Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Unethical_Orange OP t1_j5330y3 wrote

This title is extracted from the section 3.4 of the results. But this paper, albeit short is incredibly dense. Here’s some more information to complement it:

Figure 1 shows the composition of the plant-based alternatives.

Most remarkably, cheese imitations were exceptionally based on vegetable oils (83,1%) compared to other analogues whose main composition was either nuts, coconut, grains or pulses.

Furthermore, tables 3 and 4 analyse the nutritional composition of both meats and dairy products (milks, yoghurt and cheese). In those, we find (with p-values under 0,05):

  • Generally, plant-based meats had significantly higher quantities of protein, carbohydrates and fiber; but lower of saturated fats and salt.
  • Meanwhile, plant-based milks had significantly lower calories, protein, saturated fat and sugar.
  • Plant-based yoghurts had significantly higher carbohydrate, sugar and fiber; but lower protein and saturated fat.
  • Lastly, plant-based cheese had significantly higher saturated fat, carbohydrates and fiber; but lower calories, protein, total fat and sugar (which was low in both cases).

Interestingly, regardless of these findings, the authors state that:

>...the substitution of specific food groups with plant-based alternatives may not support an equivalent or improved diet.

I wonder the reasons why, as most alternatives had either the same or higher Nutri-Score on average, except cheese (which scored poorly in both cases).

My question is supported by the data shown in tables 3 and 4 where plant-based products were shown to contain significantly less saturated fats and higher fiber across most categories, which are typically associated with better health outcomes (1), (2).

5

jsveiga t1_j539zck wrote

They mention the lack of protein in the fake dairy products several times. That's probably what they mean with specific food groups substitution not supporting equivalent diet. Then for the other groups that have about the same nutrition value, they do not support an improved diet.

In other words, they mean that plant based is worse or equivalent at most, which is what their data shows.

Why are you "wondering the reasons why"? Did you expect them to say it's "better" when the data doesn't support that?

0

Unethical_Orange OP t1_j53cihv wrote

>That's probably what they mean with specific food groups substitution not supporting equivalent diet

If that were the case, the fact that they mention the higher protein in the meat alternatives would warrant the opposite conclusion. And somehow it doesn't.

Nevertheless protein quantity is far from being the only marker analysed here, and both milk and its alternatives were ranked equally healthy in average (B).

>Then for the other groups that have about the same nutrition value, they do not support an improved diet. In other words, they mean that plant based is worse or equivalent at most, which is what their data shows.

Not really. As stated, poultry and yoghurt alternatives were found to be healthier than their animal counterparts. Meanwhile only plant-based cheese scored lower.

​

The study is free access and I have pointed out where the information is, you can check it yourself.

>Why are you "wondering the reasons why"? Did you expect them to say it's "better" when the data doesn't support that?

This is the same argument as above, which goes contrary to their data (except on cheese, which I stated originally, but it's unhealthy in both options to be completely fair).

3