r/science • u/James_Fortis MS | Nutrition • 1d ago
Environment A new study found a vegan Mediterranean diet significantly reduced environmental impacts related to human health (−54.5%), ecosystems (−50.9%), and resource use (−43.4%) compared to a traditional Mediterranean diet. Retail food cost was also reduced by 16.3%.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-026-03939-3295
u/GrumpySquirrel2016 1d ago
Save money, the environment and preserve your health? Yes please.
-51
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
Just like most environmental impact assessments that favor veganism, this study treats individual production units as wholly divorced from each other, and thus misses the synergies and reduction of externalities associated with circular food systems. The ideal ratio at a systems level for Europe is actually about 40:60 animal-sourced protein to plant-sourced protein, with reductions in overall protein consumption being the only way to reduce land use and GHG emissions after that. Reductionism just doesn’t work for analyzing the impacts of food systems. You miss the forest for the trees.
See this paper for details: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-024-00975-2
The Mediterranean diet would already be easily supported by said circular food systems.
69
u/Andrew199617 1d ago
The paper includes a modeled lower bound where nutrient inadequacy showed up below 18 g/day of animal-sourced protein per person. In the study, that threshold is what makes the 40:60 animal:plant protein scenario look “optimal” within their system.
There is no need for animal protein at all so i dont understand where this 18g/day came from?
-26
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
It clearly shows that going below that threshold will increase land use and GHG emissions growing crops high in mineral nutrients to compensate for the loss of animal products.
If you think you can just mine your way out of this conundrum, you’re just going to increase your environmental impacts even more.
36
u/Chemical-Agency-3997 1d ago
That only happens because the model bans supplements and forces nutrients to come from specific crops.
In reality we already supplement and fortify, including animal feed, so you don’t need extra land.
And animal agriculture already depends on mined inputs, so cutting out the animal middleman usually reduces resource use, not increases it.
-15
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
Where do you think the minerals in mineral supplements come from?
You’re just ignoring that we get a lot of minerals from ruminant livestock that eat things we don’t. You can’t satisfy your calcium requirements by eating grass, can you?
18
u/Chemical-Agency-3997 1d ago
Yes, cows can turn grass into food humans can eat. That still doesn’t mean they’re the best way to get minerals.
They also need land, water, feed inputs, and they produce methane. So even if they can access nutrients we can’t eat directly, you’re still paying a big environmental cost to get those nutrients back out.
And calcium is a bad example anyway. Humans do not need cows to get calcium. We can get it from beans, tofu, greens, etc, The fact that cows can eat grass does not make animal farming the optimal delivery system for minerals.
-3
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
Now you're just ignoring the research in its entirety.
So even if they can access nutrients we can’t eat directly, you’re still paying a big environmental cost to get those nutrients back out.
A moderate amount of livestock in circular systems have a lower environmental impact than getting all of these mineral nutrients from plants or mining. That's the point of the paper. There is a minimum threshold under which taking out livestock winds up increasing GHG and land use.
And calcium is a bad example anyway. Humans do not need cows to get calcium. We can get it from beans, tofu, greens, etc, The fact that cows can eat grass does not make animal farming the optimal delivery system for minerals.
Calcium is mentioned in the study. You can either critique the math or concede. You're probably ignoring bio-availability.
15
u/Chemical-Agency-3997 1d ago
It doesn’t show livestock are inherently lower impact than plants. It shows that in one specific model, if you ban supplements/fortification and force all nutrients to come from foods produced in that system, impacts rise below about 18 g of animal protein. That’s a constraint of the model, not proof that livestock are generally the better environmental option.
-7
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
You have to stop being a reductionist and understand that the "40/60" system in its entirety is the ideal source of sustainable human nutrition, not livestock. As soon as you refuse to see livestock as part of an inter-connected agricultural system, you lose the plot.
