A plant-based diet and animal protein: questioning dietary fat and considering animal protein as the main cause of heart disease

Comparative analysis of high-fat diets: Effects of mutton, beef, and vegetable fats on body weight, biochemical profiles, and liver histology in mice

Background

High-fat diets are associated with metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular diseases, and liver disorders. Beef and mutton, both widely consumed meats, are significant sources of animal fat, while soybean oil, a commonly used cooking oil, is a prominent source of plant-derived fat. This study aimed to compare the effects of regular consumption of beef fat, mutton fat, and soybean oil in mice to assess potential health risks.

Methods

Sixty Swiss albino male mice were divided into four groups: a control group (Group A) fed a standard mice pellet, and three treatment groups (Groups B, C, D) receiving 10 % dietary fat from mutton, beef, and soybean oil, respectively. Parameters such as body weight, caloric intake, serum markers, and liver histopathology were studied.

Results

Consumption of mutton fat, beef fat, or soybean oil supplemented diet in groups B, C, and D led to higher caloric intake and body weight compared to control group A, which received a standard diet. These diets also caused elevated serum glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, and increased triglycerides, cholesterol, LDL-C, and reduced HDL-C. Elevated AST and ALT levels in the high-fat diet groups, indicated liver damage and fat accumulation. Histological analysis confirmed steatosis, hepatocyte ballooning, and inflammation in all three high-fat diet groups, while the control group had normal liver histology.

Conclusion

High-fat diets, whether plant- or animal-based, led to weight gain in mice and resulted, poor glucose tolerance, dyslipidemia, liver damage and steatohepatitis. Further research is needed to explore the mechanisms behind these effects and improve understanding and management of high-fat diet consequences.

Life cycle assessment of animal-based foods and plant-based protein-rich alternatives: a socio-economic perspective

BACKGROUND

Extensive research shows that replacing animal protein with plant-based protein in the diet would strongly alleviate the environmental impact of the food system. However, much less attention has been given to the socio-economic considerations of dietary transitions. This study analyses the socio-economic performance of innovative legume-based food prototypes, developed in the Protein2Food research project, and conventional animal-based products (chicken meat and dairy milk). We implement a social life cycle assessment (sLCA) to quantify and compare their potential socio-economic impacts along the entire life cycle.

RESULTS

Findings from this analysis show that legume-based prototypes and their respective animal-based counterparts have, overall, a comparable socio-economic performance. Looking at the disaggregated life cycle stages, socio-economic hotspots (points of most negative impacts) were mainly identified at the production stage in legume-based products. Farm-level net margin and profitability are low when compared with their animal equivalents. However, at the processing stage, there are socio-economic gains for plant-based products regarding lower unemployment rates. Finally, at the consumption stage, there are mixed results. Plant-based products show worse protein affordability but better nutritional contents (lower saturated fat and cholesterol) than their animal counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve socio-economic performance of legume-based foods, greater emphasis should be placed upon developing improved processing technologies and supply chains. This would broaden the supply of sustainable protein-rich food options and make these products more economically attractive. The research illustrates that policies should be targeted to the different stages of the food value chain to optimize the development of innovative plant-based foods. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

The Impact of Both Individual and Contextual Factors on the Acceptance of Personalized Dietary Advice

(1) Background: The aim of the current study is to investigate which between- and within-person factors influence the acceptance of personalized dietary advice. (2) Methods: A repeated measurements design was used in which 343 participants (M (SD) age = 48 (17.3), 49% female) filled out a baseline survey and started with nine repeated surveys. (3) Results: The results show that the acceptance of personalized dietary advice is influenced by both within-person and between-person factors. The acceptance is higher at lunch compared to breakfast and dinner, higher at home than out of home, higher at moments when individuals have a high intention to eat healthily, find weight control an important food choice motive and have a high healthy-eating self-efficacy. Moreover, the acceptance is higher when individuals do not see the eating context as a barrier and when individuals believe that personalized dietary advice has more benefits than risks. (4) Conclusions: Future behavioral interventions that use personalized dietary advice should consider the context as well as individual differences.

The Dismal State of Federal Funding for Experimental Evaluations of Interventions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The threats of climate change to human well-being are well-documented and are growing in number and intensity. Despite the international community investing heavily in technological innovation and policy initiatives to solve the problem, emissions continue to rise. Experts are recognizing that eliminating emissions cannot be achieved without modifying the human behavior of which emissions are a function. However, little attention has been allocated to expanding the use of strategies developed by the behavioral-science community to reduce emissions on large scales. One possible reason is that federal funding has not been arranged to select such research. Therefore, we conducted an analysis of six sources of information about federal funding to fight climate change (the Government Accountability Office, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and the Center for Disease Control) and examined the extent to which they are funding behavioral science research to reduce emissions. Our results show an appalling lack of funding for behavioral science research to reduce emissions, especially experimental evaluations of strategies for reducing them. Implications and recommendations for funding of future research are discussed.

