Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Epidemiology/Health Services Research

Dietary Protein Intake and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Europe: The EPIC-InterAct Case-Cohort Study

  1. Monique van Nielen1⇑,
  2. Edith J.M. Feskens1,
  3. Marco Mensink1,
  4. Ivonne Sluijs2,
  5. Esther Molina3,
  6. Pilar Amiano4,5,
  7. Eva Ardanaz5,6,
  8. Beverly Balkau7,
  9. Joline W.J. Beulens2,
  10. Heiner Boeing8,
  11. Françoise Clavel-Chapelon7,9,
  12. Guy Fagherazzi7,9,
  13. Paul W. Franks10,
  14. Jytte Halkjaer11,
  15. José Maria Huerta5,12,
  16. Verena Katzke13,
  17. Timothy J. Key14,
  18. Kay Tee Khaw15,
  19. Vittorio Krogh16,
  20. Tilman Kühn13,
  21. Virginia V.M. Menéndez17,
  22. Peter Nilsson10,
  23. Kim Overvad18,
  24. Domenico Palli19,
  25. Salvatore Panico20,
  26. Olov Rolandsson21,
  27. Isabelle Romieu22,
  28. Carlotta Sacerdote23,24,
  29. Maria-José Sánchez3,5,
  30. Matthias B. Schulze8,
  31. Annemieke M.W. Spijkerman25,
  32. Anne Tjonneland11,
  33. Rosario Tumino26,
  34. Daphne L. van der A25,
  35. Anne M.L. Würtz18,
  36. Raul Zamora-Ros27,28,
  37. Claudia Langenberg15,
  38. Stephen J. Sharp15,
  39. Nita G. Forouhi15,
  40. Elio Riboli29 and
  41. Nicholas J. Wareham15
  42. for the InterAct Consortium
  1. 1Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands
  2. 2Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands
  3. 3Andalusian School of Public Health, Granada, Spain
  4. 4Public Health Division of Gipuzkoa, San Sebastian, Spain
  5. 5CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Spain
  6. 6Navarre Public Health Institute, Pamplona, Spain
  7. 7Inserm, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Villejuif, France
  8. 8German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Germany
  9. 9Université Paris-Sud, France
  10. 10Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
  11. 11Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark
  12. 12Department of Epidemiology, Murcia Regional Health Council, Murcia, Spain
  13. 13German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
  14. 14Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
  15. 15Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
  16. 16National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy
  17. 17Public Health Directorate, Asturias, Spain
  18. 18School of Public Health, Aarhus University, Denmark
  19. 19Cancer Research and Prevention Institute, Florence, Italy
  20. 20Dipartimento di medicina clinica e chirurgia, federico ii University, Naples, Italy
  21. 21Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
  22. 22International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
  23. 23Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, AO Citta' della Salute e della Scienza-University of Turin and Center for Cancer Prevention, Turin, Italy
  24. 24Human Genetics Foundation, Turin, Italy
  25. 25National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
  26. 26Cancer Registry and Histopathology Unit, Ragusa, Italy
  27. 27Unit of Nutrition, Environment and Cancer, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
  28. 28Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
  29. 29Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, U.K.
  1. Corresponding author: Monique van Nielen, monique.vannielen{at}wur.nl.
Diabetes Care 2014 Jul; 37(7): 1854-1862. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-2627
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • Erratum. Dietary Protein Intake and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Europe: The EPIC-InterAct Case-Cohort Study. Diabetes Care 2014;37:1854–1862 - October 01, 2015

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The long-term association between dietary protein and type 2 diabetes incidence is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the association between total, animal, and plant protein intake and the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The prospective European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-InterAct case-cohort study consists of 12,403 incident type 2 diabetes cases and a stratified subcohort of 16,154 individuals from eight European countries, with an average follow-up time of 12.0 years. Pooled country-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI of prentice-weighted Cox regression analyses were used to estimate type 2 diabetes incidence according to protein intake.

RESULTS After adjustment for important diabetes risk factors and dietary factors, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was higher in those with high intake of total protein (per 10 g: HR 1.06 [95% CI 1.02–1.09], Ptrend < 0.001) and animal protein (per 10 g: 1.05 [1.02–1.08], Ptrend = 0.001). Effect modification by sex (P < 0.001) and BMI among women (P < 0.001) was observed. Compared with the overall analyses, associations were stronger in women, more specifically obese women with a BMI >30 kg/m2 (per 10 g animal protein: 1.19 [1.09–1.32]), and nonsignificant in men. Plant protein intake was not associated with type 2 diabetes (per 10 g: 1.04 [0.93–1.16], Ptrend = 0.098).

CONCLUSIONS High total and animal protein intake was associated with a modest elevated risk of type 2 diabetes in a large cohort of European adults. In view of the rapidly increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, limiting iso-energetic diets high in dietary proteins, particularly from animal sources, should be considered.

Introduction

Dietary proteins are advocated to have positive effects on weight loss and weight maintenance due to properties related to satiety and diet-induced thermogenesis (1). Doubling the relative protein content of the diet under ad libitum conditions for 12 weeks reduces food intake and can lower body weight by >6% (2). Therefore, increasing protein intake seems a promising approach to tackle the obesity epidemic and therewith to reduce the incidence of chronic diseases.