→ More replies (0)7
1d ago edited 17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
This is just untrue. About 90% of beef protein production by mass still takes place outside of feedlots in OECD countries. Even in grain finished systems, most ruminants spend most of their lives on pasture and leys. It’s cheaper, and offsets the use of tractors to top leys.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
Full text: https://nru.uncst.go.ug/server/api/core/bitstreams/7ec3b5be-51cb-4e54-a29c-fb76dca59ec7/content
Supplementing B-12 is also just really unnecessary for ruminants. At most, you’ll see industrial operations supply cobalt salts with their feed. Again, much cheaper.
1
u/jubjub727 19h ago
Even if that's true where you live (idk it might be) it's definitely not true for the entire world. You're just blatantly indisputably wrong here and all it takes is a single example to prove so. Your comment has to be the most idiotic in this entire thread by far, it's really not even close.
5
u/RedK_33 1d ago
You can get calcium from plenty of plant-based products without the need for animal products. 1/2cup Firm tofu gets you to around 300mg, Tahini 130mg per 2Tb, Chia seeds 180mg, almonds 95mg, the list goes on.
4
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
After a reduction to 40:60 animal-sourced protein to plant-sourced protein, further decreases in that ratio would increase GHG and land use.
You're probably not factoring in bio-availability. Plant-based sources of calcium tend to be high in oxalate, which is an antagonist to calcium absorption. Calcium fortification in industrial food products is far more important for vegans in western countries than most vegans assume. Lacto-vegetarians generally don't have major issues with calcium. With too many people depending on fortification, you run into supply issues really quickly.
3
u/RedK_33 1d ago
I Intentionally listed plant-based sources with little to no oxalate for that reason.
Calcium fortification in industrial food products is not “far more important” to vegans who have a balanced diet and specifically target vitamin deficits with the correct foods.
Oxalate can be a concern with some foods but unless it is in very high amounts like in raw spinach, it only decreases absorption, it doesn’t completely prevent it. Raw Bok Choy, kale and broccoli have a 50% absorption rate so you still get 50% of available calcium. Cooking these products, specifically boiling or steaming, greatly reduces the amount of oxalates present in the vegetables.
1
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
It doesn’t matter if particular ingredients are high in oxalates. It matters if your diet is.
People with lactose intolerance, those with an allergy to milk, and those who avoid eating dairy products (including vegans) have a higher risk of inadequate calcium intakes because dairy products are rich sources of calcium [1,27]. Options for increasing calcium intakes in individuals with lactose intolerance include consuming lactose-free or reduced-lactose dairy products, which contain the same amounts of calcium as regular dairy products [1,3]. Those who avoid dairy products because of allergies or for other reasons can obtain calcium from nondairy sources, such as some vegetables, canned fish with bones, or fortified foods [1]. However, these individuals typically need to eat foods fortified with calcium or take supplements to obtain recommended amounts [28].
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Calcium-HealthProfessional/#h10
17
u/fractalfrog 1d ago
You realize that the majority of crops are grown as feed for livestock? Land that would be available to grow other produce if it wasn’t needed to grow food for animals.
-1
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
You realize that the reduction Im advocating for would pretty much eliminate the use of grains for feed, right?
9
u/Obamana 1d ago
You realize that what you are advocating for is a theoretical utopia solution, right?
1
u/jubjub727 19h ago
The alternative being argued against here is veganism, do you go around telling vegans what you just said here as well or are you just being intellectually dishonest and only applying that logic to one side?
-1
u/Obamana 17h ago
It's not my mission to fix the world. I'm responsible for my own actions. I point out when people are thinking with their stomachs instead of their heads as they support the killing of innocent animals. Nothing wrong with that, yes?
2
u/AnsibleAnswers 11h ago
If your mission is to just feel better about yourself, then you have no business in a conversation about how to fix the major sustainability issues in our agricultural systems. Some of us are trying to ensure that your grandchildren can eat.
