↓ Skip to main content

Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 2,675)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
184 news outlets
blogs
11 blogs
twitter
760 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
191 Facebook pages
googleplus
104 Google+ users
reddit
9 Redditors
video
6 video uploaders

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
Title
Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.4182
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mingyang Song, Teresa T. Fung, Frank B. Hu, Walter C. Willett, Valter D. Longo, Andrew T. Chan, Edward L. Giovannucci, Song, Mingyang, Fung, Teresa T, Hu, Frank B, Willett, Walter C, Longo, Valter D, Chan, Andrew T, Giovannucci, Edward L

Abstract

Defining what represents a macronutritionally balanced diet remains an open question and a high priority in nutrition research. Although the amount of protein may have specific effects, from a broader dietary perspective, the choice of protein sources will inevitably influence other components of diet and may be a critical determinant for the health outcome. To examine the associations of animal and plant protein intake with the risk for mortality. This prospective cohort study of US health care professionals included 131 342 participants from the Nurses' Health Study (1980 to end of follow-up on June 1, 2012) and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986 to end of follow-up on January 31, 2012). Animal and plant protein intake was assessed by regularly updated validated food frequency questionnaires. Data were analyzed from June 20, 2014, to January 18, 2016. Hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Of the 131 342 participants, 85 013 were women (64.7%) and 46 329 were men (35.3%) (mean [SD] age, 49 [9] years). The median protein intake, as assessed by percentage of energy, was 14% for animal protein (5th-95th percentile, 9%-22%) and 4% for plant protein (5th-95th percentile, 2%-6%). After adjusting for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, animal protein intake was weakly associated with higher mortality, particularly cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.08 per 10% energy increment; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16; P for trend = .04), whereas plant protein was associated with lower mortality (HR, 0.90 per 3% energy increment; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95; P for trend < .001). These associations were confined to participants with at least 1 unhealthy lifestyle factor based on smoking, heavy alcohol intake, overweight or obesity, and physical inactivity, but not evident among those without any of these risk factors. Replacing animal protein of various origins with plant protein was associated with lower mortality. In particular, the HRs for all-cause mortality were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.59-0.75) when 3% of energy from plant protein was substituted for an equivalent amount of protein from processed red meat, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84-0.92) from unprocessed red meat, and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.88) from egg. High animal protein intake was positively associated with mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with mortality, especially among individuals with at least 1 lifestyle risk factor. Substitution of plant protein for animal protein, especially that from processed red meat, was associated with lower mortality, suggesting the importance of protein source.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 760 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 3 2%
Australia 2 1%
Poland 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 127 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 20%
Student > Master 23 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 14%
Other 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Other 39 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 12%
Unspecified 11 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 28 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2237. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2017.
All research outputs
#246
of 8,424,967 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#6
of 2,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22
of 260,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#2
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,424,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 111.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,497 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.