In contrast, long-term observational studies report an association of high protein intake with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes (3,4). Suggested beneficial acute effects of dietary protein on insulin secretion and glycemic control (5) do not seem to persist mid- and long-term (6,7). An iso-energetic high-protein diet compared with a low-protein high-fiber diet reduced insulin sensitivity after 6 weeks (6), and participants with a habitually high- compared with a normal-protein diet showed signs of reduced insulin sensitivity (7). The few epidemiological studies that addressed the association between protein intake and type 2 diabetes all found an increased type 2 diabetes risk with high protein and/or meat protein intake (3,4,8–10). However, most of these studies had small sample sizes, ranging from 140 (8,9) to 1,200 (10) participants. Of two large cohort studies with >35,000 participants (3,4), Sluijs et al. (3) did not observe a significant association for total protein after adjustment for BMI and waist circumference in the Dutch cohort of European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-InterAct. Based on subanalyses, the authors concluded that only for participants with a BMI <25 kg/m2 does high protein intake increase type 2 diabetes risk (3).

Besides total and animal protein, prior research suggests that the protein source could be of relevance. Type 2 diabetes risk is associated with higher meat consumption, particularly red and processed meat (11–13). Type 2 diabetes risk is reported to be lower in subjects with high dairy use (14–17) and/or high plant product consumption, especially of legumes (18) and nuts (19). Data on the relation between fish consumption and type 2 diabetes reached mixed conclusions (20–22), and a recent study in the EPIC-InterAct case cohort reported no association (23). It is unclear whether it is the protein or other nutrients in such food groups that explain the association with type 2 diabetes.

Within the setting of EPIC-InterAct, we were able to study the association between protein intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in a large case cohort in eight countries in Europe: the largest cohort of type 2 diabetes so far (24). The characteristics of this study made it possible to explore the association between protein intake and type 2 diabetes according to plant or animal origin and by protein source.

Research Design and Methods

Study Design

The participants, methods, study design, and measurements have previously been described (24). Briefly, the InterAct project was initiated to investigate how genetic and lifestyle behavioral factors, particularly diet and physical activity, interact to lead to type 2 diabetes. As part of the wider InterAct project, consortium partners have established a case-cohort study of incident type 2 diabetes (EPIC-InterAct case cohort) based on cases occurring in EPIC cohorts between 1991 and 2007 in 8 of 10 EPIC countries. A case-cohort study is comparable with a cohort study but it is more efficient, as it uses a random sample of the cohort to compare cases with. The case-cohort design combines the advantages of a prospective cohort with the efficiency and power of a large case-control study.

Type 2 Diabetes Case Ascertainment

We followed a pragmatic high-sensitivity approach for case ascertainment with the aim of 1) identifying all potential incident type 2 diabetes cases and 2) excluding all individuals with prevalent type 2 diabetes. Prevalent and incident type 2 diabetes was identified using multiple sources of evidence including self-report, linkage to primary care registers and secondary care registers, medication use (drug registers), hospital admissions, and mortality data. Further details have previously been published (24).

Subcohort

A subcohort of 16,835 individuals was randomly selected stratified by center. After exclusion of 548 individuals with prevalent type 2 diabetes, 129 individuals without information on reported diabetes status, and 4 individuals with postcensoring type 2 diabetes, 16,154 subcohort individuals remained.

Participants

We used a case-cohort design, including incident diabetes cases (n = 12,403) and a representative subcohort (n = 16,154, including 778 cases of incident type 2 diabetes) selected from the EPIC cohort (24). After exclusion of participants with missing information on dietary data (n = 117; 70 case subjects, 47 subcohort) or other missing covariates, i.e., physical activity, educational, and smoking status (n = 790; 357 case subjects, 433 subcohort), and participants who fell in the top or bottom 1% of the “energy intake/energy requirement ratio” (n = 619; 339 case subjects, 280 subcohort), our analysis included 26,253 participants (10,901 incident type 2 diabetes case subjects and a subcohort of 15,352 participants including 736 cases of incident type 2 diabetes).

All EPIC study participants gave written informed consent, and the study was approved by the national ethics committees and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Protein Intake and Other Variables

Dietary intake, over the 12 months before enrollment, was assessed by self- or interviewer-administered dietary questionnaires (mainly food frequency questionnaires [FFQ]), developed and validated within each country, to estimate the usual individual food intakes of the study participants (for more detail, see Riboli et al. [25]). Protein intake (g/day) was adjusted for total energy intake by the residual method (26) and categorized in quintiles according to the data of the subcohort. As part of EPIC, standardized information on lifestyle exposures was collected by self-administered national questionnaires at baseline (25). Physical activity during work and leisure time was classified in four categories according to the Cambridge Physical Activity Index (27). Weight, height, and waist circumference were recorded using a standard protocol during a visit at the research center, except in Oxford (U.K.) and France, where only self-reported height and weight were available (25).

