Submitted by Unethical_Orange t3_10gjic6 in science
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):
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).
So, yes, fake cheese is nasty
I dont like fake food. Just call them st else
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?
>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).
While it is totally gross, let's try to keep the comments relevant and not so low-effort or taste/opinion based
Nutri-score attempts to crunch 7 different nutritional facts per 100g of food down to a single absolute scale. How objective that is given some of its stranger choices (is salt dangerous if you don't already have hypertension?) depends on how you agree with its analysis.
> Nutritionally "unfavourable" nutritional values N are offset against "favourable" nutritional values P (Nutri-Score = N - P). The sugar content, the calorie content, the saturated fatty acids and the converted salt content in sodium belong to the unfavourable components (N). The favourable components (P) include fruit, vegetables, nuts, fibre, protein and walnut, rapeseed and olive oils.
Plant analogues will score like meats and milks if they present similar nutritional breakdowns (including protein!), but this is missing many factors that might be more important for an individual, like glycemic index or satiety.
Nutri-score is dumb and not representative to the healthiness of a certain food.
Yes, I agree that the current iteration of Nutri-Score isn't the best metric. This part of the criticism in my original comment, but I should have been more direct.
Regardless, the system is explained in the paper itself and, with the lack of evidence in the matter, specially open access, my opinion is that it's preferrable to have this than nothing. Even more so as Nutri-Score is being widely used.
I don't think this is trying to push the narrative that plant-based alternatives are healthy because they explicitly point out that they aren't, regardless of their Nutri-Scores.
Yes, I agree that Nutri-Score isn't the best metric. It's part of the criticism in my original comment, but I should have been more direct.
Regardless, the system is explained with the lack of evidence in the matter, especially open access, my opinion is that it's preferrable to have this than nothing.
Diesel and gasoline are both fuels, except diesel has fewer calories and is more resistant to ignition. Therefore you should run your gasoline-engine car on diesel fuel.
https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/saturated-fat-limit-not-justified
>“There is no strong scientific evidence that the current population-wide upper limits on commonly consumed saturated fats in the U.S. will prevent cardiovascular disease or reduce mortality. A continued limit on these fats is therefore not justified.”
Let's stop comparing a food on its saturated fat content. The evidence does not support the Diet-Heart hypothesis that cholesterol causes heart disease.
Saturated fat is least prone to oxidation (and therefore rancidity). The reason why partially hydrogenated vegetable oils were invented was to make those poly-unsaturated fats more saturated, so the foods made with them would be more shelf-stable. PHVOs have been found to be harmful to health, but cis-chain saturated fats have not been.
>The study authors also argue that consuming anywhere from about 2,600 milligrams up to almost 5,000 milligrams of sodium per day is associated with more favorable health outcomes (compared with lower or higher consumption.) In other words, the range of what's healthy is a lot broader than what the U.S. government's guidelines advise, the researchers say
>But, he argues, in people with normal blood pressure, "there is no effect, or maybe a small effect of sodium reduction on blood pressure."
>"The good news," Graudal writes in a press release about the study, "is that around 95 percent of the global population already consumes within the range we've found to generate the least instances of mortality and cardiovascular disease."
Let's also stop claiming that less sodium in the diet is inherently better than more sodium (in relation to the previous recommendation of 2300mg of sodium per day). Double that amount has been found to be just as safe. The only people who need to worry about sodium are people with kidney disease - and kidney disease is impacted by carbohydrate intake far more than sodium intake.
My blood pressure barely dropped when I tried eliminating sodium from a whole food diet. But my BP dropped by 10x when I did multi-day fasting (while eating salt and drinking salt water to maintain electrolytes) and tried a no-carb diet (a 20-40 point drop in BP instead of a 2-4 point drop).
[removed]
[removed]
AutoModerator t1_j532so1 wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.