Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

In its scientific report, the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recommends substituting plant proteins for animal proteins.

The Committee recommends that the proposed Eat Healthy Your Way Dietary Pattern emphasizes dietary intakes of beans, peas, and lentils while reducing intakes of red and processed meats….The Committee also proposes reorganizing the order of the Protein Foods Group to list Beans, Peas, and Lentils first, followed by Nuts, Seeds, and Soy products, then Seafood, and finally Meats, Poultry, and Eggs.

It did not take long for the meat industry to respond: Animal vs. Plant Protein: New Research Suggests That These Protein Sources Are Not Nutritionally Equivalent.

As is my habit, I went right to the study.

The study: Connolly G, Hudson JL, Bergia RE, Davis EM, Hartman AS, Zhu W, Carroll CC, Campbell WW. Effects of Consuming Ounce-Equivalent Portions of Animal- vs. Plant-Based Protein Foods, as Defined by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on Essential Amino Acids Bioavailability in Young and Older Adults: Two Cross-Over Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients. 2023; 15(13):2870. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132870

Conclusions: “The same “oz-eq” portions of animal- and plant-based protein foods do not provide equivalent EAA content and postprandial bioavailability for protein anabolism in young and older adults.”

Funding: “This research was funded by the Pork Checkoff and the American Egg Board—Egg Nutrition Center. The supporting sources had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or submission of the report for publication.”

Conflicts of Interest: “When this research was conducted, W.W.C. received research funding from the following organizations: American Egg Board’s Egg Nutrition Center, Beef Checkoff, Pork Checkoff, North Dakota Beef Commission, Barilla Group, Mushroom Council, and the National Chicken Council. C.C.C. received funding from the Beef Checkoff. R.E.B. is currently employed by Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM); the research presented in this article was conducted in a former role and has no connection with ADM. G.C., J.L.H., E.M.D., A.S.H. and W.Z. declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.”

Comment: Amino acids, the building blocks of protein, are the same whether they come from plants or animals (or us).  Food animals are closer to us evolutionarily than are plants; the animo acid composition of their proteins is more like ours than the amino acid composition of food plants.  That is why protein complementarity matters; mix and match the plants you eat and their amino acid compositions will complement each other and fill in the gaps.  This doesn’t even have to be done at every meal.  Overall, it’s easier to get the needed amino acids from animal foods but it’s not all that hard to get them from plants as long as they are varied and you eat enough of them.  So the study isn’t wrong; it’s just not telling the whole story.

Thanks to Kevin Mitchell for sending this one.

Let’s start the new year off with a classic industry-funded study with predictable results.

Beef Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.  Sanders, Lisa M et al. Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 12, 104500

Background: Results from observational studies suggest associations of red meat intake with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, RCTs have not clearly demonstrated a link between red meat consumption and CVD risk factors. Further, the specific effects of beef, the most consumed red meat in the United States, have not been extensively investigated.

Objectives: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT data evaluating the effects of minimally or unprocessed beef intake on CVD risk factors in adults.

Methods: A search of the literature was conducted using PubMed and CENTRAL databases.

Results: Beef intake did not impact blood pressure or most lipoprotein-related variables, including total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, non–HDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein A or B, and VLDL-cholesterol. Beef consumption had a small but significant effect on LDL-cholesterol (0.11; 95% CI: 0.008, 0.20; P = 0.03), corresponding to ∼2.7 mg/dL higher LDL-cholesterol in diets containing more beef than that in low-beef or -o beef comparator diets. Sensitivity analyses show this effect was lost when 1 influential study was removed.

Conclusions: In summary, the results of this analysis showed no meaningful effect of daily unprocessed beef intake, compared with diets with less or no beef, on circulating lipoprotein lipids, apolipoproteins, and blood pressures, except for a small effect to increase the LDL-cholesterol concentration by ∼2.7 mg/dL. Given that unprocessed beef has minimal to no impact on these CVD risk factors but is a significant source of highly bioavailable protein as well as iron, zinc, and selenium, its inclusion in the diet may help improve dietary nutrient profiles without significantly affecting lipids or blood pressures.