Statistical Analysis

The association between energy-adjusted protein intake and type 2 diabetes risk was examined in hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards models adapted to case-cohort designs according to the Prentice-weighted method (28). We stratified all analyses by country, mainly because of the large dietary heterogeneity between countries, specifically between northern and southern Europe, e.g., relatively high protein intake in Spain and low protein intake in Germany and Sweden. We used random-effect meta-analyses to pool the country-specific HRs. Between-country heterogeneity was tested by I2 statistic. Linear associations between protein intake and type 2 diabetes were estimated per 10-g increment of protein intake and by analyzing linear trends across protein intake categories using the median value of each quintile as a continuous variable. We adjusted for type 2 diabetes risk factors and nutritional factors using a stepwise approach, with age as the underlying time scale. Model 1 included protein intake, total energy (kilocalories per day), center, and sex. In model 2, we added type 2 diabetes risk factors, i.e., smoking status (never, former, or current), education (low, secondary, or high), physical activity (inactive, moderately inactive, moderately active, or active), and alcohol use (0, >0–6, >6–12, >12–24, or >24 g/day). Model 3 was additionally adjusted for soft drinks, tea, coffee, and the following residual adjusted nutrients: fiber, saturated fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), and cholesterol. It was not adjusted for carbohydrates to estimate the effect of increasing protein at the expense of carbohydrates. Model 4 was additionally adjusted for BMI (measured as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) and waist circumference (centimeters).

Effect modification was examined by various dietary and lifestyle factors, i.e., sex, BMI, waist circumference, physical activity, smoking, menopausal status, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension. A country-specific multivariate Wald test was used to evaluate interactions by continuous interaction terms. In case of significant interactions, HRs were stratified. The association between protein intake and type 2 diabetes risk was estimated within each country by sex (11,241 men; 15,012 women) and by BMI (normal: BMI <25 kg/m2, n = 8,317; overweight: BMI 25–30 kg/m2, n = 10,951; obese: BMI ≥30 kg/m2, n = 6,985) and meta-analyzed. Models for sources of animal and plant protein and sequentially excluding main sources of protein, e.g., meat, were designed to explore the contribution of various protein sources to the associations of protein type with type 2 diabetes risk. Finally, sensitivity analyses were performed by excluding individuals who might have made dietary adjustments and/or lifestyle changes because of chronic disease at baseline (i.e., hypertension, hyperlipidemia, myocardial infarction, and/or stroke) and by excluding misreports of energy according to Goldberg criterion categories, defined as “under-reporters” with a ratio of energy intake to basal metabolic rate <1.14 and “over-reporters” with a ratio of >2.1 (29). Data analysis was performed using SAS 9.2, and the meta-analyses were conducted in STATA11.

Results

Our analysis of this case-cohort study consisted of 10,901 incident type 2 diabetes cases and a subcohort of 15,352 participants (including 736 type 2 diabetes cases) with an mean ± SD follow-up time of 12.0 ± 2.3 years. FFQ-based median estimated energy-adjusted total protein intake was 90.4 g/day for men and 91.0 g/day for women, mainly consisting of animal protein. It was highest in Spain (102.5 g/day) and lowest in Germany and Sweden (respectively, 80.0 and 80.8 g/day) (Supplementary Fig. 1). Main animal protein sources in order of proportion were meat, dairy, and fish; main plant protein sources were bread, pasta and rice, potatoes, and vegetables (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Sex-specific characteristics and dietary consumption of the EPIC-InterAct subcohort by categories of total protein intake* (n = 15,352)

In the subcohort, participants with high intake of total protein (highest vs. lowest quintile) had higher mean BMI and waist circumference and higher intake of MUFAs, dietary fiber, dietary cholesterol, calcium, and β-carotene, whereas educational level and mean intake of carbohydrates, saturated fatty acids (SFAs), coffee, tea, and soft drinks were lower (Table 1). Additionally, with increasing protein intake women were less physically active, drank less alcohol, and were less often smokers, whereas men were more often smokers. With increasing quintiles of total protein intake, the number of type 2 diabetes cases in the subcohort increased (Table 1).

High total protein intake was associated with a 13% higher incidence of type 2 diabetes (HR 1.13 [95% CI 1.08–1.19]) for every 10-g increment after adjustment for energy, center, sex, type 2 diabetes risk factors, and dietary factors (Table 2; Supplementary Fig. 2). Animal protein intake showed comparable results (1.12 [1.07–1.17]). Additional adjustment for waist circumference and BMI attenuated the associations to some extent for total protein to a 6% higher incidence of type 2 diabetes (1.06 [1.02–1.09]) and to 5% for animal protein (1.05 [1.02–1.08]). Analyzing total and animal protein intake by quintile (high vs. low) showed comparable results (1.17 [1.00–1.38], Ptrend < 0.001 and 1.22 [1.06–1.40], Ptrend < 0.001). Between-country heterogeneity was low (I2 0.0–45.3%) (Supplementary Fig. 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Meta-analyzed (pooled) HRs (95% CI) for the association between protein intake and type 2 diabetes in the EPIC-InterAct case-cohort study

