No abstract

Background: Recently, a new eating pattern called as "Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND)" has been coined. Emerging studies are examining this dietary pattern with chronic conditions. We aimed to investigate the association between the MIND diet score and general and central obesity among adults. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in a framework of the Study on the Epidemiology of Psychological Alimentary Health and Nutrition (SEPAHAN). Dietary information was collected using a validated self-administered 106item Willett-format dish-based semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (DS-FFQ) in 6724 adults. Adherence to the MIND diet was examined based on components suggested in this eating pattern. Anthropometrics data were collected using a validated self-reported questionnaire. General obesity was defined as body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 , and abdominal obesity as waist circumference > 102 cm for men and > 88 cm for women. Results: Mean age, BMI and WC in the study population was 36.8 ± 8.08 y, 24.9 ± 3.8 kg/m 2 and 83.7 ± 16.02 cm, respectively. Overall, 9.5% of subjects were generally obese and 24.4 were abdominally obese. Examining the whole study population, we found no significant association between the MIND diet score and odds of general obesity, either before (ORs for comparing T3 vs. T1: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.27; P-trend = 0.74) or after controlling for potential confounders (ORs for T3 vs. T1: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.25; P-trend = 0.58). This was also the case for men and women when analyzed separately. We also failed to find any significant association between the MIND diet score and odds of abdominal obesity after controlling for potential confounders in the whole study population (ORs for T3 vs. T1: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.79, 1.27; P-trend = 0.87). However, women with the greatest adherence to the MIND diet were 19% less likely to be abdominally obese than those with the lowest adherence in crude model (OR = 0.81; 95% CIs: 0.67, 0.98; P-trend = 0.03). This association disappeared after controlling for potential confounders (OR = 0.87; 95% CIs: 0.66, 1.14; P-trend = 0.55). Conclusion: No significant association was observed between adherence to the MIND diet and odds of general and central obesity.

Limited data are available that summarize the relation between egg intake and the risk of upper aero-digestive tract (UADT) cancers. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between egg intake and the risk of UADT cancers. Medline/PubMed, ISI web of knowledge, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched using relevant keywords. Observational studies conducted on humans investigating the association between egg consumption and the risk of UADT cancers were included. Overall, 38 studies with a total of 164,241 subjects (27, 025 cases) were included. Based on 40 effect sizes from 32 case-control studies, we found a 42% increased risk of UADT cancers among those with the highest egg consumption (ranging from ≥1 meal/d to ≥1 time/mo among studies) compared to those with the lowest intake (ranging from 0–20 g/d to never consumed among studies) (overall OR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.68; P < 0.001). However, this association was only evident in hospital-based case-control (HCC) studies (OR = 1.50; 95% CI: 1.34, 1.68; P < 0.001 for ‘oropharyngeal and laryngeal cancer’ and OR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.50; P = 0.004 for esophageal cancer) and not in population-based case-control (PCC) studies (OR = 1.25; 95% CI: 0.59, 2.67; P = 0.56 for ‘oropharyngeal and laryngeal cancer’ and OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.81; P = 0.13 for esophageal cancer). In addition, the association was not significant in prospective cohort studies (overall OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.71, 1.04; P = 0.11). Considering individual cancers, a positive association was observed between the highest egg consumption, compared with the lowest, and risk of oropharyngeal (OR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.61, 2.20; P < 0.001), laryngeal (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.45, 2.32; P < 0.001), oral & pharyngeal & laryngeal (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.67; P < 0.001), and esophageal cancers (OR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.10,1.48; P = 0.001). We also found an inverse association between egg intake and the risk of oral cancer (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.99; P = 0.04). In conclusion, high egg consumption (ranging from ≥1 meal/d to ≥1 time/mo among studies) was associated with increased risk of UADT cancers only in HCC studies but not in PCC or prospective cohort studies. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102619.

BackgroundDebate on the potential carcinogenic effects of meat intake is open and the relationship between meat consumption and risk of prostate cancer remains uncertain. This meta-analysis was conducted to summarize earlier prospective studies on the association of meat consumption with risk of prostate cancer.MethodsRelevant studies were identified by exploring PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases up to December 2020. Fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses were used for pooling the relative risks (RRs). Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the Q-statistic and I-square (I2). A funnel plot and Egger's test was used to detect publication bias. Linear and non-linear dose-response analyses were performed to estimate the dose-response relations between meat intake and risk of prostate cancer.ResultsTwenty-five prospective studies were included in this meta-analysis. Totally, 1,900,910 participants with 35,326 incident cases of prostate cancer were investigated. Pooling the eligible effect sizes, we observed that high consumption of processed meat might be associated with an increased risk of “total prostate cancer” (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.10; I2 = 1.5%, P = 0.43) and “advanced prostate cancer” (1.17; 1.09, 1.26; I2 = 58.8%, P = 0.01). However, the association between processed meat and “advanced prostate cancer” was not significant in the random-effects model: 1.12 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.29). A linear dose-response analysis indicated that an increment of 50 grams per day of processed meat intake might be related to a 4% greater risk of “total prostate cancer” (1.04; 1.00, 1.08; I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.51). “Total meat intake” was marginally associated with all outcomes of prostate cancer risk (1.04; 1.01, 1.07; I2 = 58.4%, P &lt; 0.001).ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies indicated that increased consumption of “total meat” and “processed meat” might be associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=230824, identifier: CRD42021230824.

No abstract