Eating red meat and processed meat hikes heart disease and death risk, study finds

Processed meats (stock image).

After a controversial study last fall recommending that it was not necessary for people to change their diet in terms of red meat and processed meat, a large, carefully analyzed new study links red and processed meat consumption with slightly higher risk of heart disease and death, according to a new study from Northwestern Medicine and Cornell University.

Eating two servings of red meat, processed meat or poultry -- but not fish -- per week was linked to a 3 to 7% higher risk of cardiovascular disease, the study found. Eating two servings of red meat or processed meat -- but not poultry or fish -- per week was associated with a 3% higher risk of all causes of death.

"It's a small difference, but it's worth trying to reduce red meat and processed meat like pepperoni, bologna and deli meats," said senior study author Norrina Allen, associate professor of preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. "Red meat consumption also is consistently linked to other health problems like cancer."

"Modifying intake of these animal protein foods may be an important strategy to help reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death at a population level," said lead study author Victor Zhong, assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Cornell, who did the research when he was a postdoctoral fellow in Allen's lab.

The paper will be published Feb. 3 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The new findings come on the heels of a controversial meta-analysis published last November that recommended people not reduce the amount of red meat and processed meat they eat. "Everyone interpreted that it was OK to eat red meat, but I don't think that is what the science supports," Allen said.

"Our study shows the link to cardiovascular disease and mortality was robust," Zhong said.

What should we eat?

"Fish, seafood and plant-based sources of protein such as nuts and legumes, including beans and peas, are excellent alternatives to meat and are under-consumed in the U.S.," said study coauthor Linda Van Horn, professor of preventive medicine at Feinberg who also is a member of the 2020 U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory committee.

The study found a positive association between poultry intake and cardiovascular disease, but the evidence so far isn't sufficient to make a clear recommendation about poultry intake, Zhong said. Still, fried chicken is not recommended.

The new study pooled together a large diverse sample from six cohorts, included long follow-up data up to three decades, harmonized diet data to reduce heterogeneity, adjusted a comprehensive set of confounders and conducted multiple sensitivity analyses. The study included 29,682 participants (mean age of 53.7 years at baseline, 44.4% men and 30.7% non-white). Diet data were self-reported by participants, who were asked a long list of what they ate for the previous year or month.

Key findings:

• A 3 to 7% higher risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death for people who ate red meat and processed meat two servings a week.
• A 4% higher risk of cardiovascular disease for people who ate two servings per week of poultry, but the evidence so far is not sufficient to make a clear recommendation about poultry intake. And the relationship may be related to the method of cooking the chicken and consumption of the skin rather than the chicken meat itself.
• No association between eating fish and cardiovascular disease or mortality.

Limitations of the study are participants' dietary intake was assessed once, and dietary behaviors may have changed over time. In addition, cooking methods were not considered. Fried chicken, especially deep fat-fried sources that contribute trans-fatty acids, and fried fish intake have been positively linked to chronic diseases, Zhong said.

Other Northwestern authors are Dr. Philip Greenland, Dr. Mercedes R. Carnethon, Dr. Hongyan Ning, Dr. John T. Wilkins and Dr. Donald M. Lloyd-Jones.

The study was funded by National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R21 HL085375), American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Networks and the Feinberg School of Medicine.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Northwestern University. Original written by Marla Paul. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

In death of dinosaurs, it was all about the asteroid -- not volcanoes

Illustrated scene of dinosaurs and asteroid (stock image).

Volcanic activity did not play a direct role in the mass extinction event that killed the dinosaurs, according to an international, Yale-led team of researchers. It was all about the asteroid.

In a break from a number of other recent studies, Yale assistant professor of geology & geophysics Pincelli Hull and her colleagues argue in a new research paper in Science that environmental impacts from massive volcanic eruptions in India in the region known as the Deccan Traps happened well before the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago and therefore did not contribute to the mass extinction.

Most scientists acknowledge that the mass extinction event, also known as K-Pg, occurred after an asteroid slammed into Earth. Some researchers also have focused on the role of volcanoes in K-Pg due to indications that volcanic activity happened around the same time.