For the association between total and animal protein intake and type 2 diabetes, effect modification by sex (P < 0.001) and by BMI among women (P < 0.001) was present. The association between 10-g increment of total and animal protein intake and type 2 diabetes was confirmed in women (HR 1.10 [95% CI 1.06–1.14] and 1.09 [1.05–1.14], respectively) in model 4 (Fig. 1; Supplementary Table 1). In men, no association was present (both total and animal protein, 1.02 [0.98–1.06]). Compared with overweight women (1.07 [1.01–1.14]) and normal-weight women (1.11 [0.99–1.25]), obese women had a stronger association between animal protein intake and type 2 diabetes (1.19 [1.09–1.32]) (Table 3). In the sensitivity analyses, exclusion of “under-reporters” (n = 8,096) and “over-reporters” (n = 1,206) did not change the overall and sex-specific associations for both total and animal protein intake and type 2 diabetes (data not shown). Excluding the effect of possible lifestyle changes as a result of a medical condition (i.e., baseline self-reported hypertension, hyperlipidemia, myocardial infarction, and stroke, n = 11,043; 3,641 case subjects and 7,402 subcohort) strengthened the associations between both total and animal protein intake and type 2 diabetes in women (1.15 [1.04–1.27] and 1.12 [1.03–1.22], respectively) (Supplementary Table 2). No specific group of protein sources was accountable for the positive association between animal protein and type 2 diabetes; excluding protein from dairy, fish, or meat from total animal protein did not alter the association.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Meta-analyzed HRs of type 2 diabetes associated with 10-g increments of total, animal, and plant protein. Meta-analyzed (pooled country specific) HRs and 95% CI. Protein intake is FFQ-estimated intake, adjusted for energy using the residual method. A: Women. B: Men. The HRs are adjusted for energy, smoking, education, physical activity, alcohol, fiber, SFA, MUFA, PUFA, cholesterol, soft drinks, tea, coffee, BMI, and waist (not adjusted for carbohydrates; i.e., a substitution model).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

BMI-specific meta-analyzed (pooled) HRs (95% CI) (per 10 g protein intake) for the association between protein intake and type 2 diabetes: results of the adjusted model (model 4)

Plant protein intake per 10 g was not associated with type 2 diabetes, with an HR of 0.92 (95% CI 0.80–1.04), Ptrend = 0.507, in model 1 and 1.04 (0.93–1.16), Ptrend = 0.098, in model 4 (Table 2; Supplementary Fig. 2) and 1.12 (0.98–1.29) in the sensitivity analysis additionally adjusting for possible lifestyle changes as a result of a medical condition (Supplementary Table 2). No effect modification by sex or BMI was present. Excluding specific groups of plant protein sources did not alter the overall absent association between plant protein and type 2 diabetes.

Conclusions

Our study, the largest of its kind in terms of sample size, number of cases, and follow-up years, is the first to investigate the association between type 2 diabetes incidence and protein intake at a general European level. We found that high total protein at the exchange of carbohydrates is associated with a small elevated risk of type 2 diabetes. This association was largely explained by animal protein intake. BMI and waist circumference attenuated the associations. Plant protein intake was not associated with type 2 diabetes incidence in our cohort.

In this current study, with low heterogeneity between the eight countries, we observed a positive association for total and animal protein and type 2 diabetes risk, independent of known type 2 diabetes risk factors and dietary factors including fat, saturated fat, and fiber intake. We observed that type 2 diabetes incidence was 17% higher in individuals with the highest total protein intake compared with individuals with the lowest intake and that type 2 diabetes incidence increased 6% per 10-g increment of total protein intake at the expense of carbohydrates. A 10-g increment represents ∼50 g meat or fish, a glass of milk, or 50 g nuts. We reviewed the associations with increasing protein intake at the expense of carbohydrates because this is the most suitable source to replace protein, which is reflected by the lower carbohydrate intakes of participants with high-protein intakes. Furthermore, in clinical trials carbohydrates are also the source of choice to replace protein. Analyses of protein intake at the expense of fat intake were comparable with the substitution of carbohydrates. The HRs with increasing intake of protein over the quintiles show a linear dose-response relation. The association between total protein intake and type 2 diabetes appears to be largely explained by animal protein, with a 22% higher type 2 diabetes incidence when comparing highest versus lowest quintile and 5% higher incidence per 10-g increment of animal protein intake. The magnitude of the increased type 2 diabetes risk associated with high total protein intake is comparable with the results of the earlier Dutch cohort study (3), a biomarker-calibrated cohort in the U.S. (4), two small cross-sectional studies in Asian populations (n <150) (8,9), and one small (n = 1,190) Greek population (10).

We observed that type 2 diabetes incidence was 38% higher in women with the highest animal protein intake compared with women with the lowest intake and that type 2 diabetes incidence increased 9% per 10-g increment of animal protein intake. In obese women, the association was even stronger, with a risk increase of 19% per 10-g increment of animal protein intake. In men, only a weak nonsignificant association was present. A difference between men and women has been observed in a prior study, though it as most evident in men (30). In our study, it cannot be explained by differences in total protein intake and/or protein sources. On average, women did have a 20% lower absolute intake of total, animal, and plant protein, but the energy percentage of protein in the diet was equal for men and women. Also, the contribution of protein sources did not differ between sexes. Most dietary and lifestyle factors, associated with protein intake, did not differ substantially between men and women; only women with high protein intake were less likely to be physically active and were more restricted alcohol consumers. Further, the association remained similar after adjustment for BMI and waist in women but was attenuated in men. So, it seems that measures of abdominal obesity largely explain the association of protein intake and type 2 diabetes for men, which is not the case in women. Further research is required to explore why animal protein intake was found to be positively associated with type 2 diabetes risk in women only.

