Scientific evidence for the optimal number, timing, and size of meals is lacking. We investigated the relation between meal frequency and timing and changes in body mass index (BMI) in the Adventist Health Study 2 (AHS-2), a relatively healthy North American cohort. The analysis used data from 50,660 adult members aged ≥30 y of Seventh-day Adventist churches in the United States and Canada (mean ± SD follow-up: 7.42 ± 1.23 y). The number of meals per day, length of overnight fast, consumption of breakfast, and timing of the largest meal were exposure variables. The primary outcome was change in BMI per year. Linear regression analyses (stratified on baseline BMI) were adjusted for important demographic and lifestyle factors. Subjects who ate 1 or 2 meals/d had a reduction in BMI per year (in kg · m · y) (-0.035; 95% CI: -0.065, -0.004 and -0.029; 95% CI: -0.041, -0.017, respectively) compared with those who ate 3 meals/d. On the other hand, eating >3 meals/d (snacking) was associated with a relative increase in BMI ( < 0.001). Correspondingly, the BMI of subjects who had a long overnight fast (≥18 h) decreased compared with those who had a medium overnight fast (12-17 h) ( < 0.001). Breakfast eaters (-0.029; 95% CI: -0.047, -0.012; < 0.001) experienced a decreased BMI compared with breakfast skippers. Relative to subjects who ate their largest meal at dinner, those who consumed breakfast as the largest meal experienced a significant decrease in BMI (-0.038; 95% CI: -0.048, -0.028), and those who consumed a big lunch experienced a smaller but still significant decrease in BMI than did those who ate their largest meal at dinner. Our results suggest that in relatively healthy adults, eating less frequently, no snacking, consuming breakfast, and eating the largest meal in the morning may be effective methods for preventing long-term weight gain. Eating breakfast and lunch 5-6 h apart and making the overnight fast last 18-19 h may be a useful practical strategy.
Associations of low-to-moderate consumption of red and processed meat with mortality would add to the evidence of possible adverse effects of these common foods. This study aims to investigate the association of red and processed meat intake with mortality. The Adventist Health Study-2 (AHS-2) is a prospective cohort study of ~96,000 Seventh-day Adventist men and women recruited in the US and Canada between 2002 and 2007. The final analytic sample after exclusions was 72,149. Cox proportional hazards regression was used and hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (CI) were obtained. Diet was assessed by a validated quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), calibrated using six 24-h dietary recalls. Mortality outcome data were obtained from the National Death Index. During a mean follow-up of 11.8 years, there were 7961 total deaths, of which 2598 were Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) deaths and 1873 were cancer deaths. Unprocessed red meat was associated with risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.07–1.31) and CVD mortality (HR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.05–1.50). Processed meat alone was not significantly associated with risk of mortality. The combined intake of red and processed meat was associated with all-cause mortality (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.11–1.36) and CVD mortality (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.12–1.60). These findings suggest moderately higher risks of all-cause and CVD mortality associated with red and processed meat in a low meat intake population.
The lower CRP and IL-6 concentrations among vegetarians may be mediated by BMI.
Background Differences in food composition, nutrient intake, and various health outcomes have been reported for vegetarians and non-vegetarians in the Adventist Health Study-2 (AHS-2) cohort. Objective We sought to determine whether biomarkers of dietary intake also differed between individuals classified as vegetarian (vegan, lacto-ovo-vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian, semi-vegetarian) and non-vegetarians based on patterns of consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs. Methods Fasting plasma, overnight urine, and adipose tissue samples were collected from a representative subset of AHS-2 participants classified into 5 diet groups (vegan, lacto-ovo-vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, non-vegetarian) who also completed food-frequency questionnaires. Diet-related biomarkers including carotenoids, isoflavones, enterolactone, saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids, and vitamins were analyzed in 840 male and female participants. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the association between diet pattern and biomarker abundance, comparing each of 4 vegetarian dietary groups to non-vegetarians, and adjusted mean values were calculated. Bonferroni correction was applied to control for multiple testing. Results Vegans had higher plasma total carotenoid concentrations (1.6-fold, P < 0.0001), and higher excretion of urinary isoflavones (6-fold, P < 0.0001) and enterolactone (4.4-fold) compared with non-vegetarians. Vegans had lower relative abundance of saturated fatty acids including myristic, pentadecanoic, palmitic, and stearic acids (P < 0.0001). Vegans had higher linoleic acid (18:2ω-6) relative to non-vegetarians (23.3% compared with 19.1%) (P < 0.0001), and a higher proportion of total ω-3 fatty acids (2.1% compared with 1.6%) (P < 0.0001). Results overall were similar but less robust for lacto-ovo- and pesco-vegetarians. 1-Methylhistidine was 92% lower in vegans, and lower in lacto-ovo- and pesco-vegetarians by 90% and 80%, respectively, relative to non-vegetarians (P < 0.0001). Conclusion AHS-2 participants following vegan, and lacto-ovo- or pesco-vegetarian diet patterns have significant differences in plasma, urine, and adipose tissue biomarkers associated with dietary intakes compared with those who consume a non-vegetarian diet. These findings provide some validation for the prior classification of dietary groups within the AHS-2 cohort.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.