METHODS: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study is a prospective epidemiological study of individuals aged 35 and 70 years from 21 countries on five continents, with a median follow-up of 9.1 years. In the cross-sectional analyses, we assessed the association of dairy intake with prevalent MetS and its components among individuals with information on the five MetS components (n=112 922). For the prospective analyses, we examined the association of dairy with incident hypertension (in 57 547 individuals free of hypertension) and diabetes (in 131 481 individuals free of diabetes).
RESULTS: In cross-sectional analysis, higher intake of total dairy (at least two servings/day compared with zero intake; OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.80, p-trend<0.0001) was associated with a lower prevalence of MetS after multivariable adjustment. Higher intakes of whole fat dairy consumed alone (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.78, p-trend<0.0001), or consumed jointly with low fat dairy (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, p-trend=0.0005), were associated with a lower MetS prevalence. Low fat dairy consumed alone was not associated with MetS (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.38, p-trend=0.13). In prospective analysis, 13 640 people with incident hypertension and 5351 people with incident diabetes were recorded. Higher intake of total dairy (at least two servings/day vs zero serving/day) was associated with a lower incidence of hypertension (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97, p-trend=0.02) and diabetes (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.02, p-trend=0.01). Directionally similar associations were found for whole fat dairy versus each outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher intake of whole fat (but not low fat) dairy was associated with a lower prevalence of MetS and most of its component factors, and with a lower incidence of hypertension and diabetes. Our findings should be evaluated in large randomized trials of the effects of whole fat dairy on the risks of MetS, hypertension, and diabetes.
MAIN TEXT: To summarize and quantify the most recent findings on consuming milk or other dairy foods and the development of BC, we performed a systematic literature review. We checked through several databases for relevant publications published in English up to January 2022. Of the 82 articles identified, only 18 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Nine Prospective, seven Retrospective and two Cross-Sectional studies were finally identified.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, dairy consumption was inversely associated with the risk of developing breast cancer. Future studies will help elucidate the role of dairy products in human health, and their use within a balanced diet should be considered.KEY MESSAGESThe effect of different types of dairy products, and possible dose-response relationships on BC risk remains unknown.Estimating BC risk associated with dairy consumption may help to take the decision-making of physicians and public health policy in developing preventive strategies to reduce its occurrence.This systematic review was conducted to assess dairy consumption and BC risk.Overall, inverse associations were found when looking at dairy consumption and BC risk.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize and evaluate the plant-based alternatives available on the market in Spain in comparison to animal products in terms of their nutritional composition and profile, and degree of processing.
METHODS: Nutritional information for PBAPs and homologs were obtained from the Spanish 'Veggie base', branded food composition database. Five PBAPs categories (cheese, dairy products, eggs, meat, and fish, n = 922) were compared to animal-based processed (n = 922) and unprocessed (n = 381) homologs, using the modified version of the Food Standard Agency Nutrient Profiling System (FSAm-NPS score) and NOVA classification criteria.
RESULTS: Compared to processed or unprocessed animal food, PBAPs contain significantly higher sugar, salt, and fiber. PBAPs for fish, seafood, and meat were lower in protein and saturated fatty acids. Overall, 68% of PBAPs, 43% of processed and 75% of unprocessed animal-homologs had Nutri-Score ratings of A or B (most healthy). About 17% of PBAPs, 35% of processed and 13% of unprocessed animal-based food were in Nutri-Score categories D or E (least healthy). Dairy, fish, and meat alternatives had lower FSAm-NPS scores (most healthy), while cheese alternatives scored higher (least healthy) than animal-based homologs. Unprocessed fish and meat were healthier than similar PBAPs based on FSAm-NPS criteria. Approximately 37% of PBAPs and 72% of processed animal-based products were ultra-processed food (NOVA group 4). Within the ultra-processed food group, Nutri-Score varied widely.
CONCLUSIONS: Most PBAPs had better nutrient profile than animal-based homologs. However, cheese, fish and meats PBAPs had poorer nutrient profile and were more processed. Given the high degree of processing and variable nutritional profile, PBAPs require a multi-dimensional evaluation of their health impact.