karppaus.info

So far, looking at the evidence-base we know that:

Choline is a critical nutrient needed for neurocognition, lipid metabolism, liver function and homocysteine regulation.

The majority of Europeans, American, Canadian and Australian populations are not meeting choline AI recommendations.

Eggs, milk and meat appear to be major dietary providers and further movements away from the consumption of these could have unintended consequences for choline intake/status.

Perspective: Vegan Diets for Older Adults? A Perspective On the Potential Impact On Muscle Mass and Strength
Jacintha Domić et al. Adv Nutr. 2022.


Abstract

Consumers are increasingly encouraged to consume more plant-based foods and lower their consumption of foods from animal origin. Concurrently, older adults are recommended to consume an adequate amount of high-quality dietary protein for the prevention of age-related muscle loss. In the current perspective, we discuss why it may not be preferred to consume a vegan diet at an older age. Our perspective is based on the proposed lower bioavailability and functionality of proteins in a vegan diet due to the matrix of the whole-food protein sources, the lower essential amino acid (EAA) content, and specific EAA deficiencies in proteins derived from plant-based foods. We propose that a vegan diet increases the risk of an inadequate protein intake at an older age and that current strategies to improve the anabolic properties of plant-based foods are not feasible for many older adults. We provide recommendations for further research to substantiate the remaining knowledge gaps regarding the consequences of a vegan diet on skeletal muscle mass and strength at an older age.

But if your question is whether there's evidence to show EAT lancet is healthy from any data source, the answer is: very little, almost no trial data and lots of data to the contrary showing that the diet lacks basic essential nutrients

Estimated micronutrient shortfalls of the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet

Abstract

Unhealthy diets are a major contributor to the global burden of disease, and food systems cause substantial environmental destruction. To lay out how to achieve healthy diets for all, within planetary boundaries, the landmark EAT-Lancet Commission proposed the planetary health diet, which includes a range of possible intakes by food group and substantially restricts the intake of highly processed foods and animal source foods globally. However, concerns have been raised about the extent to which the diet provides adequate essential micronutrients, particularly those generally found in higher quantities and in more bioavailable forms in animal source foods. To address these concerns, we matched each food group point estimate within the respective range with globally representative food composition data. We then compared the resulting dietary nutrient intakes with globally harmonised recommended nutrient intakes for adults and women of reproductive age for six micronutrients that are globally scarce. To fill the dietary gaps that were estimated for vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and zinc, we suggest modifications to the original planetary health diet to achieve micronutrient adequacy (without fortification or supplementation) for adults, which included increasing the proportion of animal source foods and reducing foods high in phytate.

The plant-based diet is driven by corporate, ideological & other interests. NOT in the interest of the public health. We humans require basic essential nutrients that simply aren't provided by this type ef diet. Not just our health but successful reproduction.

Published: 27 July 2023
Risk of hip fracture in meat-eaters, pescatarians, and vegetarians: a prospective cohort study of 413,914 UK Biobank participants

James Webster, Darren C. Greenwood & Janet E. Cade
BMC Medicine volume 21, Article number: 278 (2023) Cite this article


Abstract
Background
Meat-free diets may be associated with a higher risk of hip fracture, but prospective evidence is limited. We aimed to investigate the risk of hip fracture in occasional meat-eaters, pescatarians, and vegetarians compared to regular meat-eaters in the UK Biobank, and to explore the role of potential mediators of any observed risk differences.

Methods
Middle-aged UK adults were classified as regular meat-eaters (n = 258,765), occasional meat-eaters (n = 137,954), pescatarians (n = 9557), or vegetarians (n = 7638) based on dietary and lifestyle information at recruitment (2006–2010). Incident hip fractures were identified by record linkage to Hospital Episode Statistics up to September 2021. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to estimate associations between each diet group and hip fracture risk, with regular meat-eaters as the reference group, over a median follow-up time of 12.5 years.

Results
Among 413,914 women, 3503 hip fractures were observed. After adjustment for confounders, vegetarians (HR (95% CI): 1.50 (1.18, 1.91)) but not occasional meat-eaters (0.99 (0.93, 1.07)) or pescatarians (1.08 (0.86, 1.35)) had a greater risk of hip fracture than regular meat-eaters. This is equivalent to an adjusted absolute risk difference of 3.2 (1.2, 5. more hip fractures per 1000 people over 10 years in vegetarians. There was limited evidence of effect modification by BMI on hip fracture risk across diet groups (pinteraction = 0.08), and no clear evidence of effect modification by age or sex (pinteraction = 0.9 and 0.3, respectively). Mediation analyses suggest that BMI explained 28% of the observed risk difference between vegetarians and regular meat-eaters (95% CI: 1.1%, 69.8%).

Discussion
Vegetarian men and women had a higher risk of hip fracture than regular meat-eaters, and this was partly explained by their lower BMI. Ensuring adequate nutrient intake and weight management are therefore particularly important in vegetarians in the context of hip fracture prevention.

Abstract

Contemporary views on meat reflect an ambiguous status of appreciation and rejection, especially in the urbanised West, and tend to come with strong moral overtones. The portrayal of (red) meat as an intrinsically harmful food choice by certain academics, non-governmental organisations, mass media, and public-private partnerships contributes to this tension. Although most of these voices are merely calling for a moderation of the consumption of meat in areas with high intake, others are radical and demand a drastic reduction or even elimination, as will be documented in this article. Some scientists are beginning to articulate their concern about an ongoing trend towards unbalanced communications and anti-meat militancy in both academic and policy circles. The perceived threat is not only that the vilification of meat may add to the ongoing moralisation of dietary choices and societal polarisation, but also that it may further undermine an already precarious situation of public health and a fragile food system, especially (but not only) in the Global South. Minimising livestock may also come with unintended harmful effects on ecosystems and livelihoods. The ‘Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock’, issued in October 2022, exemplifies such concern. Together with the body of evidence to which it refers, the Dublin Declaration is to be read as a petition for pragmatism, demanding sufficiently high standards of evidence, and more respect for the principle of caution when it comes to policies that have the intention to severely challenge the role of meat and other animal source foods in future diets.

HIGHLIGHTS
-There is an ongoing trend towards unbalanced communications and anti-meat militancy in media and academic and policy circles

-Minimising livestock beyond a critical threshold may come with unintended harmful effects on nutrient security, ecosystems, and livelihoods

-The ‘Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock’ serves as petition for pragmatism, caution, and evidence-based policies

Why would we stop eating meat to be healthier, save the planet or be better people? Is no one paying attention to the science? Meat heals people and doesn't cause heart disease or colon cancer & Cattle can regenerate soil & correct carbon emissions better than we can

Pohjoismaiset ravitsemussuositukset uudistuivat vuoden 2023 kesällä. Niiden pohjalta rakennetaan parhaillaan kansallisia ravitsemussuosituksia.