Population-based studies have revealed a high occurrence of self-reported psychological distress symptoms during the early phases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Stress and negative affect can lead to emotional eating, which in turn can have negative outcomes on health. In this population-based study, 24,968 Norwegian inhabitants participated in an electronic questionnaire including structured questions on dietary habits, emotional eating, psychological distress symptoms, and COVID-19-related worries. The study took place during April 2020 after around six weeks of interventions to tackle the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, emotional eating was reported in 54% of the population and was markedly more frequent in female participants. Worries related to consequences of the pandemic were associated with increased emotional eating, and the association was stronger for worries related to personal economy—odds ratios (OR) 1.7 (95% confidence interval (CI95%) 1.5–1.9)—compared to worries related to health—OR 1.3 (CI95% 1.2–1.5). Psychological distress had a strong association with emotional eating—OR 4.2 (CI95% 3.9–4.4). Correspondingly, the intake of high-sugar foods and beverages was higher for those with substantial COVID-19-related worries and those with psychological distress compared to the overall population.

Background: The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNRs) constitute the scientific basis for national dietary reference values (DRVs) and food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) in the Nordic and Baltic countries. Objective: To define principles and methodologies for the sixth edition of NNR to be published in 2022 (NNR2022). Design: The principles and methodologies of the previous edition of NNR were used as a starting point. Recent nutrition recommendations commissioned by other national food and health authorities or international food and health organizations were examined and dissected. Updated principles and methodologies were agreed by the NNR2022 Committee in a consensus-driven process. Results: An organizational model with ‘checks and balances’ was developed to minimize the influence of subjective biases of the committee members and experts. Individual chapters on all included nutrients and food groups will be updated as scoping reviews. Systematic reviews (SRs), which are the main basis for evaluating causal effects of nutrients or food groups on health outcomes, will be embedded in each chapter. A NNR SR Centre will be established for performing de novo SRs on prioritized topics. To avoid duplication and optimize the use of resources, qualified SRs commissioned by other national and international organizations and health authorities will also inform DRVs and FBDGs in NNR2022. Discussion: The evidence-based methods defined in the NNR2022 project are compatible with most contemporary methods used by leading national food and health authorities. Global harmonization of methodological approaches to nutrition recommendations is strongly encouraged. Conclusion: Evidence-informed principles and methodologies underpinned by SRs will ensure that DRVs and FBDGs defined in the NNR2022 project are based on the best available evidence and as far as possible free from overt bias.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the evidence for an association between the dietary protein intake in children and the growth and risk of overweight or obesity up to 18 years of age in settings relevant for the Nordic countries. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus up to February 26, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies assessing for protein intake from foods (total and from different sources) in children. The outcomes include weight, height/length, adiposity indices, and/or risk of overweight and/or obesity. The risk of bias was evaluated with instruments for each respective design (Cochrane’s Risk of Bias 2.0 and RoB-NObS). A meta-analysis of five cohort studies was performed. The evidence was classified according to the criteria of the World Cancer Research Fund. Results: The literature search resulted in 9,132 abstracts, of which 55 papers were identified as potentially relevant. In total, 21 studies from 27 publications were included, of which five were RCTs and 16 were cohort studies. The RCTs found generally null effects of high-protein intake in infants on weight gain, nor that lower protein diets negatively affected growth. All included RCTs had some concern regarding the risk of bias and were limited by small sample sizes. Total protein intake and BMI were assessed in 12 cohorts, of which 11 found positive associations. The meta-analysis revealed a pooled effect estimate of 0.06 (95% CI 0.03, 0.1) kg/m2 BMI per one E% increment in total protein (I2 = 15.5). Therefore, the evidence for a positive relationship between total protein intake and BMI was considered probable. Furthermore, there was probable evidence for an association between higher intake of animal protein and increased BMI. There was limited, suggestive evidence for an effect of total protein intake and higher risk of overweight and/or obesity, while no conclusions could be made on the associations between animal vs. plant protein intake and risk of overweight and/or obesity. Discussion: In healthy, well-nourished children of Western populations, there is probably a causal relationship between a high-protein intake in early childhood (≤ 18 months) – particularly protein of animal origin – and higher BMI later in childhood, with consistent findings across cohort studies. A lack of RCTs precluded a stronger grading of the evidence.

