Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://localhost:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/4765
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorO’Connor, Lauren E-
dc.contributor.authorGifford, Cody L-
dc.contributor.authorWoerner, Dale R-
dc.contributor.authorSharp, Julia L-
dc.contributor.authorBelk, Keith E-
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, Wayne W-
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-07T03:49:33Z-
dc.date.available2023-06-07T03:49:33Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.urihttp://localhost:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/4765-
dc.description.abstractThis 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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorship, , , , , ,, ,en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Society for Nutritionen_US
dc.subjectmuscle foodsen_US
dc.subjectred meaten_US
dc.subjectwhite meaten_US
dc.subjectfishen_US
dc.subjectpoultryen_US
dc.subjectdietary guidanceen_US
dc.subjectfood group terminologyen_US
dc.subjectdietary intake assessmenten_US
dc.subjectanimal proteinsen_US
dc.subjectflesh foodsen_US
dc.titlePerspective: Human Milk Oligosaccharides: Fuel for Childhood Obesity Prevention?en_US
dc.title.alternativeAdvances in Nutritionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:VOL 11 NO 1 (2020)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
41-51.pdf1.08 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.