In our study, the association between protein intake and type 2 diabetes was attenuated by measures of body composition, most evident in men. This is in line with earlier research (3,4) and could be explained by the strong independent effect of abdominal obesity on type 2 diabetes risk and the positive correlation of protein intake with overweight and obesity (31). We found that the association between protein intake and type 2 diabetes was strongest in obese women in contrast to prior research declaring weaker associations with increasing BMI (3). Our findings may be explained by the fact that higher total protein intake, and/or higher protein intake from animal sources, is associated with weight and weight gain (31,32). In our data, this effect would be stronger in women than in men. More research is needed to explain these mixed results. Unfortunately, it was not possible to consider weight change as a mediating factor between protein intake and type 2 diabetes incidence because data on weight change in our cohort were ascertained at fixed time intervals after baseline recruitment, so there is the potential for information bias.

In contrast to suggested beneficial short-term effects of dietary protein on glycemic control (5,33), our study found that habitually high intake of protein increases type 2 diabetes risk. This discrepancy between short- and long-term effects of protein intake can be explained by differences in energy content and/or in long-term and acute effects of dietary protein. In energy-restricted diets, high-protein content as a percentage of total energy is found to be beneficial, while absolute protein intake is similar or only modestly increased compared with protein intake in energy balance. We observed that in the general population, in energy balance or positive energy balance, a high absolute protein intake is associated with increased type 2 diabetes risk. The mechanism of the potential harmful effect of high dietary protein intake on type 2 diabetes is largely unknown. It could be driven by high protein sources, such as red or processed meat, and factors associated with protein intake or protein per se, e.g., based on amino acid profiles. Dietary proteins are known to increase glucagon, which could partially explain high blood glucose levels. Dietary proteins also increase insulin secretion, possibly leading to hyperinsulinemia, a risk factor for insulin resistance. A recent study suggested there could be a key role for the plasma amino acid levels of isoleucine, leucine, valine, tyrosine, and phenylalanine in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes (34), which have also been found to be associated with type 2 diabetes incidence in EPIC-Potsdam (35). High levels of these plasma amino acids predicted future diabetes, e.g., as found for single plasma amino acids, such as leucine, with an HR of 3.66 (95% 1.61–8.29), and for combinations of the amino acids isoleucine, tyrosine, and phenylalanine, with an HR of 5.99 (2.34–15.34) comparing the highest versus lowest quartile (34). This is in line with earlier experimental elevations of plasma amino acids by infusion, which resulted in impaired insulin-stimulated glucose disposal and insulin-mediated suppression of (hepatic) glucose production (36,37). The above-mentioned branched-chain amino acids and tyrosine and phenylalanine are mainly present in meat and dairy, though they are available in all protein-rich foods.

No specific group of protein sources accounted for the positive association of animal protein and type 2 diabetes incidence. Protein from meat did not explain the association in our cohort, and neither did protein from dairy or fish. So, although the well-established association between meat consumption and type 2 diabetes is suggested to be mainly due to other nutrients, such as iron, nitrites, sodium, or advanced glycation end products (12,38), a direct effect of protein from meat cannot be excluded. In our analyses, protein from dairy and protein from cheese were not accountable for the reported reduced type 2 diabetes risk associated with dairy (14–16) and cheese consumption. Fish consumption is not associated with type 2 diabetes (20–23,39), so possibly our observed association between animal protein and increased type 2 diabetes risk is counterbalanced by potential risk-reducing nutritional components of fish. The findings of this study did not confirm the suggested reduced type 2 diabetes risk associated with protein intake from plant products (especially legumes [18] and nuts [19]). This could be related to the large proportion of bread, pasta and rice, and potatoes among the plant protein sources and relatively low intake of vegetables, legumes, and nuts, although no indication for a risk-reducing effect of protein from vegetables, legumes, and nuts was present in our analyses. To estimate protein intake, we used uncalibrated results of FFQs, so the intake is not equal to the 24-h protein intake in EPIC reported by Halkjaer et al. (40).

Our study with a large sample size from eight European countries and long follow-up had several strengths. The prospective design, with data collection before the occurrence of type 2 diabetes, and the use of validated FFQs at baseline reduce possible biased recall of diet, although it is possible that diets have changed during follow-up, which could influence the results. The strict validation of diabetes cases reduced the probability of misclassifying noncases as cases. In contrast, it cannot be ruled out that incident and prevalent type 2 diabetes cases have remained undiagnosed, which may lead to an underestimation of main effects and reduced power. Further, we were able to adjust our associations for a wide range of potential risk factors for type 2 diabetes and dietary factors, so the observed positive association between protein intake and type 2 diabetes is likely to be explained by proteins per se. The possibility of unmeasured or residual confounding cannot be ruled out, though. Information on trans-fatty acids was, for example, not available, but in Europe intake in non–margarine using, low–dairy using countries intake was probably low, and in margarine-using diary countries such as the Netherlands, trans-fatty acids correlate with PUFA intake. Because of the observational design, conclusions regarding causality cannot be drawn. The associations could for example relate to a less healthy diet and/or lifestyle, even though total and animal protein intake was not associated with known risk factors such as higher SFAs or lower fiber intake.

