4 ms·

> Edit: Reading the full paper itself, it seems to be the case. They explicitly add "excluding the use of nutritional supplements or fortified foods." - very si

> Edit: Reading the full paper itself, it seems to be the case. They explicitly add "excluding the use of nutritional supplements or fortified foods." - very silly and misleading. It is neither: they were trying to control variables. The question is: if someone wanted to reduce/eliminate animal-based protein sources, how far could one go? Most people 'just want to eat' and not worry all the chemicals in food and their levels. If moving away from animal protein is going to be recommended to people (for health, ethical, environmental, etc, reasons), how far is it possible to go before having to tell people to take supplements. From the study: > Our results therefore imply that moving towards diets with lower animal protein contributions or to a fully vegan diet as the ones included within the range of diets recommended by the Eat Lancet commission (21) would necessarily require food fortification and/or nutrient supplementation to cover adult nutritional requirements. The minimum percentages of animal proteins found in the present study to being compatible with nutrient adequacy in the different subpopulations considered can be compared to those obtained in two recent studies focused on designing sustainable diets for French adults from the Nutrinet-Santé cohort (24) and for older Dutch adults from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam cohort (25), respectively. Per the study, currently about (on average) 70% of protein is animal-based; depending on the demographic, that can be reduced to 45-60%.

inglor 4y ago
You are quoting the discussion part I was quoting - which is the point I was trying to make. Their conclusion there is on-par with existing scientific consensus and nothing new. The silly part was the misleading title/abstract - the reason I was pointing to the (obvious and well established) conclusion of "people who don't eat meat need to supplement their diet with fortified foods or pills" is the claim "Approximately Half of Total Protein Intake by Adults Must Be Animal-Based".

inglor 4y ago

You are quoting the discussion part I was quoting - which is the point I was trying to make. Their conclusion there is on-par with existing scientific consensus and nothing new. The silly part was the misleading title/abstract - the reason I was pointing to the (obvious and well established) conclusion of "people who don't eat meat need to supplement their diet with fortified foods or pills" is the claim "Approximately Half of Total Protein Intake by Adults Must Be Animal-Based".