Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T17:23:45.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The health impact of substituting meat with plant-based meat alternatives: findings from a Systematic Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2024

L. Lindberg ,
R. Reid-McCann ,
J. Woodside  and
A. Nugent
L. Lindberg
Affiliation:
Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Institute of Clinical Sciences A, Belfast, Northern Ireland
R. Reid-McCann
Affiliation:
Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Institute of Clinical Sciences A, Belfast, Northern Ireland
J. Woodside
Affiliation:
Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Institute of Clinical Sciences A, Belfast, Northern Ireland
A. Nugent
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland Technology Centre, Northern Ireland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Sales of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) are increasing(1). While these products are becoming more popular, little is known about their impact on health(2). Therefore, the aim of this work was to systematically review the evidence on PBMA consumption and associated health outcomes.

A wider systematic review looking at the environmental impact, ingredient composition, nutritional impact and health outcomes associated with PBMAs was conducted. A search strategy combined terms “meat alternatives” AND “environment” OR “ingredients” OR “nutrition” OR “health.” Five databases were searched, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and Greenfile, as well as reference lists of relevant articles. All study designs reporting primary data were included, except for animal studies and in vitro studies. Non-English studies and studies published before 2011 were excluded (PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021250541).

2184 papers were identified, 1802 papers remained after duplicates were removed, 1536 were excluded at title and abstract screen stage, 266 full texts were assessed for eligibility and 54 papers were included in the analysis for all outcomes investigated. Ten studies examined the impact of PBMA vs. meat consumption on health outcomes. Three studies measured postprandial response to single test meals(3–5), four studies were longer-term RCTs(6–8) with two further separate publications reporting on different outcomes for the same RCT(9,10). One study was a prospective cohort(11) and one a cross-sectional study(12).

Of the single test meal studies, no significant differences were observed for glucose levels in 2/2 studies (100%)(3,5), PYY and GLP-1 levels in 2/2 studies (100%)(3,4) and self-reported hunger/fullness in 3/3 studies (100%)(3–5). Significantly lower insulin concentrations and subsequent energy intakes were both reported in 1/2 studies (50%) following consumption of mycoprotein vs. chicken meals(3).

Longer-term full and partial replacement of meat with PBMAs resulted in significantly lower body weight (kg) in 2/2 studies (100%)(6,10), significantly lower saturated fat intakes in 2/2 studies (100%) (6,10), significantly higher fibre intakes in 2/3 studies (67%)(6,7), improvements in plasma lipid profile in 2/3 studies (67%)(7,10) and positive changes in gut microbiota in 1/2 studies (50%)(8) compared to meat diet phases/control groups with no restrictions on meat intakes. There were no significant differences in protein intakes in 3/3 studies (100%)(6,7,10), energy, total fat and carbohydrate intakes in 2/2 studies (100%) (6,7), blood pressure in 2/2 studies (100%)(6,10), glucose levels in 2/2 studies (100%) (7,10) and insulin levels in 2/2 studies (100%)(7,10).

No definitive conclusions can be made on the impact of PBMAs on health outcomes due to the small number of studies and variation in study designs, outcomes measured and the type of PBMA used. From the limited evidence available, no negative health effects from PBMA consumption were observed, however, further longer-term RCTs are needed to confirm this.

Type
Abstract
Information
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Volume 83 , Issue OCE2: Winter Conference 2023, 5-6 December 2023, Diet and lifestyle strategies for prevention and management of multimorbidity , June 2024 , E213
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

References

ING Research (2020) Growth of meat and dairy alternatives is stirring up the European food industry [Available at: https://think.ing.com/reports/growth-of-meat-and-dairy-alternatives-is-stirring-up-the-european-food-industry/]Google Scholar
Hu FB, Otis BO & McCarthy G (2019) JAMA 322, 1547–1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottin JH, Swann JR, Cropp E et al. (2016) Br J Nutr 116, 360–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas SM, Lasley TR & Leidy HJ (2015) J Nutr Sci 145, 1010–1016.Google Scholar
Pham T, Knowles S, Bermingham E et al. (2022) Curr Dev Nutr 6.Google Scholar
Bianchi F, Aveyard P, Astbury NM et al. (2022) AJCN 115, 1357–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coelho MOC, Monteyne AJ, Dirks ML et al. (2021) Br J Nutr 125, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toribio-Mateas MA, Bester A & Klimenko N (2021) Foods 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crimarco A, Landry MJ, Carter MM et al. (2022) J Nutr Sci 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crimarco A, Springfield S, Petlura C et al. (2020) AJCN 112, 1188–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lousuebsakul-Matthews V, Thorpe DL, Knutsen R et al. (2013) Public Health Nutr 17, 2333–2343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson MF & DePorter J (2018) Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology 120, 626–630.Google Scholar