Overall, we conclude that a greater intake of total protein intake is associated with a higher type 2 diabetes incidence in European populations, but the effect of protein intake is small and known type 2 diabetes risk factors are also important. Our results show that protein of animal origin is largely responsible for the association—not plant protein. The association is confirmed in women, not in men, and is strongest in obese women. The association cannot be explained by a single food source. In view of the rapidly increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, limiting iso-energetic diets high in dietary proteins, particularly from animal sources, should be considered.

Article Information

Acknowledgments. The authors thank all EPIC participants and staff for their contribution to the study. The authors thank Nicola Kerrison (Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge) for managing the data for the InterAct project.

Funding. Funding for the InterAct project was provided by the EU FP6 programme (grant no. LSHM_CT_2006_037197). In addition, InterAct investigators acknowledge funding from the following agencies: the Alpro Foundation; Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports; Netherlands Cancer Registry; LK Research Funds; Dutch Prevention Funds; Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland); World Cancer Research Fund; Statistics Netherlands; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council U.K.; Swedish Research Council; Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation; Swedish Diabetes Association; Danish Cancer Society; Deutsche Krebshilfe; German Cancer Aid; German Cancer Research Center; Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-Italy; Asturias Regional Government; Health Research Fund of the Spanish Ministry of Health; CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Spain; Murcia Regional Government (no. 6236); AIRE-ONLUS Ragusa; AVIS Ragusa; Sicilian Regional Government; Innovation and the Health Research Fund of the Spanish Ministry of Health (RTICC DR06/0020/0091); and Basque Country Regional Government. Verification of diabetes cases was additionally funded by the Netherlands Agency (grant no. IGE05012) and an incentive grant from the Board of the Utrecht Medical Centre, Utrecht.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Duality of Interest. InterAct investigators also acknowledge funding from Novo Nordisk. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. M.v.N. researched data, wrote the manuscript, contributed to study conception and design and interpretation of data, revised the article critically for important intellectual content, and gave final approval of the version to be published. E.J.M.F., M.M., I.S., E.M., C.L., S.J.S., N.G.F., and N.J.W. contributed to discussion, reviewed and edited the manuscript, contributed to study conception and design and interpretation of data, revised the article critically for important intellectual content, and gave final approval of the version to be published. P.A., E.A., B.B., J.W.J.B., H.B., F.C.-C., G.F., P.W.F., J.H., J.M.H., V.Ka., T.J.K., K.T.K., V.Kr., T.K., V.V.M.M., P.N., K.O., D.P., S.P., O.R., I.R., C.S., M.-J.S., M.B.S., A.M.W.S., A.T., R.T., D.L.v.d.A., A.M.L.W., R.Z.-R., and E.R. reviewed and edited the manuscript, contributed to study conception and design and interpretation of data, revised the article critically for important intellectual content, and gave final approval of the version to be published. M.v.N., E.J.M.F., and M.M. are the guarantors of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Prior Presentation. Parts of this study were presented in abstract form at the 20th International Congress of Nutrition, Granada, Spain, 15–20 September 2013.

Footnotes

  • This article contains Supplementary Data online at http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2337/dc13-2627/-/DC1.

  • Received November 13, 2013.
  • Accepted March 4, 2014.
  • © 2014 by the American Diabetes Association.