"Volcanoes can drive mass extinctions because they release lots of gases, like SO2 and CO2, that can alter the climate and acidify the world," said Hull, lead author of the new study. "But recent work has focused on the timing of lava eruption rather than gas release."

To pinpoint the timing of volcanic gas emission, Hull and her colleagues compared global temperature change and the carbon isotopes (an isotope is an atom with a higher or lower number of neutrons than normal) from marine fossils with models of the climatic effect of CO2 release. They concluded that most of the gas release happened well before the asteroid impact -- and that the asteroid was the sole driver of extinction.

"Volcanic activity in the late Cretaceous caused a gradual global warming event of about two degrees, but not mass extinction," said former Yale researcher Michael Henehan, who compiled the temperature records for the study. "A number of species moved toward the North and South poles but moved back well before the asteroid impact."

Added Hull, "A lot of people have speculated that volcanoes mattered to K-Pg, and we're saying, 'No, they didn't.'"

Recent work on the Deccan Traps, in India, has also pointed to massive eruptions in the immediate aftermath of the K-Pg mass extinction. These results have puzzled scientists because there is no warming event to match. The new study suggests an answer to this puzzle, as well.

"The K-Pg extinction was a mass extinction and this profoundly altered the global carbon cycle," said Yale postdoctoral associate Donald Penman, the study's modeler. "Our results show that these changes would allow the ocean to absorb an enormous amount of CO2 on long time scales -- perhaps hiding the warming effects of volcanism in the aftermath of the event."

The International Ocean Discovery Program, the National Science Foundation, and Yale University helped fund the research.

---

Story Source:

Materials provided by Yale University. Original written by Jim Shelton. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

In death of dinosaurs, it was all about the asteroid -- not volcanoes

Illustrated scene of dinosaurs and asteroid (stock image).

Volcanic activity did not play a direct role in the mass extinction event that killed the dinosaurs, according to an international, Yale-led team of researchers. It was all about the asteroid.

In a break from a number of other recent studies, Yale assistant professor of geology & geophysics Pincelli Hull and her colleagues argue in a new research paper in Science that environmental impacts from massive volcanic eruptions in India in the region known as the Deccan Traps happened well before the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago and therefore did not contribute to the mass extinction.

Most scientists acknowledge that the mass extinction event, also known as K-Pg, occurred after an asteroid slammed into Earth. Some researchers also have focused on the role of volcanoes in K-Pg due to indications that volcanic activity happened around the same time.

"Volcanoes can drive mass extinctions because they release lots of gases, like SO2 and CO2, that can alter the climate and acidify the world," said Hull, lead author of the new study. "But recent work has focused on the timing of lava eruption rather than gas release."

To pinpoint the timing of volcanic gas emission, Hull and her colleagues compared global temperature change and the carbon isotopes (an isotope is an atom with a higher or lower number of neutrons than normal) from marine fossils with models of the climatic effect of CO2 release. They concluded that most of the gas release happened well before the asteroid impact -- and that the asteroid was the sole driver of extinction.

"Volcanic activity in the late Cretaceous caused a gradual global warming event of about two degrees, but not mass extinction," said former Yale researcher Michael Henehan, who compiled the temperature records for the study. "A number of species moved toward the North and South poles but moved back well before the asteroid impact."

Added Hull, "A lot of people have speculated that volcanoes mattered to K-Pg, and we're saying, 'No, they didn't.'"

Recent work on the Deccan Traps, in India, has also pointed to massive eruptions in the immediate aftermath of the K-Pg mass extinction. These results have puzzled scientists because there is no warming event to match. The new study suggests an answer to this puzzle, as well.

"The K-Pg extinction was a mass extinction and this profoundly altered the global carbon cycle," said Yale postdoctoral associate Donald Penman, the study's modeler. "Our results show that these changes would allow the ocean to absorb an enormous amount of CO2 on long time scales -- perhaps hiding the warming effects of volcanism in the aftermath of the event."

The International Ocean Discovery Program, the National Science Foundation, and Yale University helped fund the research.