Funding: This study was supported by the Beef Checkoff. The funding sponsor provided comments on early aspects of the study design. A report was shared with the sponsor prior to submission. The final decision for all aspects of the study and the manuscript content were those of the authors alone.

Comment:  As I said, an instant classic of the genre.  The USDA-managed Beef Checkoff had input into the study design and got to comment on the results and conclusions before the article was submitted for publication.  The sponsor exerted influence at the two places bias is most often found: the study design and the interpretation of the results.  Hence, industry influenced and predictable.

More to come.  Happy new year!

A reader, Colleen Wysocki, sent me a note about this study, the basis of a Nutrition and Dietetics SmartBrief e-mailed to members from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics to members.

 RD: Enhance yogurt’s probiotic power with honey…A study in the Journal of Nutrition published earlier this year found that clover honey helps probiotics in yogurt survive longer during digestion, particularly benefiting the probiotic Bifidobacterium animalis…honey adds antioxidants and acts as a protective agent for probiotics. Research advises using just one to two tablespoons of clover honey per serving to optimize probiotic survival.

Here’s the study: Alvarado DA, Ibarra-Sánchez LA, Mysonhimer AR, Khan TA, Cao R, Miller MJ, Holscher HD. Honey Varietals Differentially Impact Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis Survivability in Yogurt through Simulated In Vitro Digestion. J Nutr. 2024 Mar;154(3):866-874. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.01.010.

Method: This was an in vitro (petri dish) study of the effects of honey on bacterial counts, with and without the addition of “simulated intestinal fluids.”

Results: “Yogurt with 10-20% wt/wt clover honey increased B. animalis survivability after simulated in vitro digestion (≤ ∼4.7 Log CFU/g survival; P < 0.05).”

Conclusion: “Yogurt with added honey improves probiotic survivability during in vitro digestion.”

Funding: “This work was supported partially by the National Honey Board (HDH and MJM).”

Comment: Honey may be delicious, and no wonder; it is 82% sugar, mostly fructose (41%) and glucose (35%) and not all that different biochemically from sucrose (table sugar).  The reason why the Honey Board funded this study must surely be to demonstrate that adding honey (i.e., sugar) to your yogurt is good for you.  And don’t we all love results like this?

Jung J-S, Choi G-H, Lee H, Ko Y, Ji S. The Clinical Effect of a Propolis and Mangosteen Extract Complex in Subjects with Gingivitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, and Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Nutrients 2024, 16(17), 3000; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16173000

Results:  The results revealed that the PMEC group showed a significantly reduced expression of all measured GCF biomarkers compared to the placebo group (p < 0.0001) at 8 weeks, including substantial reductions in IL-1β, PGE2, MMP-8, and MMP-9 levels compared to the baseline. While clinical parameters trended towards improvement in both groups, the intergroup differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that PMEC consumption can attenuate gingival inflammation and mitigate periodontal tissue destruction by modulating key inflammatory mediators in gingival tissue.

Funding: This research was funded by Medibio Lab Co., Ltd.

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors declare that this study received funding from Lab Co., Ltd. The funders had no role in the design of this study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of this manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Comment: This is a typical industry-funded study in which the authors put a positive interpretation of what appear to be null findings.  I can’t quite tell what this sponsoring company is.  One possibility is MediBioKorea.  Another is Medibios.  Both make supplements.

Plant-Based Meat Analogs and Their Effects on Cardiometabolic Health: An 8-Week Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Plant-Based Meat Analogs With Their Corresponding Animal-Based Foods. Toh DWK, Fu AS, Mehta KA, Lam NYL, Haldar S, Henry CJ. Am J Clin Nutr. 2024 Jun;119(6):1405-1416. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.04.006. Epub 2024 Apr 8.

