ArticleThe American journal of clinical nutrition2026
Nutritional adequacy of the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet: cross-sectional analyses of the United Kingdom National Diet and Nutrition Survey.
Article in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Planetary health diet adherence, nutritional adequacy, and environmental footprints: a cross-sectional study in Turkish adults.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe EAT-Lancet planetary health diet (PHD) has been designed to benefit both human and planetary health, but questions remain regarding its nutritional adequacy.
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the nutritional adequacy of the PHD by evaluating diets in the United Kingdom (UK) population and comparing the PHD with the Mediterranean diet.
methodsDietary data from participants aged ≥15 y from the nationally representative, serial, cross-sectional UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008-2019) who completed 4-d food diaries (n = 9671) were analyzed. Nutritional biomarkers were available in a subset (n = 4622). Alignment with the PHD was assessed based on consumption of 14-food components (PHD score range 0-140). Analyses were age-stratified and adjusted for sociodemographic, behavioral, and anthropometric factors.
resultsAt the national level, some nutrient intakes were inadequate: for example, ∼50% of the population showed inadequate intakes for iron, zinc, and calcium. The population mean ± standard deviation PHD score was 75.8 ± 13.9 points. Higher alignment with the PHD was associated with a greater likelihood of nutritional adequacy for various nutrients. Positive associations were observed for most vitamins and minerals, with adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) per 20-point higher PHD score of 2.40 (2.10, 2.76) for iron, 1.26 (1.13, 1.42) for zinc, 1.81 (1.60, 2.04) for calcium, and 3.35 (2.17, 5.16) for vitamin D. No overall association with the PHD was seen for vitamin B12 [0.80 (0.59,1.08)] intake. Either positive or no associations were found between PHD score and nutritional biomarkers. These findings did not differ materially by subgroup or when compared with a Mediterranean-type diet for selected nutrients of concern and their biomarkers.
conclusionsNutritional adequacy was either better or unchanged with greater alignment to the PHD, suggesting that the PHD is unlikely to present concerns of nutritional inadequacy at the population level in the UK.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.