Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Sep 6;9(9):982.
doi: 10.3390/nu9090982.

Dietary Protein Consumption and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

Shuang Tian  1   2 , Qian Xu  3 , Ruyue Jiang  4 , Tianshu Han  5 , Changhao Sun  6 , Lixin Na  7
Affiliations
Review

Dietary Protein Consumption and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

Shuang Tian et al. Nutrients. .

Abstract

Recently, some studies have focused on the relationship between dietary protein intake and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the conclusions have been inconsistent. Therefore, in this paper, a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies regarding protein consumption and T2DM risk are conducted in order to present the association between them. We searched the PubMed and Embase databases for cohort studies on dietary protein, high-protein food consumption and risk of T2DM, up to July 2017. A summary of relative risks was compiled by the fixed-effect model or random-effect model. Eleven cohort studies regarded protein intake and T2DM (52,637 cases among 483,174 participants). The summary RR and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) of T2DM was 1.12 (1.08-1.17) in all subjects, 1.13 (1.04-1.24) in men, and 1.09 (1.04-1.15) in women for total protein;1.14 (1.09-1.19) in all subjects, 1.23 (1.09-1.38) in men, and 1.11 (1.03-1.19) in women for animal protein; 0.96 (0.88-1.06) in all subjects, 0.98 (0.72-1.34) in men, and 0.92 (0.86-0.98) in women for plant protein. We also compared the association between different food sources of protein and the risk of T2DM. The summary RR (Relative Risk) and 95% CI of T2DM was 1.22 (1.09-1.36) for red meat, 1.39 (1.29-1.49) for processed meat, 1.03 (0.89-1.17) for fish, 1.03 (0.64-1.67) for egg, 0.89 (0.84-0.94) for total dairy products, 0.87 (0.78-0.96) for whole milk, 0.83 (0.70-0.98) for yogurt, 0.74 (0.59-0.93) in women for soy. This meta-analysis shows that total protein and animal protein could increase the risk of T2DM in both males and females, and plant protein decreases the risk of T2DM in females. The association between high-protein food types and T2DM are also different. Red meat and processed meat are risk factors of T2DM, and soy, dairy and dairy products are the protective factors of T2DM. Egg and fish intake are not associated with a decreased risk of T2DM. This research indicates the type of dietary protein and food sources of protein that should be considered for the prevention of diabetes.

Keywords: diabetes; meta-analysis; protein; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart for study selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Total protein and type 2 diabetes relative risks(RRs) for (a) the highest vs. the lowest intake in all subjects and (b) the highest vs. the lowest intake in men (c) the highest vs. the lowest intake in women. The RR of each study is represented by a square, 95% CI are represented by the horizontal lines, and the diamond represents the estimate and its 95% CI.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Animal protein and type 2 diabetes RRs for (a) the highest vs. the lowest intake in all subjects and (b) the highest vs. the lowest intake in men (c) the highest vs. the lowest intake in women. The RR of each study is represented by a square, 95% CI are represented by the horizontal lines, and the diamond represents the estimate and its 95% CI.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Plant protein and type 2 diabetes RRs for (a) the highest vs. the lowest intake in all subjects and (b) the highest vs. the lowest intake in men (c) the highest vs. the lowest intake in women. The RR of each study is represented by a square, 95% CI are represented by the horizontal lines, and the diamond represents the estimate and its 95% CI.
Figure 5
Figure 5
(a) Red meat (b) processed meat and type 2 diabetes RRs for the highest vs. the lowest intake in all subjects. The RR of each study is represented by a square, 95% CI are represented by the horizontal lines, and the diamond represents the estimate and its 95% CI.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Fish and type 2 diabetes RRs for the highest vs. the lowest intake in all subjects. The RR of each study is represented by a square, 95% CI are represented by the horizontal lines, and the diamond represents the estimate and its 95% CI.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Egg and type 2 diabetes RRs for the highest vs. the lowest intake in all subjects. The RR of each study is represented by a square, 95% CI are represented by the horizontal lines, and the diamond represents the estimate and its 95% CI.
Figure 8
Figure 8
(a) Total dairy products (b) whole milk (c) yogurt and type 2 diabetes RRs for the highest vs. the lowest intake in all subjects. The RR of each study is represented by a square, 95% CI are represented by the horizontal lines, and the diamond represents the estimate and its 95% CI.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Soy and type 2 diabetes RRs for (a) the highest vs. the lowest intake in all subjects and (b) the highest vs. the lowest intake in women. The RR of each study is represented by a square, 95% CI are represented by the horizontal lines, and the diamond represents the estimate and its 95% CI.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Guariguata L., Whiting D.R., Hambleton I., Beagley J., Linnenkamp U., Shaw J.E. Globalestimates of diabetes prevalence for 2013 and projections for 2035. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2014;103:137–149. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2013.11.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care in diabetes—2006. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(Suppl. 1):S4–S42. - PubMed
    1. Nichols G.A., Glauber H.S., Brown J.B. Type 2 diabetes: Incremental medical care costs during the 8 years preceding diagnosis. Diabetes Care. 2002;23:1654–1659. doi: 10.2337/diacare.23.11.1654. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tuomilehto J., Lindström J., Eriksson J.G., Valle T.T., Hämäläinen H., Ilanne-Parikka P., Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi S., Laakso M., Louheranta A., Rastas M., et al. Prevention of: Type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011;344:1343–1350. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200105033441801. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schulze M.B., Schulz M., Heidemann C., Schienkiewitz A., Hoffmann K., 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;99:1107–1116. doi: 10.1017/S0007114507853360. - DOI - PubMed

Substances