Erratum in: Am J Clin Nutr. 2024 Aug;120(2):459. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.06.012.

This study compared effects on cardiometabolic health among people eating meat or plan-based alternatives for 8 weeks.

Conclusion: An 8-wk PBMA (plant-based) diet did not show widespread cardiometabolic health benefits compared with a corresponding meat based diet.

Funding: This study was supported by Pinduoduo Incorporated (HongKong Walnut Street Limited). Pinduoduo Incorporated had no role in study design, study conduct, laboratory analyses, data collection, management and interpretation or the writing, reviewing and approval of the manuscript.

Comment

This study was sent to me by a reader, who viewed it as a rare example of an industry-funded study with results unfavorable to the sponsor’s interests.  He thought the “Walnut” in the company’s name indicated a plant-based bias.

I wasn’t so sure and wondered what Pinduoduo did, exactly.

According to Wikipedia, “Pinduoduo Inc. (Chinese: 拼多多; Pinyin: Pīn duōduō) is a Chinese online retailer with a focus on the traditional agriculture industry. The business is the largest product of PDD Holdings, which also owns the online marketplace Temu.”

But it gets even better.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a correction to the paper:

The original funding statement was insufficiently elaborated and has been revised for greater clarity: Christiani Jeyakumar Henry [the senior investigator on this study] reports partial financial support provided by Pinduoduo Incorporated (HongKong Walnut Street Limited) which is an agricultural research firm.

This, then, is a standard example of an industry-funded—and conducted—study producing just the results wanted.  Another example of marketing research, alas.

No food industry is too small or too obscure to fund research in its own interest.  Try this one, for example.

Effects of Supplementation with a Microalgae Extract from Phaeodactylum tricornutum Containing Fucoxanthin on Cognition and Markers of Health in Older Individuals with Perceptions of Cognitive Decline. Yoo C, Maury J, Gonzalez DE, Ko J, Xing D, Jenkins V, Dickerson B, Leonard M, Estes L, Johnson S, et al.  Nutrients. 2024; 16(17):2999. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16172999

Background: Phaeodactylum tricornutum (PT) is a microalgae extract that contains fucoxanthin and has been shown to enhance cognitive function in younger populations.

Purpose: The present study assessed if PT supplementation affects cognition in healthy, young-old, physically active adults with self-perceptions of cognitive and memory decline.

Methods: Forty-three males and females…with perceptions of cognitive and memory decline completed the double-blind, randomized, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled intervention clinical trial. Participants were…randomly allocated to their respective 12-week supplementation interventions, which were either the placebo (PL) or 1100 mg/day of PT containing 8.8 mg of fucoxanthin (FX).

Results: FX supplementation significantly affected (p < 0.05) or exhibited tendencies toward significance (p > 0.05 to p < 0.10 with effect sizes ranging from medium to large) for word recall, picture recognition reaction time, Stroop color–word test, choice reaction time, and digit vigilance test variables.

Conclusions: The results demonstrate some evidence that FX supplementation can improve working and secondary memory, vigilance, attention, accuracy, and executive function.

Funding: Microphyt (Baillargues, FRA) funded this study through a grant (Microphyt #410991) to Texas A&M University.

Conflicts of interest: J.M. and R.P. are sponsor-affiliated researchers who therefore have conflicts of interest in study results. They provided input on study design but were not involved in data collection or analysis. R.B.K. has conducted grant and contract-funded research on nutritional supplements awarded to the universities he has been affiliated with, received an honorarium for making scientific presentations, and served as a paid scientific expert. He has no financial conflicts of interest with the study sponsor or product evaluated in this study. The remaining coauthors report no financial conflicts of interest.

Comment: I like “some evidence.”  That suggests the evidence is not particularly impressive.  The study found positive conclusions, not surprising since two of the authors work for the sponsoring company.  Industry-funded studies almost invariably find conclusions that favor the sponsor’s interests.  Otherwise, why bother to sponsor research.  That’s its point: marketing.