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Westerterp-Plantenga MS,
    2. Nieuwenhuizen A,
    3. Tomé D,
    4. Soenen S,
    5. Westerterp KR
    . Dietary protein, weight loss, and weight maintenance. Annu Rev Nutr 2009;29:21–41pmid:19400750
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Weigle DS,
    2. Breen PA,
    3. Matthys CC,
    4. et al
    . A high-protein diet induces sustained reductions in appetite, ad libitum caloric intake, and body weight despite compensatory changes in diurnal plasma leptin and ghrelin concentrations. Am J Clin Nutr 2005;82:41–48pmid:16002798
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Sluijs I,
    2. Beulens JWJ,
    3. van der A DL,
    4. Spijkerman AM,
    5. Grobbee DE,
    6. van der Schouw YT
    . Dietary intake of total, animal, and vegetable protein and risk of type 2 diabetes in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-NL study. Diabetes Care 2010;33:43–48pmid:19825820
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Tinker LF,
    2. Sarto GE,
    3. Howard BV,
    4. et al
    . Biomarker-calibrated dietary energy and protein intake associations with diabetes risk among postmenopausal women from the Women’s Health Initiative. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94:1600–1606pmid:22071707
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Promintzer M,
    2. Krebs M
    . Effects of dietary protein on glucose homeostasis. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2006;9:463–468pmid:16778578
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Weickert MO,
    2. Roden M,
    3. Isken F,
    4. et al
    . Effects of supplemented isoenergetic diets differing in cereal fiber and protein content on insulin sensitivity in overweight humans. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94:459–471pmid:21633074
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Linn T,
    2. Santosa B,
    3. Grönemeyer D,
    4. et al
    . Effect of long-term dietary protein intake on glucose metabolism in humans. Diabetologia 2000;43:1257–1265pmid:11079744
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Duc Son NT,
    2. Hanh TTM,
    3. Kusama K,
    4. et al
    . Anthropometric characteristics, dietary patterns and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Vietnam. J Am Coll Nutr 2005;24:229–234pmid:16093399
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Wang ET,
    2. de Koning L,
    3. Kanaya AM
    . Higher protein intake is associated with diabetes risk in South Asian Indians: the Metabolic Syndrome and Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America (MASALA) study. J Am Coll Nutr 2010;29:130–135pmid:20679148
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Pounis GD,
    2. Tyrovolas S,
    3. Antonopoulou M,
    4. et al
    . Long-term animal-protein consumption is associated with an increased prevalence of diabetes among the elderly: the Mediterranean Islands (MEDIS) study. Diabetes Metab 2010;36:484–490pmid:20888279
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Aune D,
    2. Ursin G,
    3. Veierød MB
    . Meat consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Diabetologia 2009;52:2277–2287pmid:19662376
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Pan A,
    2. Sun Q,
    3. Bernstein AM,
    4. et al
    . Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94:1088–1096pmid:21831992
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. InterAct Consortium
    . Association between dietary meat consumption and incident type 2 diabetes: the EPIC-InterAct study. Diabetologia 2013;56:47–59pmid:22983636
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Elwood PC,
    2. Pickering JE,
    3. Givens DI,
    4. Gallacher JE
    . The consumption of milk and dairy foods and the incidence of vascular disease and diabetes: an overview of the evidence. Lipids 2010;45:925–939pmid:20397059
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Malik VS,
    2. Sun Q,
    3. van Dam RM,
    4. et al
    . Adolescent dairy product consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes in middle-aged women. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94:854–861pmid:21753066
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Fumeron F,
    2. Lamri A,
    3. Abi Khalil C,
    4. et al.,
    5. Data from the Epidemiological Study on the Insulin Resistance Syndrome (DESIR) Study Group
    . Dairy consumption and the incidence of hyperglycemia and the metabolic syndrome: results from a french prospective study, Data from the Epidemiological Study on the Insulin Resistance Syndrome (DESIR). Diabetes Care 2011;34:813–817pmid:21447660
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Tong X, Dong JY, Wu ZW, et al. Dairy consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Eur J Clin Nutr 2011;65:1027–1031
  17. ↵
    1. Villegas R,
    2. Gao Y-T,
    3. Yang G,
    4. et al
    . Legume and soy food intake and the incidence of type 2 diabetes in the Shanghai Women’s Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:162–167pmid:18175751
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Kendall CW,
    2. Josse AR,
    3. Esfahani A,
    4. Jenkins DJ
    . Nuts, metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Br J Nutr 2010;104:465–473pmid:20441672
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Kaushik M,
    2. Mozaffarian D,
    3. Spiegelman D,
    4. Manson JE,
    5. Willett WC,
    6. Hu FB
    . Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, fish intake, and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;90:613–620pmid:19625683
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. van Woudenbergh GJ,
    2. van Ballegooijen AJ,
    3. Kuijsten A,
    4. et al
    . Eating fish and risk of type 2 diabetes: A population-based, prospective follow-up study. Diabetes Care 2009;32:2021–2026pmid:19675200
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Patel PS,
    2. Sharp SJ,
    3. Luben RN,
    4. et al
    . Association between type of dietary fish and seafood intake and the risk of incident type 2 diabetes: the European prospective investigation of cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk cohort study. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1857–1863pmid:19592633
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Patel PS,
    2. Forouhi NG,
    3. Kuijsten A,
    4. et al.,
    5. InterAct Consortium
    . The prospective association between total and type of fish intake and type 2 diabetes in 8 European countries: EPIC-InterAct Study. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:1445–1453pmid:22572642
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Langenberg C,
    2. Sharp S,
    3. Forouhi NG,
    4. et al.,
    5. InterAct Consortium
    . Design and cohort description of the InterAct Project: an examination of the interaction of genetic and lifestyle factors on the incidence of type 2 diabetes in the EPIC Study. Diabetologia 2011;54:2272–2282pmid:21717116
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. Riboli E,
    2. Hunt KJ,
    3. Slimani N,
    4. et al
    . European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection. Public Health Nutr 2002;5(6B):1113–1124pmid:12639222
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Willett WC,
    2. Howe GR,
    3. Kushi LH
    . Adjustment for total energy intake in epidemiologic studies. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;65(Suppl.):1220S–1228S; discussion 1229S–1231Spmid:9094926
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Wareham NJ,
    2. Jakes RW,
    3. Rennie KL,
    4. et al
    . Validity and repeatability of a simple index derived from the short physical activity questionnaire used in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Public Health Nutr 2003;6:407–413pmid:12795830
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Barlow WE,
    2. Ichikawa L,
    3. Rosner D,
    4. Izumi S
    . Analysis of case-cohort designs. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:1165–1172pmid:10580779
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    1. Goldberg GR,
    2. Black AE,
    3. Jebb SA,
    4. et al
    . Critical evaluation of energy intake data using fundamental principles of energy physiology: 1. Derivation of cut-off limits to identify under-recording. Eur J Clin Nutr 1991;45:569–581pmid:1810719
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Schulze MB,
    2. Schulz M,
    3. Heidemann C,
    4. Schienkiewitz A,
    5. Hoffmann K,
    6. Boeing H
    . Carbohydrate intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Potsdam Study. Br J Nutr 2008;99:1107–1116pmid:17988431
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Vergnaud A-C,
    2. Norat T,
    3. Mouw T,
    4. et al
    . Macronutrient composition of the diet and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e57300pmid:23472080
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Halkjar J, Olsen A, Overvad K, et al. Intake of total, animal and plant protein and subsequent changes in weight or waist circumference in European men and women: the Diogenes project. Int J Obes (London) 2011;35:1104–1113.
  31. ↵
    1. Tremblay F,
    2. Lavigne C,
    3. Jacques H,
    4. Marette A
    . Role of dietary proteins and amino acids in the pathogenesis of insulin resistance. Annu Rev Nutr 2007;27:293–310pmid:17666010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Wang TJ,
    2. Larson MG,
    3. Vasan RS,
    4. et al
    . Metabolite profiles and the risk of developing diabetes. Nat Med 2011;17:448–453pmid:21423183
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    1. Floegel A,
    2. Stefan N,
    3. Yu Z,
    4. et al
    . Identification of serum metabolites associated with risk of type 2 diabetes using a targeted metabolomic approach. Diabetes 2013;62:639–648pmid:23043162
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Krebs M,
    2. Krssak M,
    3. Bernroider E,
    4. et al
    . Mechanism of amino acid-induced skeletal muscle insulin resistance in humans. Diabetes 2002;51:599–605pmid:11872656
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Tremblay F,
    2. Krebs M,
    3. Dombrowski L,
    4. et al
    . Overactivation of S6 kinase 1 as a cause of human insulin resistance during increased amino acid availability. Diabetes 2005;54:2674–2684pmid:16123357
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. de Oliveira Otto MC,
    2. Alonso A,
    3. Lee D-H,
    4. et al
    . Dietary intakes of zinc and heme iron from red meat, but not from other sources, are associated with greater risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. J Nutr 2012;142:526–533pmid:22259193
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Nanri A,
    2. Mizoue T,
    3. Noda M,
    4. et al.,
    5. Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study Group
    . Fish intake and type 2 diabetes in Japanese men and women: the Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94:884–891pmid:21775559
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Halkjaer J,
    2. Olsen A,
    3. Bjerregaard LJ,
    4. et al
    . Intake of total, animal and plant proteins, and their food sources in 10 countries in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Eur J Clin Nutr 2009;63(Suppl. 4):S16–S36pmid:19888272
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 37 (7)

