Evidence Hub

Plant-based meat analogues (PBMAs) and their effects on cardiometabolic health: An 8-week randomized controlled trial comparing PBMAs with their corresponding animal-based foods

Darel Wee Kiat Toh, Amanda Simin Fu, Kervyn Ajay Mehta, Nicole Yi Lin Lam, S. Haldar, Christiani Jeyakumar Henry

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2024

89 participants · 29 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

With the growing popularity of plant-based meat analogues (PBMAs), an examination of their effects on health is warranted in an Asian population.

OBJECTIVE

This research investigated the impact of consuming an omnivorous animal-based meat diet (ABMD) compared to a PBMAs diet (PBMD) on cardiometabolic health among adults with elevated risk of diabetes in Singapore.

METHODS

In an 8-week parallel design randomized controlled trial, participants (n=89) were instructed to substitute habitual protein-rich foods with fixed quantities of either PBMAs (n=44) or their corresponding animal-based meats (n=45; 2.5 servings daily) maintaining intake of other dietary components. LDL-cholesterol served as primary outcome, while secondary outcomes included other cardiometabolic disease-related risk factors (e.g. glucose, fructosamine), dietary data, and within a sub-population, ambulatory blood pressure measurements (n=40) at baseline and post-intervention, as well as a 14-day continuous glucose monitor (glucose homeostasis-related outcomes; n=37).

RESULTS

Data from 82 participants (ABMD:42, PBMD:40) were examined. Using linear mixed-effects model, there were significant interaction (time × treatment) effects for dietary trans-fat (increased in ABMD), dietary fiber, sodium and potassium (all increased in PBMD; PInteraction<0.001). There were no significant effects on the lipoprotein profile, including LDL-cholesterol. Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was lower in the PBMD group…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 89 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free