AbstractObjectiveTo examine the associations of vegetarianism with risks of ischaemic heart disease and stroke.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingThe EPIC-Oxford study, a cohort in the United ...Kingdom with a large proportion of non-meat eaters, recruited across the country between 1993 and 2001.Participants48 188 participants with no history of ischaemic heart disease, stroke, or angina (or cardiovascular disease) were classified into three distinct diet groups: meat eaters (participants who consumed meat, regardless of whether they consumed fish, dairy, or eggs; n=24 428), fish eaters (consumed fish but no meat; n=7506), and vegetarians including vegans (n=16 254), based on dietary information collected at baseline, and subsequently around 2010 (n=28 364).Main outcome measuresIncident cases of ischaemic heart disease and stroke (including ischaemic and haemorrhagic types) identified through record linkage until 2016.ResultsOver 18.1 years of follow-up, 2820 cases of ischaemic heart disease and 1072 cases of total stroke (519 ischaemic stroke and 300 haemorrhagic stroke) were recorded. After adjusting for sociodemographic and lifestyle confounders, fish eaters and vegetarians had 13% (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.99) and 22% (0.78, 0.70 to 0.87) lower rates of ischaemic heart disease than meat eaters, respectively (P<0.001 for heterogeneity). This difference was equivalent to 10 fewer cases of ischaemic heart disease (95% confidence interval 6.7 to 13.1 fewer) in vegetarians than in meat eaters per 1000 population over 10 years. The associations for ischaemic heart disease were partly attenuated after adjustment for self reported high blood cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, and body mass index (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.00 in vegetarians with all adjustments). By contrast, vegetarians had 20% higher rates of total stroke (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.40) than meat eaters, equivalent to three more cases of total stroke (95% confidence interval 0.8 to 5.4 more) per 1000 population over 10 years, mostly due to a higher rate of haemorrhagic stroke. The associations for stroke did not attenuate after further adjustment of disease risk factors.ConclusionsIn this prospective cohort in the UK, fish eaters and vegetarians had lower rates of ischaemic heart disease than meat eaters, although vegetarians had higher rates of haemorrhagic and total stroke.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, CMK, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Vegetarians, who do not eat any meat, poultry or fish, constitute a significant minority of the world's population. Lacto-ovo-vegetarians consume dairy products and/or eggs, whereas vegans do not eat ...any foods derived wholly or partly from animals. Concerns over the health, environmental and economic consequences of a diet rich in meat and other animal products have focussed attention on those who exclude some or all of these foods from their diet. There has been extensive research into the nutritional adequacy of vegetarian diets, but less is known about the long-term health of vegetarians and vegans. We summarise the main findings from large cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies in western countries with a high proportion of vegetarian participants. Vegetarians have a lower prevalence of overweight and obesity and a lower risk of IHD compared with non-vegetarians from a similar background, whereas the data are equivocal for stroke. For cancer, there is some evidence that the risk for all cancer sites combined is slightly lower in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians, but findings for individual cancer sites are inconclusive. Vegetarians have also been found to have lower risks for diabetes, diverticular disease and eye cataract. Overall mortality is similar for vegetarians and comparable non-vegetarians, but vegetarian groups compare favourably with the general population. The long-term health of vegetarians appears to be generally good, and for some diseases and medical conditions it may be better than that of comparable omnivores. Much more research is needed, particularly on the long-term health of vegans.
Fruit, vegetables, and certain components of plant foods, such as fiber, have long been thought to protect against cancer. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) is a ...prospective cohort that includes >500,000 participants from 10 European countries and has made a substantial contribution to knowledge in this research area. The purpose of this article is to summarize the findings published thus far from the EPIC study on the associations between fruit, vegetable, or fiber consumption and the risk of cancer at 14 different sites. The risk of cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract was inversely associated with fruit intake but was not associated with vegetable intake. The risk of colorectal cancer was inversely associated with intakes of total fruit and vegetables and total fiber, and the risk of liver cancer was also inversely associated with the intake of total fiber. The risk of cancer of the lung was inversely associated with fruit intake but was not associated with vegetable intake; this association with fruit intake was restricted to smokers and might be influenced by residual confounding due to smoking. There was a borderline inverse association of fiber intake with breast cancer risk. For the other 9 cancer sites studied (stomach, biliary tract, pancreas, cervix, endometrium, prostate, kidney, bladder, and lymphoma) there were no reported significant associations of risk with intakes of total fruit, vegetables, or fiber.
Full text
Available for:
CMK, GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
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).
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.
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).
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.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
It has been proposed that night shift work could increase breast cancer incidence. A 2007 World Health Organization review concluded, mainly from animal evidence, that shift work involving circadian ...disruption is probably carcinogenic to humans. We therefore aimed to generate prospective epidemiological evidence on night shift work and breast cancer incidence.
