Researchers in Singapore conducted a study comparing the health effects of plant-based meat substitutes to traditional meats, specifically focusing on heart health and diabetes risk. The study, involving 89 adults at risk for type 2 diabetes, found no significant heart health benefits of plant-based meat diets over those including animal meat, challenging the idea that these alternatives offer the same health advantages as whole plant-based diets. This highlights the need for the food industry to develop nutritionally enhanced and environmentally sustainable plant-based meat substitutes.
In new research published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, scientists compared diets containing real meat to those using plant-based meat alternatives in terms of cardiovascular health and diabetes risk. Plant-based diets are known for their benefits to heart and metabolic health due to their variety of health-promoting components such as vitamins, fiber, and antioxidants. However, cultural, historical, and social influences on meat consumption make it challenging for those who regularly eat meat to switch to plant-based diets. Plant-based meat analogues (PBMAs) aim to mimic the taste and texture of real meat using sustainable ingredients and are becoming increasingly popular worldwide.
The study involved comparing the effects of diets based on PBMAs and traditional animal-based meats on the heart health of Singaporeans at higher risk for type 2 diabetes. In an 8-week study with 89 participants, half were asked to eat PBMAs while the other half consumed animal meats. The findings showed no significant changes in cholesterol profiles for either diet, but both were linked to improvements in some blood sugar markers. There was no clear advantage of one diet over the other in improving heart health, but those eating animal meat had better blood sugar control. Blood pressure improvements were noted in the animal meat group but not in the PBMA group, suggesting that plant-based diets may not directly apply to PBMAs nutritionally.
Nutrient analysis revealed that the animal meat diet provided more protein, while PBMAs were higher in sodium, potassium, and calcium. The better blood sugar control seen in the animal meat group may be due to their lower carb and higher protein intake. While the study did not look into protein absorption, other research suggests that proteins from PBMAs may not be as easily absorbed as those from animal meats, affecting insulin and gut hormone responses differently. The findings suggest that PBMAs may not offer the same heart and metabolic health benefits as whole plant-based diets.
The study’s findings present an opportunity for the food industry to invest in creating new PBMAs that are nutritionally superior and more easily absorbed by the body. By focusing on improving the nutritional value and environmental sustainability of PBMAs, both manufacturers and consumers stand to benefit. Registered dietitians Kelsey Costa and Haley Bishoff emphasized the importance of understanding the nutritional differences between plant-based meat analogues, animal-based foods, and whole plant-based foods. They suggested that while choosing more plant-based options can have health benefits, it is essential to focus on whole, minimally processed foods rather than relying solely on ultra-processed alternatives.
