Broad and Inconsistent Muscle Food Classification Is Problematic for Dietary Guidance in the U.S.

Abstract

Dietary recommendations regarding consumption of muscle foods, such as red meat, processed meat, poultry or fish, largely rely on current dietary intake assessment methods. This narrative review summarizes how U.S. intake values for various types of muscle foods are grouped and estimated via methods that include: (1) food frequency questionnaires; (2) food disappearance data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service; and (3) dietary recall information from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. These reported methods inconsistently classify muscle foods into groups, such as those previously listed, which creates discrepancies in estimated intakes. Researchers who classify muscle foods into these groups do not consistently considered nutrient content, in turn leading to implications of scientific conclusions and dietary recommendations. Consequentially, these factors demonstrate a need for a more universal muscle food classification system. Further specification to this system would improve accuracy and precision in which researchers can classify muscle foods in nutrition research. Future multidisciplinary collaboration is needed to develop a new classification system via systematic review protocol of current literature.

Meat and mental health: a systematic review of meat abstention and depression, anxiety, and related phenomena

“…Fourth, meat consumption is often inconsistently classified in research and national surveillance settings (Gifford et al 2017;O'Connor et al 2020) as well as across languages. For example, in English, the broad category of "meat" subsumes both "red" and "white" meat (e.g., beef and poultry).…”

Heterogeneity in Meat Food Groups Can Meaningfully Alter Population-Level Intake Estimates of Red Meat and Poultry

“…The level of detail of the dietary assessment tool(s) employed dictates how food groups can be subsequently operationalized. Even with comprehensive data collected at the individual food level, there is a lack of standardized definitions of food groups across public health and research organizations to guide researchers and the public ( 4 , 5 ). These two factors contribute heterogeneity to how researchers operationalize food groups across research studies, influencing scientists' and policy makers' ability to collate and translate research into food-based dietary pattern recommendations.…”

A Mediterranean-style eating pattern with lean, unprocessed red meat has cardiometabolic benefits for adults who are overweight or obese in a randomized, crossover, controlled feeding trial

“…The health-promoting properties of a Mediterranean Pattern, including reduced risk of developing cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, are supported by recent and larger studies (3–7). These recent studies, including the Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea (PREDIMED) (5) and Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra (SUN) cohorts (8), were largely conducted on Spaniards who had higher red meat intakes (∼700–1200 g/wk) (9) than the historic Greek olive farmers (∼245 g/wk) (10). These studies are mostly observational in nature and were not designed to directly compare consuming Mediterranean Patterns with different amounts of red meat intake on cardiometabolic disease risk factors (CMD).…”