---

Story Source:

Materials provided by Yale University. Original written by Jim Shelton. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Any amount of running linked to significantly lower risk of early death

Woman running

Any amount of running is linked to a significantly lower risk of death from any cause, finds a pooled analysis of the available evidence, published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

If more people took up running -- and they wouldn't have to run far or fast -- there would likely be substantial improvements in population health and longevity, conclude the researchers.

It's not clear how good running is for staving off the risk of death from any cause and particularly from cardiovascular disease and cancer, say the researchers.

Nor is it clear how much running a person needs to do to reap these potential benefits, nor whether upping the frequency, duration, and pace -- in other words, increasing the 'dose' -- might be even more advantageous.

To try and find out, the researchers systematically reviewed relevant published research, conference presentations, and doctoral theses and dissertations in a broad range of academic databases.

They looked for studies on the association between running/jogging and the risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

They found 14 suitable studies, involving 232,149 people, whose health had been tracked for between 5.5 and 35 years. During this time, 25,951 of the study participants died.

When the study data were pooled, any amount of running was associated with a 27% lower risk of death from all causes for both sexes, compared with no running.

And it was associated with a 30% lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease, and a 23% lower risk of death from cancer.

Even small 'doses' -- for example, once weekly or less, lasting less than 50 minutes each time, and at a speed below 6 miles (8 km) an hour, still seemed to be associated with significant health/longevity benefits.

So running for 25 minutes less than the recommended weekly duration of vigorous physical activity could reduce the risk of death. This makes running a potentially good option for those whose main obstacle to doing enough exercise is lack of time, suggest the researchers.

But upping 'the dose' wasn't associated with a further lowering of the risk of death from any cause, the analysis showed.

This is an observational study, and as such, can't establish cause. And the researchers caution that the number of included studies was small and their methods varied considerably, which may have influenced the results.

Nevertheless, they suggest that any amount of running is better than none, concluding: "Increased rates of participation in running, regardless of its dose, would probably lead to substantial improvements in population health and longevity."

Story Source:

Materials provided by BMJ. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Any amount of running linked to significantly lower risk of early death

Woman running

Any amount of running is linked to a significantly lower risk of death from any cause, finds a pooled analysis of the available evidence, published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

If more people took up running -- and they wouldn't have to run far or fast -- there would likely be substantial improvements in population health and longevity, conclude the researchers.

It's not clear how good running is for staving off the risk of death from any cause and particularly from cardiovascular disease and cancer, say the researchers.

Nor is it clear how much running a person needs to do to reap these potential benefits, nor whether upping the frequency, duration, and pace -- in other words, increasing the 'dose' -- might be even more advantageous.

To try and find out, the researchers systematically reviewed relevant published research, conference presentations, and doctoral theses and dissertations in a broad range of academic databases.

They looked for studies on the association between running/jogging and the risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

They found 14 suitable studies, involving 232,149 people, whose health had been tracked for between 5.5 and 35 years. During this time, 25,951 of the study participants died.

When the study data were pooled, any amount of running was associated with a 27% lower risk of death from all causes for both sexes, compared with no running.

And it was associated with a 30% lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease, and a 23% lower risk of death from cancer.

Even small 'doses' -- for example, once weekly or less, lasting less than 50 minutes each time, and at a speed below 6 miles (8 km) an hour, still seemed to be associated with significant health/longevity benefits.

So running for 25 minutes less than the recommended weekly duration of vigorous physical activity could reduce the risk of death. This makes running a potentially good option for those whose main obstacle to doing enough exercise is lack of time, suggest the researchers.

But upping 'the dose' wasn't associated with a further lowering of the risk of death from any cause, the analysis showed.

This is an observational study, and as such, can't establish cause. And the researchers caution that the number of included studies was small and their methods varied considerably, which may have influenced the results.

Nevertheless, they suggest that any amount of running is better than none, concluding: "Increased rates of participation in running, regardless of its dose, would probably lead to substantial improvements in population health and longevity."

---

Story Source:

Materials provided by BMJ. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.