Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,048

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Nutritional epidemiology

·1990·Choice Reviews Online

Abstract

Objectives: Red and processed meat consumption is adversely related to cardiometabolic risk, but the impact of overall dietary quality on this association has not been systematically investigated. We examined the influence of dietary quality on associations of meat intake with biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk. Methods:Data are from the JacksonHeart Study, a cohort of African Americans (baseline age 55 y, 66% female, 20% diabetes, 9% CVD). We analyzed those with biomarker data available at Visit 1 (2000– 04) and at Visit 2 (2005–09) or 3 (2009–13). Diet was assessed by food frequency questionnaire (Visit 1). Total observations used were: Visit 1 (n = 3725), Visit 2 (n = 2736), and Visit 3 (n = 3319). Unprocessed red meat included beef and pork, and processed meat included sausage, lunch, and cured meats. Diet quality was measured by a modified Healthy Eating Index 2010 score (m-HEI) that excluded meat contributions. Modified HEI stratified and unstratified analyses were conducted using linear mixed modeling. Fasting HbA1c and CRP values were log transformed. Results: Meat consumption was not associated with HbA1c in mHEI stratified or unstratified analyses. A 1 oz/1000 kcal/wk increase in unprocessed red and total meat was associated with a 1.3% ± 0.5% (P = 0.02) and 1.1% ± 0.3% (P = 0.005) higher CRP in unstratified analyses, respectively. Unprocessed red meat was positively associated with CRP in m-HEI tertiles 1 (2.0% ± 0.8%, P = 0.01) and 3 (2.2%± 0.8%,P= 0.008). Totalmeatwas associatedwithCRP inm-HEI tertile 1 (2.0%± 0.6%, P= 0.001) and trended in tertile 3 (1.1%± 0.6%, P= 0.09); processedmeat also approached significance inm-HEI tertile 1 (2.1%± 1.2%, P= 0.08). There was evidence thatm-HEImodified the associations between processed meat and CRP (P-interaction = 0.04), but not for other associations. Excluding those with diabetes or CVD did not alter these results. Conclusions: Our results do not support that meat intake is associated with HbA1c, or that overall dietary quality modifies these associations. Unprocessed red and total meat intakes were associated with greater CRP in unstratified and subsets of stratified analyses. Associations of processed meat with CRP appeared stronger among those with the poorest diet quality. These data suggest that reduction in red meat intake could benefit inflammation among African American adults. Funding Sources: The Beef Checkoff.

Overview

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 · 10.5860/choice.27-5795

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,048

Metadata

Venue
Choice Reviews Online
Published
1990-06-01
Volume
27
Issue
10
Pages
27-5795-27-5795
ISSN
  • 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-8253
OpenAlex
W4255114350
Cited by
1,048
References
0
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nutritional epidemiology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.27-5795
The paper
Nutritional epidemiology. (1990). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.27-5795

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.