Overall, 522 246 Million Women Study, 22 559 EPIC-Oxford, and 251 045 UK Biobank participants answered questions on shift work and were followed for incident cancer. Cox regression yielded multivariable-adjusted breast cancer incidence rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for night shift work vs no night shift work, and likelihood ratio tests for interaction were used to assess heterogeneity. Our meta-analyses combined these and relative risks from the seven previously published prospective studies (1.4 million women in total), using inverse-variance weighted averages of the study-specific log RRs.
In the Million Women Study, EPIC-Oxford, and UK Biobank, respectively, 673, 28, and 67 women who reported night shift work developed breast cancer, and the RRs for any vs no night shift work were 1.00 (95% CI = 0.92 to 1.08), 1.07 (95% CI = 0.71 to 1.62), and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.61 to 1.00). In the Million Women Study, the RR for 20 or more years of night shift work was 1.00 (95% CI = 0.81 to 1.23), with no statistically significant heterogeneity by sleep patterns or breast cancer risk factors. Our meta-analysis of all 10 prospective studies included 4660 breast cancers in women reporting night shift work; compared with other women, the combined relative risks were 0.99 (95% CI = 0.95 to 1.03) for any night shift work, 1.01 (95% CI = 0.93 to 1.10) for 20 or more years of night shift work, and 1.00 (95% CI = 0.87 to 1.14) for 30 or more years.
The totality of the prospective evidence shows that night shift work, including long-term shift work, has little or no effect on breast cancer incidence.
There is limited prospective evidence on possible differences in fracture risks between vegetarians, vegans, and non-vegetarians. We aimed to study this in a prospective cohort with a large ...proportion of non-meat eaters.
In EPIC-Oxford, dietary information was collected at baseline (1993-2001) and at follow-up (≈ 2010). Participants were categorised into four diet groups at both time points (with 29,380 meat eaters, 8037 fish eaters, 15,499 vegetarians, and 1982 vegans at baseline in analyses of total fractures). Outcomes were identified through linkage to hospital records or death certificates until mid-2016. Using multivariable Cox regression, we estimated the risks of total (n = 3941) and site-specific fractures (arm, n = 566; wrist, n = 889; hip, n = 945; leg, n = 366; ankle, n = 520; other main sites, i.e. clavicle, rib, and vertebra, n = 467) by diet group over an average of 17.6 years of follow-up.
Compared with meat eaters and after adjustment for socio-economic factors, lifestyle confounders, and body mass index (BMI), the risks of hip fracture were higher in fish eaters (hazard ratio 1.26; 95% CI 1.02-1.54), vegetarians (1.25; 1.04-1.50), and vegans (2.31; 1.66-3.22), equivalent to rate differences of 2.9 (0.6-5.7), 2.9 (0.9-5.2), and 14.9 (7.9-24.5) more cases for every 1000 people over 10 years, respectively. The vegans also had higher risks of total (1.43; 1.20-1.70), leg (2.05; 1.23-3.41), and other main site fractures (1.59; 1.02-2.50) than meat eaters. Overall, the significant associations appeared to be stronger without adjustment for BMI and were slightly attenuated but remained significant with additional adjustment for dietary calcium and/or total protein. No significant differences were observed in risks of wrist or ankle fractures by diet group with or without BMI adjustment, nor for arm fractures after BMI adjustment.
Non-meat eaters, especially vegans, had higher risks of either total or some site-specific fractures, particularly hip fractures. This is the first prospective study of diet group with both total and multiple specific fracture sites in vegetarians and vegans, and the findings suggest that bone health in vegans requires further research.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The aim of this study was to investigate differences in dietary intakes between 30251 participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition–Oxford study, comprising 18 244 ...meat eaters, 4 531 fish eaters, 6 673 vegetarians, and 803 vegans aged 30 to 90 years who completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires. We hypothesized that these groups characterized by varying degrees of animal product exclusion have significantly different intakes of many nutrients, with possible implications for dietary adequacy and compliance with population dietary goals. Nutrient intakes were estimated including fortification in foods, but excluding dietary supplements. Dietary supplementation practices were also evaluated. Highly significant differences were found in estimated nutrient intakes between meat eaters and vegans, with fish eaters and vegetarians usually having intermediate values. Meat eaters had the highest energy intakes, followed by fish eaters and vegetarians, whereas vegans had the lowest intakes. Vegans had the highest intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acids, dietary fiber, vitamins C and E, folate, magnesium, iron, and copper. Meat eaters had the highest intake of saturated fatty acids, protein, vitamin B2, vitamin B12, vitamin D, zinc, and iodine. Fish eaters had the highest intakes of calcium and selenium. There were no statistically significant differences in sodium and potassium intakes between dietary groups. With the exception of sodium intake, compliance with population dietary goals was high across diet groups. The results suggested a high prevalence of inadequacy for dietary vitamin B12 and iodine in vegans. The diet groups under study showed striking differences in dietary intakes, with possible implications for compliance with dietary recommendations, as well as cardiometabolic diseases risk.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Vegetarians and others who do not eat meat have been observed to have lower incidence rates than meat eaters of some chronic diseases, but it is unclear whether this translates into lower mortality.