Genomic analysis of diet composition finds novel loci and associations with health and lifestyle

We conducted genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of relative intake from the macronutrients fat, protein, carbohydrates, and sugar in over 235,000 individuals of European ancestries. We identified 21 unique, approximately independent lead SNPs. Fourteen lead SNPs are uniquely associated with one macronutrient at genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10^-8), while five of the 21 lead SNPs reach suggestive significance (P < 1 × 10^-5) for at least one other macronutrient. While the phenotypes are genetically correlated, each phenotype carries a partially unique genetic architecture. Relative protein intake exhibits the strongest relationships with poor health, including positive genetic associations with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease (r_g ≈ 0.15-0.5). In contrast, relative carbohydrate and sugar intake have negative genetic correlations with waist circumference, waist-hip ratio, and neighborhood deprivation (|r_g| ≈ 0.1-0.3) and positive genetic correlations with physical activity (r_g ≈ 0.1 and 0.2). Relative fat intake has no consistent pattern of genetic correlations with poor health but has a negative genetic correlation with educational attainment (r_g ≈-0.1). Although our analyses do not allow us to draw causal conclusions, we find no evidence of negative health consequences associated with relative carbohydrate, sugar, or fat intake. However, our results are consistent with the hypothesis that relative protein intake plays a role in the etiology of metabolic dysfunction.

Protein Quantity and Source, Fasting-Mimicking Diets, and Longevity

Dietary modifications, including caloric restriction, dietary restriction, various intervals of fasting, and even limiting the time when food is consumed can have a pronounced impact on longevity. In addition, dietary modifications are powerful interventions to delay, prevent, or treat many aging-related diseases such as cancer and diabetes. Restricting amino acid and protein intake generally decreases aging-related comorbidities and thereby increases health and longevity. However, chronic dietary interventions are likely not feasible for most people due to low adherence to dietary protocols or resistance to drastic changes to lifestyle, and might even cause detrimental effects, possibly by negatively affecting the immune system and wound healing. The periodic use of low-protein, low-calorie fasting-mimicking diets (FMDs) has the potential to promote health benefits, while minimizing the burden of chronic restriction. Protein restriction and FMDs together have the potential to play an important complementary role in medicine by promoting disease prevention and treatment, and by delaying the aging process at least in part by stimulating stem cell-based regeneration in periods of normal food intake after periodic FMD cycles. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize research on the impact of protein restriction on health and longevity in model organisms and to discuss the implementation of an FMD in mice and in human clinical trials and its effects on biomarkers of healthy aging. Taking into account the importance of sex on aging and diet, we include this information in all discussed studies. Whereas for some model organisms of aging, such as rodents, many studies are available, results are more limited for primates and/or humans.

Cancer Prevention and Treatment by Wholistic Nutrition

Cancer is traditionally considered a genetic disease. It starts with a gene mutation, often caused by environmental carcinogens that are enzymatically activated to metabolites that covalently bind to DNA. If these now-damaged carcinogen-DNA adducts are not repaired before the cell replicates, they result in a mutation, which is inherited by daughter cells and their subsequent progeny. Still more mutations are added that are thought to advance cellular independence, metastasis, and drug resistance, among other characteristics typically observed for advanced cancer. The stages of initiation, promotion and progression of cancer by mutations infer irreversibility because back mutations are exceedingly rare. Thus, treatment protocols typically are designed to remove or kill cancer cells by surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy and/or radiotherapy. However, empirical evidence has existed to show a fundamentally different treatment option. For example, the promotion of cancer growth and development in laboratory animals initiated by a powerful mutagen/carcinogen can be repetitively turned on and off by non-mutagenic mechanisms, even completely, by modifying the consumption of protein at relevant levels of intake. Similar but less substantiated evidence also exists for other nutrients and other cancer types. This suggests that ultimate cancer development is primarily a nutrition-responsive disease rather than a genetic disease, with the understanding that nutrition is a comprehensive, wholistic biological effect that reflects the natural contents of nutrients and related substances in whole, intact food. This perspective sharply contrasts with the contemporary inference that nutrition is the summation of individual nutrients acting independently. The spelling of 'holism' with the 'w' is meant to emphasize the empirical basis for this function. The proposition that wholistic nutrition controls and even reverses disease development suggests that cancer may be treated by nutritional intervention.