updated every 4 years. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios with adjustment for age, family history, race, marital status, initial red meat consumption, smoking status, and initial and changes in other lifestyle factors (physical activity, alcohol intake, total energy intake, and diet quality). Results across cohorts were pooled by an inverse variance-weighted, fixed-effect meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incident T2DM cases validated by supplementary questionnaires. RESULTS: During 1,965,824 person-years of follow-up, we documented 7540 incident T2DM cases. In the multivariate-adjusted models, increasing red meat intake during a 4-year interval was associated with an elevated risk of T2DM during the subsequent 4 years in each cohort (all P < .001 for trend). Compared with the reference group of no change in red meat intake, increasing red meat intake of more than 0.50 servings per day was associated with a 48% (pooled hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.37-1.59) elevated risk in the subsequent 4-year period, and the association was modestly attenuated after further adjustment for initial body mass index and concurrent weight gain (1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.41). Reducing red meat consumption by more than 0.50 servings per day from baseline to the first 4 years of follow-up was associated with a 14% (pooled hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93) lower risk during the subsequent entire follow-up through 2006 or 2007. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Increasing red meat consumption over time is associated with an elevated subsequent risk of T2DM, and the association is partly mediated by body weight. Our results add further evidence that limiting red meat consumption over time confers benefits for T2DM prevention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6633

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pan, A., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A. M., Manson, J. E., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2013-07-22
Volume
173
Issue
14
Pages
1328
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2147440911
Cited by
230
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 6
FWCI
23.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K99HL098459, R00HL098459)
  • National Cancer Institute (U19CA055075, P01CA087969, U54CA155626, P01CA055075, R01CA050385)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK058845, P30DK046200, T32DK007703)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diet, Metabolism, and Disease
Keywords
red meat consumption, type 2 diabetes, dietary change, incident diabetes risk, weight gain, body mass index, saturated fat, dietary fiber, dietary cholesterol, dietary sodium, cholesterol intake, dietary fiber intake, dietary fat intake, protein intake, calcium intake, sodium intake
MeSH terms
Energy Intake, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diet, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Meat, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Weight Gain, Body Mass Index, Proportional Hazards Models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review