...The purpose of this study was to describe mortality in vegetarians and comparable nonvegetarians in a large United Kingdom cohort.
The study involved a pooled analysis of data from 2 prospective studies that included 60,310 persons living in the United Kingdom, comprising 18,431 regular meat eaters (who ate meat ≥5 times/wk on average), 13,039 low (less-frequent) meat eaters, 8516 fish eaters (who ate fish but not meat), and 20,324 vegetarians (including 2228 vegans who did not eat any animal foods). Mortality by diet group for each of 18 common causes of death was estimated with the use of Cox proportional hazards models.
There were 5294 deaths before age 90 in >1 million y of follow-up. There was no significant difference in overall (all-cause) mortality between the diet groups: HRs in low meat eaters, fish eaters, and vegetarians compared with regular meat eaters were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86, 1.00), 0.96 (95% CI: 0.86, 1.06), and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.10), respectively; P-heterogeneity of risks = 0.082. There were significant differences in risk compared with regular meat eaters for deaths from circulatory disease higher in fish eaters (HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.46); malignant cancer lower in fish eaters (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.97), including pancreatic cancer lower in low meat eaters and vegetarians (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.86 and HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.28, 0.82, respectively) and cancers of the lymphatic/hematopoietic tissue lower in vegetarians (HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.79); respiratory disease lower in low meat eaters (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.92); and all other causes lower in low meat eaters (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.99). Further adjustment for body mass index left these associations largely unchanged.
United Kingdom-based vegetarians and comparable nonvegetarians have similar all-cause mortality. Differences found for specific causes of death merit further investigation.
Full text
Available for:
CMK, GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Objective To examine the associations of a vegetarian diet and dietary fibre intake with risk of diverticular disease.Design Prospective cohort study.Setting The EPIC-Oxford study, a cohort of mainly ...health conscious participants recruited from around the United Kingdom.Participants 47 033 men and women living in England or Scotland of whom 15 459 (33%) reported consuming a vegetarian diet.Main outcome measures Diet group was assessed at baseline; intake of dietary fibre was estimated from a 130 item validated food frequency questionnaire. Cases of diverticular disease were identified through linkage with hospital records and death certificates. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the risk of diverticular disease by diet group and fifths of intake of dietary fibre were estimated with multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models.Results After a mean follow-up time of 11.6 years, there were 812 cases of diverticular disease (806 admissions to hospital and six deaths). After adjustment for confounding variables, vegetarians had a 31% lower risk (relative risk 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.86) of diverticular disease compared with meat eaters. The cumulative probability of admission to hospital or death from diverticular disease between the ages of 50 and 70 for meat eaters was 4.4% compared with 3.0% for vegetarians. There was also an inverse association with dietary fibre intake; participants in the highest fifth (≥25.5 g/day for women and ≥26.1 g/day for men) had a 41% lower risk (0.59, 0.46 to 0.78; P<0.001 trend) compared with those in the lowest fifth (<14 g/day for both women and men). After mutual adjustment, both a vegetarian diet and a higher intake of fibre were significantly associated with a lower risk of diverticular disease.Conclusions Consuming a vegetarian diet and a high intake of dietary fibre were both associated with a lower risk of admission to hospital or death from diverticular disease.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, CMK, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Human metabolism is influenced by dietary factors and lifestyle, environmental, and genetic factors; thus, men who exclude some or all animal products from their diet might have different metabolic ...profiles than meat eaters.
We aimed to investigate differences in concentrations of 118 circulating metabolites, including acylcarnitines, amino acids, biogenic amines, glycerophospholipids, hexose, and sphingolipids related to lipid, protein, and carbohydrate metabolism between male meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians, and vegans from the Oxford arm of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.
In this cross-sectional study, concentrations of metabolites were measured by mass spectrometry in plasma from 379 men categorized according to their diet group. Differences in mean metabolite concentrations across diet groups were tested by using ANOVA, and a false discovery rate-controlling procedure was used to account for multiple testing. Principal component analysis was used to investigate patterns in metabolic profiles.
Concentrations of 79% of metabolites differed significantly by diet group. In the vast majority of these cases, vegans had the lowest concentration, whereas meat eaters most often had the highest concentrations of the acylcarnitines, glycerophospholipids, and sphingolipids, and fish eaters or vegetarians most often had the highest concentrations of the amino acids and a biogenic amine. A clear separation between patterns in the metabolic profiles of the 4 diet groups was seen, with vegans being noticeably different from the other groups because of lower concentrations of some glycerophospholipids and sphingolipids.
Metabolic profiles in plasma could effectively differentiate between men from different habitual diet groups, especially vegan men compared with men who consume animal products. The difference in metabolic profiles was mainly explained by the lower concentrations of glycerophospholipids and sphingolipids in vegans.
Full text
Available for:
CMK, GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
PDF
