Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35194768›Full record

ReviewCurrent nutrition reports2022

Plant-Based Diet: Is It as Good as an Animal-Based Diet When It Comes to Protein?

Matthew W Ewy, Ankitaben Patel, Marwa G Abdelmagid, Osman Mohamed Elfadil, Sara L Bonnes, Bradley R Salonen, Ryan T Hurt, Manpreet S Mundi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current nutrition reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew W EwyDivision of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ankitaben PatelDivision of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Marwa G AbdelmagidDivision of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Osman Mohamed ElfadilDivision of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0240-6453
Sara L BonnesDivision of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Bradley R SalonenDivision of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ryan T HurtDivision of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Manpreet S MundiDivision of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. mundi.manpreet@mayo.edu.
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewProtein is a macronutrient that is responsible for multiple functions in the human body and is made up of twenty amino acids. Nine amino acids are not synthesized in the human body and require dietary ingestion to prevent deficiency. These essential amino acids are easily obtained through animal-based proteins but can be in limited quantities through plant-based protein sources. With the obesity epidemic rising, great attention has turned to plant-based protein diets and their health and environmental implications. The differences in plant and animal protein sources have been explored for their effects on general health, sarcopenia, and muscle performance. This review discusses the benefits and drawbacks of a plant-based diet, as well as some of the latest literature on muscle protein synthesis between animal- and plant-based dietary intakes of protein. RECENT

findingsHigh meat consumption is associated with increased saturated fat intake and lower dietary fiber intake. As a result, meat consumption is correlated with obesity, heart disease, metabolic syndrome, and gastrointestinal cancers. However, animal-based diets contain higher amounts of leucine and other essential amino acids which are associated with increased anabolic potential and muscle protein synthesis. Yet, multiple studies show conflicting results on the true benefits of animal-based diets, suggesting total protein intake may be the best predictor for preserving lean muscle mass and increasing muscle performance. While many studies support animal protein sources superior to plant-based diets on intracellular anabolic signaling, other studies show conflicting results regarding the true benefit of animal-based protein diets on overall performance and effect on sarcopenia. The health benefits seem to favor plant-based protein sources; however, further research is needed to examine the effects of protein from plant- and animal-based diets on muscle mass and protein synthesis.

Indexed as

SarcopeniaAmino AcidsAmino Acids, EssentialAnimalsDietDiet, VegetarianHumansMuscle ProteinsObesityPlantsAmino AcidsAmino Acids, EssentialMuscle ProteinsAnimal proteinPlant-based dietProtein

Identifiers

PMID35194768
OpenAlexW4212782862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.