ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Dietary guidance on plant-based meat alternatives for individuals wanting to increase plant protein intake.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultra-processed food intake and its nutritional consequences among youth when consuming vegan, lacto-ovo-vegetarian, pescatarian or omnivore diets: a cross-sectional study.Nutrition journal · 2026Article
- Rationale and design of a parallel randomised trial of a plant-based intensive lifestyle intervention for diabetes remission: The REmission of diabetes using a PlAnt-based weight loss InteRvention (REPAIR) trial.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Content and face validity of a food frequency questionnaire for the assessment of ultra-processed food consumption in the Italian adult population: a pilot study.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A new generation of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) has entered the mainstream. These products contain concentrated sources of plant protein and are formulated to mimic the taste and texture of their meat-based counterparts, especially red meat. The increased availability of these products coincides with calls from health agencies to increase the dietary plant-to-animal protein ratio for health and environmental reasons. The role of PBMAs in achieving the goal of consuming more plant protein may be particularly important since consumption of whole plant foods, such as legumes, which includes pulses (e.g., beans, peas and lentils), is unlikely to increase without major public policy initiatives. Nevertheless, there is debate about the healthfulness of PBMAs and about whether the benefits associated with traditional plant-based diets emphasizing whole plant foods apply to PBMAs. These products are heavily processed, often high in sodium, and contain lower levels of compounds (e.g., fiber, resistant starch, polyphenols) typically associated with the benefits of plant-based diets. On the other hand, PBMAs are excellent sources of protein, and many are fortified with nutrients of concern in plant-based diets. Collectively, the evidence suggests that while they may not provide all the benefits of whole legumes, PBMAs have health and environmental advantages over comparable animal-derived foods. For most individuals, a daily serving of a PBMA fits well within the context of an overall healthy diet. Higher intakes may also be compatible with healthy eating, especially for those whose protein and/or calorie needs are increased.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.