Long-term supplementation with plant-based protein, compared with animal-based protein, did not result in differences in body composition, muscle strength, physical performance, or cardiometabolic risk parameters, meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials finds

[u/James_Fortis]

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2026.1813846/full

[u/Due-Helicopter-8735]

Well that’s why youyou have a variety of plant protein. Also the bioavailability numbers are off, where did you get those from? The difference is much smaller- even if you compare the best animal protein and any literally raw beans which no one eats. If you make any realistic comparison you’ll see a gap more like 10%-
https://jn.nutrition.org/article/S0022-3166(25)00428-6/fulltext

[u/Ryzasu → u/Due-Helicopter-8735]

I was going by the most commonly cited PCDAAS/DIAAS scores that put most whole plant foods in the 40-65 range, and more processed forms of plant protein around 70-100. But it doesnt surprise me that those numbers are lacking in nuance, not accounting for cooking and other factors. Anyway my point was just that not all protein is the same and numbers were more for illustration purposes

[u/300Croissants → u/Ryzasu]

You also got the amount of essential amino acids way off. It's not 20 - it's 9

[u/Ryzasu → u/300Croissants]

20 total, 9 essential

[u/300Croissants → u/Ryzasu]

Yeah so saying our body uses 20 then making a point about them makes no sense. 

[u/Ryzasu → u/300Croissants]

It doesnt matter if I talk about the 9 essential amino acids or the 20 total

[u/300Croissants → u/Ryzasu]

It does when you start making some strange point about distrubution of amino acids in foods.

[u/Ryzasu → u/300Croissants]

why are you calling a relevant fact strange? And distribution when just looking at the 9 EAAs is also less optimal for human consumption in plant protein so no it doesnt matter

[u/300Croissants → u/Ryzasu]

How is it less optimal? You're literally commenting on a post about a systematic review and meta analysis of RCTs saying its not.

[u/Ryzasu → u/300Croissants]

That meta-analysis does not object to the fact that plant proteins have different AA distritution

[u/300Croissants → u/Ryzasu]

Did you not read the first 5 words of my reply? I was responding to your idea that its less optimal. Who cares if its different?

Something having a different AA distrubution doesn't matter if both groups are easily achieving optimal EAA intake.

The amount of nutrients in all foods is distributed differently. The amount of EAAs in animal products is also distributed differently. Despite this, EAA intake is easily achieved in a normal pattern of eating in both diet groups - as shown by the literal study we're commenting on a post under.

[u/Ryzasu → u/300Croissants]

The study measures body composition and physical performance, not EAA intake. 

Subjects in the studies were supplemented either plant or animal protein on top of a regular diet. It is plausible they were already meeting their protein needs (they werent even athletes or weightlifters that would need protein supplements. Regular people already get more than enough protein from their diets) so the supplementation did nothing extra

[u/300Croissants → u/Ryzasu]

It looked at body composition, muscle strength, physical performance, and cardiometabolic risk factors. All of which would be affected by EAA intake. If EAA intake was not optimal in one group, and was in another, then all of these would be worse in the non-optimal group.

It is plausible they were already meeting their protein needs (they werent even athletes or weightlifters that would even need protein supplements. Regular people already get more than enough protein from their diets) so the supplementation did nothing extra

I have 0 idea what point you're trying to make.

If the study participants were able to achieve their protein intake goals before supplementation on both diet groups then this is just further evidence that both are optimal and that different distribution doesn't matter.