Department of Nutrition Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Department of Animal Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Adv Nutr. 2020 Jan 1;11(1):41-51. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmz072.
This systematic review and landscape analysis describes patterns in dietary meat (skeletal muscle and associated tissues from mammalian, avian, and aquatic species; i.e., muscle foods) categories (CAT) and descriptions (DESCR) used throughout nutrition-related chronic disease literature, as there is anecdotally noted variation. A total of 1020 CAT and 776 DESCR were identified from 369 articles that assessed muscle food consumption and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, or cancer in adults ≥19 y from PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL up to March 2018. Specificity of CAT was analyzed on an empirical 1-7 ordinal scale as: 1) broad/undescriptive, "fish"; 2) muscle food type, "red meat"; 3) species, "poultry"; 4) broad + 1 descriptor, "processed meat"; 5) type/species + 1 descriptor, "fresh red meat"; 6) broad/type + 2 descriptors, "poached lean fish"; and 7) specific product, "luncheon meat." Median CAT specificity for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBSs) was 3 and 2 points out of 7, respectively, with no differences between chronic disease types. Specificity of OBS CAT was higher in recent articles but RCT CAT became less specific starting in the 2000s. RCT CAT were 400% more likely to include species, 500% more likely to include leanness, but 400% less likely to include processing degree compared with OBS CAT. A DESCR was included for 76% and 82% of OBS and RCT CAT, respectively. Researchers described processed meat, red meat, and total meat CAT more commonly than poultry or fish CAT. Among processed meat DESCR, 31% included a common term used in public regulatory definitions. In conclusion, muscle food categories and descriptions are substantively different within and between experimental and observational studies and do not match regulatory definitions. A practical muscle food classification system is warranted to improve interpretation of evidence regarding muscle food consumption and chronic disease.
这篇系统综述和景观分析描述了营养相关慢性病文献中饮食肉类（哺乳动物、鸟类和水生动物的骨骼肌肉和相关组织，即肌肉食品）类别（CAT）和描述（DESCR）的使用模式，因为有一些轶事报道指出存在差异。从 2018 年 3 月之前的 PubMed、Cochrane 和 CINAHL 数据库中检索到的 369 篇评估肌肉食品消费与成人心血管疾病、肥胖、2 型糖尿病或癌症一级预防的文章中，共确定了 1020 个 CAT 和 776 个 DESCR。通过实证 1-7 级量表分析 CAT 的特异性：1）广泛/非描述性，“鱼类”；2）肌肉食品类型，“红色肉类”；3）物种，“家禽”；4）广泛+1 个描述符，“加工肉类”；5）类型/物种+1 个描述符，“新鲜红色肉类”；6）广泛/类型+2 个描述符，“水煮瘦肉鱼”；7）特定产品，“午餐肉”。随机对照试验（RCT）和观察性研究（OBS）的 CAT 特异性中位数分别为 3 分和 2 分（7 分制），不同慢性病类型之间无差异。最近的文章中 OBS CAT 的特异性更高，但从 21 世纪初开始，RCT CAT 的特异性变得不那么具体。与 OBS CAT 相比，RCT CAT 更有可能包含物种，500%更有可能包含瘦肉，但 400%更不可能包含加工程度。OBS 和 RCT CAT 分别有 76%和 82%包含 DESCR。研究人员更常描述加工肉类、红色肉类和总肉类 CAT，而不是家禽或鱼类 CAT。在加工肉类的 DESCR 中，有 31%包含公共监管定义中使用的常用术语。总之，肌肉食品类别和描述在实验性和观察性研究中存在实质性差异，并且与监管定义不匹配。有必要建立一个实用的肌肉食品分类系统，以提高对肌肉食品消费与慢性病关系证据的解释。
