Cited by 168Nutritional Studies and DietAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactMeat and Animal Product Quality

Meat consumption and risk of 25 common conditions: outcome-wide analyses in 475,000 men and women in the UK Biobank study

Open access
Papier, Keren, Fensom, Georgina K., Knuppel, Anika, Appleby, Paul N., Tong, Tammy Y. N., Schmidt, Julie A., Travis, Ruth C., Key, Timothy J. +1 more·2021·BMC Medicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: There is limited prospective evidence on the association between meat consumption and many common, non-cancerous health outcomes. We examined associations of meat intake with risk of 25 common conditions (other than cancer). Methods: We used data from 474,985 middle-aged adults recruited into the UK Biobank study between 2006 and 2010 and followed up until 2017 (mean follow-up 8.0 years) with available information on meat intake at baseline (collected via touchscreen questionnaire), and linked hospital admissions and mortality data. For a large sub-sample (~ 69,000), dietary intakes were re-measured three or more times using an online, 24-h recall questionnaire. Results: On average, participants who reported consuming meat regularly (three or more times per week) had more adverse health behaviours and characteristics than participants who consumed meat less regularly, and most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI). In multi-variable adjusted (including BMI) Cox regression models corrected for multiple testing, higher consumption of unprocessed red and processed meat combined was associated with higher risks of ischaemic heart disease (hazard ratio (HRs) per 70 g/day higher intake 1.15, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.07–1.23), pneumonia (1.31, 1.18–1.44), diverticular disease (1.19, 1.11–1.28), colon polyps (1.10, 1.06–1.15), and diabetes (1.30, 1.20–1.42); results were similar for unprocessed red meat and processed meat intakes separately. Higher consumption of unprocessed red meat alone was associated with a lower risk of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA: HR per 50 g/day higher intake 0.80, 95% CIs 0.72–0.90). Higher poultry meat intake was associated with higher risks of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (HR per 30 g/day higher intake 1.17, 95% CIs 1.09–1.26), gastritis and duodenitis (1.12, 1.05–1.18), diverticular disease (1.10, 1.04–1.17), gallbladder disease (1.11, 1.04–1.19), and diabetes (1.14, 1.07–1.21), and a lower IDA risk (0.83, 0.76–0.90). Conclusions: Higher unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry meat consumption was associated with higher risks of several common conditions; higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations. Higher unprocessed red meat and poultry meat consumption was associated with lower IDA risk.

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 · 10.1186/s12916-021-01922-9

Cites

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

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 57 · Cited by 168

Authors
Papier, K., Fensom, G. K., Knuppel, A., Appleby, P. N., Tong, T. Y. N., Schmidt, J. A., Travis, R. C., Key, T. J., & Perez-Cornago, A.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Papier, Keren
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2021-03-02
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
53-53
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3133399749
Cited by
168
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
23.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (205212/Z/16/Z)
  • Cancer Research UK (C8221/A29017, C8211/A19170, C60192/A28516, 2019/1953)
  • Medical Research Foundation (MR/M012190/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Meat and Animal Product Quality
Keywords
meat consumption, red meat, processed meat, poultry meat, ischemic heart disease, diverticular disease, colonic polyps, diabetes mellitus, iron deficiency anemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastritis, pneumonia, body mass index, dietary intake, hospitalization, mortality, UK Biobank, middle-aged adults
MeSH terms
Red Meat, Animals, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Biological Specimen Banks

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