In this Issue

July 2014, 37(7)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Dietary Protein Intake and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Europe: The EPIC-InterAct Case-Cohort Study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Dietary Protein Intake and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Europe: The EPIC-InterAct Case-Cohort Study
Monique van Nielen, Edith J.M. Feskens, Marco Mensink, Ivonne Sluijs, Esther Molina, Pilar Amiano, Eva Ardanaz, Beverly Balkau, Joline W.J. Beulens, Heiner Boeing, Françoise Clavel-Chapelon, Guy Fagherazzi, Paul W. Franks, Jytte Halkjaer, José Maria Huerta, Verena Katzke, Timothy J. Key, Kay Tee Khaw, Vittorio Krogh, Tilman Kühn, Virginia V.M. Menéndez, Peter Nilsson, Kim Overvad, Domenico Palli, Salvatore Panico, Olov Rolandsson, Isabelle Romieu, Carlotta Sacerdote, Maria-José Sánchez, Matthias B. Schulze, Annemieke M.W. Spijkerman, Anne Tjonneland, Rosario Tumino, Daphne L. van der A, Anne M.L. Würtz, Raul Zamora-Ros, Claudia Langenberg, Stephen J. Sharp, Nita G. Forouhi, Elio Riboli, Nicholas J. Wareham
Diabetes Care Jul 2014, 37 (7) 1854-1862; DOI: 10.2337/dc13-2627

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Dietary Protein Intake and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Europe: The EPIC-InterAct Case-Cohort Study
Monique van Nielen, Edith J.M. Feskens, Marco Mensink, Ivonne Sluijs, Esther Molina, Pilar Amiano, Eva Ardanaz, Beverly Balkau, Joline W.J. Beulens, Heiner Boeing, Françoise Clavel-Chapelon, Guy Fagherazzi, Paul W. Franks, Jytte Halkjaer, José Maria Huerta, Verena Katzke, Timothy J. Key, Kay Tee Khaw, Vittorio Krogh, Tilman Kühn, Virginia V.M. Menéndez, Peter Nilsson, Kim Overvad, Domenico Palli, Salvatore Panico, Olov Rolandsson, Isabelle Romieu, Carlotta Sacerdote, Maria-José Sánchez, Matthias B. Schulze, Annemieke M.W. Spijkerman, Anne Tjonneland, Rosario Tumino, Daphne L. van der A, Anne M.L. Würtz, Raul Zamora-Ros, Claudia Langenberg, Stephen J. Sharp, Nita G. Forouhi, Elio Riboli, Nicholas J. Wareham
Diabetes Care Jul 2014, 37 (7) 1854-1862; DOI: 10.2337/dc13-2627
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Research Design and Methods
    • Results
    • Conclusions
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Glucose Control, Sulfonylureas, and Insulin Treatment in Elderly People With Type 2 Diabetes and Risk of Severe Hypoglycemia and Death: An Observational Study
  • Comparisons of Polyexposure, Polygenic, and Clinical Risk Scores in Risk Prediction of Type 2 Diabetes
  • Quantifying Variation in Treatment Utilization for Type 2 Diabetes Across Five Major University of California Health Systems
Show more Epidemiology/Health Services Research

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.