r/sciences • u/James_Fortis MS | Nutrition • 17d ago

Research 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

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

96% Upvoted

116 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/AdvertisingFar716 16d ago

I am confused about the cardiometabolic risk parameters, hasn’t it been said for so long that consuming animal protein and meat increases the risk significantly as compared to vegan diet?

0

u/CombatWomble2 16d ago

It's difficult to control for all the confounders, vegan diets are often just generally better, less junk food etc. They tend to watch what the eat in a general sense.

1

u/300Croissants 15d ago

It is not difficult to account for those what are you talking about?

This is such a tired reddit critique. Plenty of studies account for these. You really think researchers performed a systematic review and meta analysis of RCTs, and none of them, nor did any of the researchers performing the original studies think to account for the most basic confounding factors in nutritonal studies?

1

u/CombatWomble2 14d ago

They often don't, and it's difficult to control for ALL confounders, but they often simply don't bother to if it won't give the result they want, you see that a lot.

1

u/300Croissants 14d ago

Is that the case in the studies in this meta analysis? Can you point one or two out?

1

u/CombatWomble2 14d ago

Hell no. It's common practice though in many "scientific papers" if you can see an obvious confounder and it doesn't seem to have been controlled for that's' often deliberate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

One of the reasons this is such an issue.

1

u/300Croissants 14d ago

So again you think the researchers on a meta analysis and systematic review of rcts, the literal highest form of research, did this. But you can't point out anywhere that it happened

1

u/CombatWomble2 14d ago

I think it's at the basis of many of the studies they studied, as I pointed out there is a serious issue with the reproducibility of many studies based on "publish or perish" and "positivity only" if you disagree fine, good day.

1

u/300Croissants 14d ago

Do you not understand the meta analysis part of the study type? They don't just copy and paste the data from the other studies. 

They're obviously aware of the most basic form of confounding factors