Thanks to Stephen Zwick of Regenetarianism for sending this one.

Charoenwoodhipong, P., Zuelch, M. L., Keen, C. L., Hackman, R. M., & Holt, R. R. (2024). Strawberry (Fragaria x Ananassa) intake on human health and disease outcomes: a comprehensive literature review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2024.2398634

From the Abstract

Of the 60 articles included in this review, 47 were clinical trials, while 13 were observational studies. A majority of these studies reported on the influence of strawberry intake on cardiometabolic outcomes. Study designs included those examining the influence of strawberry intake during the postprandial period, short-term trials randomized with a control, or a single arm intake period controlling with a low polyphenolic diet or no strawberry intake. A smaller proportion of studies included in this review examined the influence of strawberry intake on additional outcomes of aging including bone and brain health, and cancer risk. Data support that the inclusion of strawberries into the diet can have positive impacts during the postprandial period, with daily intake improving outcomes of lipid metabolism and inflammation in those at increased cardiovascular risk.

Funding: This work was supported by the California Strawberry Commission (CSC). PC, MLZ, and RRH received financial support from the CSC for this work.

Disclosure statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Comment: I can never get over how industry-funded authors do not view industry funding as a conflict of interest when so much evidence confirms that such funding strongly influences research design and interpretation.  For the record, I review that evidence in my book Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

This sure looks like a standard industry-funded study with a predictable outcome favorable to the strawberry industry in this case.

Strawberries are a fine food, delicious, nutritious, and obviously healthful.  But a superfood responsible on their own for disease prevention?

How I wish.

This is marketing research.

A reader sent me this e-mailed announcement from the Kentucky Public Health Association. 

The announcement features “hot off the press” research.

• Agarwal S and Fulgoni VL III. Contribution of beef to key nutrient intakes and nutrient adequacy in pregnant and lactating women: NHANES 2011-2018 Analysis. Pregnant & lactating women who eat beef in their diets have improved nutrient intake & adequacy for essential nutrients such as protein, calcium, iron, zinc.  [Funding: This research was funded by the Beef Checkoff].
• Christifano DN, et al. The role of fresh beef intake and Mediterranean Diet adherence during pregnancy in maternal and infant health outcomes. Pregnant women who eat about 1.5 oz. of beef/day as part of a Mediterranean-style dietary pattern are less likely to develop maternal anemia, compared to those who have lower intake of beef. Additionally, pregnant women who eat more beef have higher intakes of nutrients critical for maternal & child health, including protein, iron, zinc, choline, B vitamins. [Funding: This research was partly funded by Beef Checkoff]
• Agarwal S and Fulgoni VL III. Beef consumption is associated with higher intakes and adequacy of key nutrients in older adults age 60+ year: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2000-2018 Analysis. Older adults who eat beef in their diets have improved nutrient intake & adequacy for essential nutrients such as protein, calcium, vitamin B12, iron. [Funding: This work was supported by The Beef Checkoff].

More Information

For more information, visit The Kentucky Beef Council and Beef It’s What’s For Dinner.
For infographics and nutrition handouts, click here.
To join our monthly health professional newsletter, register here.

COMMENT

This advertisement from the Kentucky Beef Council was sent to members of the Kentucky Public Health Association.  It does not say who sponsored the hot new research [I had to look it up].

The partnership raises several questions:

• Is the Kentucky Beef Council a sponsor of the Association?  If so, at what level? (Its annual report does not list sponsors.  Neither does its website, although it does list sponsorship categories for its annual meetings).
• Do members of the Kentucky Public Health Association believe that their association’s apparent endorsement of beef is a good idea?
• Are Kentucky public health nutritionists talking to their clients about the role of beef in health and environmental sustainability?
• If so, what are they saying?

The benefit of this kind of sponsorship/partnership to the Kentucky Beef Council is obvious.

But it raises serious questions about the integrity of the Kentucky Public Health Association.

I hope KPHA members are discussing this issue with the Association’s leadership.