Vegetable protein wins the game

In the supermarket hall, more and more containers shout the same: “High in protein”. Powdered beaters, fortified yogurts, breads, even sauces. For decades, the council was simple: replace red meat with chicken or fish. Today, the mantra has changed. “Protein” has become advertising claim, cultural identity and even aesthetic aspiration. But, while the market is filled with promises, science begins to clarify another part of the story: what proteins do they really matter, how they are processed and what cost they have for the planet.

Eat “on the planet”. An investigation, Posted in Science Advanceshas gathered 37 studies in a meta -analysis with more than 3.2 million people. The verdict is striking: the more your dish looks like the “planetary health diet” (Planetary Health Diet, PhD), the lower your risk of dying for any cause, and at the same time the climatic footprint of your diet decreases. With nuances, yes, but with an unusual statistical consistency in nutrition.

The study. The team combined data from two mass cohorts: Nhanes in the United States (42,947 adults) and the UK Biobank in the United Kingdom (125,372 people). In addition, to integrate meta -analysis. The objective was to see to what extent the adhesion to the PHD influenced both the health and the environmental impact of the diet.

The Planetary Health Diet was proposed in 2019 By the Eat-Lancet Commission. This diet is not based on being strict vegetarian, rather, seeks to balance health with environmental sustainability with a more based on plants. In other words: it is a diet designed so that the human being lives more, but also so that the planet can sustain it.

The results were clear. On the one hand, in the United States, who followed more closely the PHD had 23% less risk of total mortality. On the other hand, in the United Kingdom, the reduction was 16%, in addition to fewer cancer deaths and respiratory diseases.

Metanalysis pointed in the same direction: together, the PHD was associated with 21% less mortality due to any cause: cardiovascular, diabetes and colon and lung cancer. In addition, the researchers estimated the greenhouse gas emissions associated with diets and found a consistent pattern: the more the PHD participants moved away, the greater the climate footprint of their diet. The main responsible: red meat and dairy.

Behind the study. The attractiveness of the study is double. On the one hand, he confirms with robust observational evidence that those who follow the PHD live more and better: less cancer, less heart attacks, less diabetes. On the other, it shows that this same pattern reduces the carbon footprint from the daily diet. A difficult combination to ignore in full climatic crisis.

The authors themselves ask for caution: it is an observational study and not proof causality. In other words, it does not show that eating in a way directly live more years. Even so, the consistency of the results in millions of people and the scale of meta -analysis give it an unusual weight in nutrition and suggest that the signal is no accident.

To the same place. Other investigations were already on the same way to move the animal protein through the vegetable, since it can bring health benefits and, incidentally, for the planet. As we have pointed out in Xataka, For decades the council was to replace red meat with chicken or fish. However, the balance begins to bow towards the vegetable.

A study in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed that women with more rich diets in vegetable protein aged in a healthier way. And from another angle, the American Gut Project reached a similar conclusion: diversity matters. Their data revealed that those who added up to 30 plants other than week had a much richer intestinal microbiome. In other words: both in longevity and in intestinal health, patterns based on plants add tests in favor of what now confirms the meta -analysis in Science Advances.

Not everything is black or white. Animal protein provides essential amino acids of easier absorption. Sports dietitian Marie Spano, cited by Men’s Healthwarns that those who follow 100% vegetable diets need more total protein and combine different groups. And the degree of processing matters: As explained the epidemiologist Filippa Juul al New York Timesthe ultraprocesses “disguised” as healthy – booked, vegetable lasañas ready to heat – do not offer the same benefits as minimally processed foods.

The Mediterranean diet, a nearby mirror. The debate is not just Anglo -Saxon. As we have explained in Xatakaa Spanish study with cohort data Enrica (11,488 people, 14.4 years of follow -up) showed that both the phd and the traditional Mediterranean diet offer similar benefits. Mortality was reduced by 22% in those who followed the PHD most and in 21% in the most faithful to the Mediterranean.

Regarding the environmental impact, the differences were minimal: 4.15 kg of CO₂ a day for the pHD compared to 4.36 for the Mediterranean. In other words, both seem to offer a viable path to a healthier and sustainable food.

It is not just calories or nutrients. Now it is also measured in years of life and in kilograms of Co₂. The new study in Science Advances confirms that the Planetary Health Diet offers benefits on both fronts: more health, less environmental impact.

While the market promotes the “chic protein era” and social networks dictate extreme fashions, scientific evidence suggests a simpler message: more plants, less ultra -processed, meat as accompaniment and not as the center of the dish. The question is no longer how much protein we eat, but from what sources it comes and what footprint leaves in the world.

Image | Unspash

Xataka | To the question of whether ultraprocessed foods are as bad as they have told us, science still has no clear answer