Objectives: To systematically review the evidence on the effect of replacing the intake of animal protein with plant protein on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) and their intermediate risk factors. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus up to 12th May 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies that investigated replacement of animal protein with plant protein from foods. Outcomes were CVDs, T2D, and in RCTs also the effects on blood lipids, glycemic markers, and blood pressure. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane’s RoB2, ROBINS-I, and USDA’s RoB-NObS tools. Random-effects meta-analyses assessed the effects of plant vs. animal proteins on blood lipids in RCTs. The evidence was appraised according to the World Cancer Research Fund’s criteria. Results: After screening 15,090 titles/abstracts, full text of 124 papers was scrutinized in detail, from which 13 RCTs and seven cohort studies were included. Eight of the RCTs had either some concern or high risk of bias, while the corresponding evaluation of cohort studies resulted in moderate risk of bias for all seven. Meta-analyses of RCTs suggested a protective effect on total cholesterol (mean difference -0.11 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.22, -0.01) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.14 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.25, -0.02) by replacing animal protein with plant protein. The substitution of animal protein with plant protein (percentage of energy intake) in cohort studies was associated with lower CVD mortality (n = 4) and lower T2D incidence (n = 2). The evidence was considered limited-suggestive for both outcomes. Conclusion: Evidence that the substitution of animal protein with plant protein reduces risk of both CVD mortality and T2D incidence is limited-suggestive. Replacing animal protein with plant protein for aspects of sustainability may also be a public health strategy to lower the risk of CVD mortality and T2D.

Objectives: We aimed to systematically review studies and evaluate the strength of the evidence on nuts/seeds consumption and cardiometabolic diseases and their risk factors among adults. Methods: A protocol was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021270554). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus up to September 20, 2021 for prospective cohort studies and ≥12-week randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Main outcomes were cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke and type 2 diabetes (T2D), secondary total-/low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, blood pressure and glycaemic markers. Data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessments (using RoB 2.0 and RoB-NObS) were performed in duplicate. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses and expressed as relative risk (RR) or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI); heterogeneity quantified as I2. One-stage dose-response analyses assessed the linear and non-linear associations with CVD, CHD, stroke and T2D. The strength of evidence was classified per the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Results: After screening 23,244 references, we included 42 papers from cohort studies (28 unique cohorts, 1,890,573 participants) and 18 RCTs (2,266 participants). In the cohorts, mainly populations with low consumption, high versus low total nuts/seeds consumption was inversely associated with total CVD (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.75, 0.86; I2 = 67%), CVD mortality (0.77; 0.72, 0.82; I2 = 59.3%), CHD (0.82; 0.76, 0.89; I2 = 64%), CHD mortality (0.75; 0.65, 0.87; I2 = 66.9%) and non-fatal CHD (0.85; 0.75, 0.96; I2 = 62.2%). According to the non-linear dose-response analyses, consumption of 30 g/day of total nuts/seeds was associated with RRs of similar magnitude. For stroke and T2D the summary RR for high versus low intake was 0.91 (95% CI 0.85, 0.97; I2 = 24.8%) and 0.95 (0.75, 1.21; I2 = 82.2%). Intake of nuts (median ~50 g/day) lowered total (−0.15 mmol/L; −0.22, −0.08; I2 = 31.2%) and LDL-cholesterol (−0.13 mmol/L; −0.21, −0.05; I2 = 68.6%), but not blood pressure. Findings on fasting glucose, HbA1c and insulin resistance were conflicting. The results were robust to sensitivity and subgroup analyses. We rated the associations between nuts/seeds and both CVD and CHD as probable. There was limited but suggestive evidence for no association with stroke. No conclusion could be made for T2D. Conclusion: There is a probable relationship between consumption of nuts/seeds and lower risk of CVD, mostly driven by CHD, possibly in part through effects on blood lipids. More research on stroke and T2D may affect the conclusions. The evidence of specific nuts should be further investigated.