Cited by 713Nutritional Studies and DietAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactDiet, Metabolism, and Disease

Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis

Open access
Pan, An, Sun, Qi, Bernstein, Adam M, Schulze, Matthias B, Manson, JoAnn E, Willett, Walter C, Hu, Frank B·2011·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background The relation between consumption of different types of red meats and risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains uncertain.Objective We evaluated the association between unprocessed and processed red meat consumption and incident T2D in US adults.Design We followed 37,083 men in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2006), 79,570 women in the Nurses' Health Study I (1980-2008), and 87,504 women in the Nurses' Health Study II (1991-2005). Diet was assessed by validated food-frequency questionnaires, and data were updated every 4 y. Incident T2D was confirmed by a validated supplementary questionnaire.Results During 4,033,322 person-years of follow-up, we documented 13,759 incident T2D cases. After adjustment for age, BMI, and other lifestyle and dietary risk factors, both unprocessed and processed red meat intakes were positively associated with T2D risk in each cohort (all P-trend <0.001). The pooled HRs (95% CIs) for a one serving/d increase in unprocessed, processed, and total red meat consumption were 1.12 (1.08, 1.16), 1.32 (1.25, 1.40), and 1.14 (1.10, 1.18), respectively. The results were confirmed by a meta-analysis (442,101 participants and 28,228 diabetes cases): the RRs (95% CIs) were 1.19 (1.04, 1.37) and 1.51 (1.25, 1.83) for 100 g unprocessed red meat/d and for 50 g processed red meat/d, respectively. We estimated that substitutions of one serving of nuts, low-fat dairy, and whole grains per day for one serving of red meat per day were associated with a 16-35% lower risk of T2D.Conclusion Our results suggest that red meat consumption, particularly processed red meat, is associated with an increased risk of T2D.

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 · 10.3945/ajcn.111.018978

Cites

75 of 75 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?

  • While a minority of individual studies suggest similar cardiovascular risk for unprocessed red meat vs. processed meats, many other individual studies and meta-analyses support much stronger effects of processed meats, including low-fat deli meats, on CVD.

    “Consistent with this, while a minority of individual studies suggest similar cardiovascular risk for unprocessed red meat vs. processed meats,170, 171 many other individual studies and meta-analyses support much stronger effects of processed meats, including low-fat deli meats, on CVD (Figure 6).172-174”
  • Both red and processed meats, regardless of fat content, are linked to higher incidence of diabetes, although with approximately double the risk, gram-for-gram, for processed meats than for unprocessed red meats.

    “Interestingly, both red and processed meats, regardless of fat content, are linked to higher incidence of diabetes, although with approximately double the risk, gram-for-gram, for processed meats than for unprocessed red meats.172, 178”
  • While a minority of individual studies suggest similar cardiovascular risk for unprocessed red meat vs. processed meats, many other individual studies and meta-analyses support much stronger effects of processed meats, including low-fat deli meats, on CVD.

    “Consistent with this, while a minority of individual studies suggest similar cardiovascular risk for unprocessed red meat vs. processed meats,170, 171 many other individual studies and meta-analyses support much stronger effects of processed meats, including low-fat deli meats, on CVD (Figure 6).172-174”
  • While unprocessed red meats and butter may be relatively neutral for CHD, no studies demonstrate appreciable benefits, all meats appear to increase diabetes, and processed meats are strongly linked to CHD.

    “While unprocessed red meats and butter may be relatively neutral for CHD, no studies demonstrate appreciable benefits, all meats appear to increase diabetes, and processed meats are strongly linked to CHD (see Meats, above).20, 29, 173, 178”
  • Red meat consumption has consistently been associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in several large cohort studies and summarized by several meta-analyses.

    “Red meat consumption has consistently been associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in several large cohort studies and summarized by several meta-analyses (1-3).”

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., Schulze, M. B., Manson, J. E., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
94
Issue
4
Pages
1088-1096
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995856488
Cited by
709
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 43
FWCI
39.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (CA 87969, CA55075)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K99HL098459, CA55075, CA87969)
  • National Cancer Institute (CA-87969, CA-55075, P01CA087969, CA50385, R01CA050385)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK058845, DK58845)
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, processed meat, diabetes risk, dietary risk factors, nuts, low-fat dairy, whole grains, Health Professionals Follow-up Study, Nurses' Health Study
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diet, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Food Handling, Humans, Male, Meat, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Incidence

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