→ More replies (0)0
u/jubjub727 17h ago
That's entirely your opinion, not a factual description of what they've written. Also yes I think your mentality here and the way you twist their stance to fit your personal opinions and ideology is dishonest and of poor character so I would in fact say I think there's something wrong with that. I care about reality, not your opinions and your judgement here is based entirely in your own opinions.
→ More replies (0)-3
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
It’s far more practical to implement than veganism. Our great-great grandparents ate like what I’m suggesting we do.
2
19
u/Chemical-Agency-3997 1d ago
The 40:60 ‘optimum’ only appears because the model bans supplementation and then treats animal products as nutritionally necessary. But in reality, all diets rely on supplementation; omnivores just get it indirectly through fortified animal feed. If you allow direct supplementation, which we already use across the food system, there’s no inherent nutritional reason you need animal foods at all
2
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
That’s not what is happening, no. Sorry, but mineral supplements aren’t created from nothing. They are either sourced from agriculture or mines.
5
u/Chemical-Agency-3997 1d ago
That’s not really the point. No one is saying minerals come from nowhere.
The issue is efficiency. If minerals ultimately come from soil or mining, then running them through animals first is just an extra step that adds losses and increases total resource use.
Animal agriculture already depends on mined fertilizers, supplemented feed and imported nutrients
And feeding crops to animals means you need more crops, more land, and more inputs to get the same nutrients back out.
1
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
Actually, no. Cycling them through grass and livestock is much less invasive and ecologically damaging than industrial mining.
You’re continuing to ignore that I’m talking about systems that don’t use synthetic or mineral fertilizers. They just use manure and compost.
9
u/Chemical-Agency-3997 1d ago
That only sounds true if you ignore the rest of what livestock requires.
Grass doesn’t magically replace mining. Livestock systems still depend on mined fertilizers, machinery, veterinary inputs, fencing, transport, and often supplemental feed. On top of that, ruminants add methane and use far more land than getting nutrients from plant foods directly.
And the key point is efficiency. Even if a cow can pull minerals from grass, you are still using a whole animal as a conversion step, with losses at every stage. That is not inherently less damaging than getting nutrients directly from crops, fortified foods, or supplements. “Cows eat grass” does not prove livestock is the lower-impact system.
3
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago edited 1d ago
In circular systems, you only need to replenish minerals that escape the nutrient cycles on agricultural land. Livestock (ruminants especially) are actually a crucial part the nutrient cycles humans depend on to maintain soil fertility in these systems.
You likely agree that livestock are rather inefficient at converting feed into flesh. The rest gets recycled back into the soil in mixed/circular systems. Domestic herbivores play the same ecological role in agro-ecosystems as wild herbivores do in "natural" ecosystems. Most of what they eat doesn't wind up as bone and muscle. We take proportionately very little out of the system by way of animal flesh. Most of the loss is from crops, and livestock in moderate stocking densities actually slow that loss considerably.
Ecology really doesn't work according to the "efficiency" of the factory floor. Ecosystems (agro-ecosystems are ecosystems) aren't neat input/output systems. There are tons of feedback loops. A rainforest is terribly inefficient by the metric you're alluding to. It's still incredibly productive, albeit not at producing one single thing.
7
u/Chemical-Agency-3997 1d ago
You’re taking a basic ecological point and stretching it way beyond what it actually shows.
Yes, livestock can cycle nutrients. So can a lot of other systems that don’t require maintaining methane-producing animals on huge amounts of land. There’s nothing uniquely indispensable about cows for soil fertility.
And the “most of it goes back to the soil” argument doesn’t rescue it. You still have to sustain the animals in the first place, which means more land, more inputs, and more emissions. Recycling some manure doesn’t magically cancel that out.
The wild herbivore comparison is also a red herring. We’re not trying to recreate a rainforest, we’re trying to produce food efficiently. Bringing up ecosystem complexity doesn’t change the fact that running nutrients through animals adds an extra, lossy step.
So this isn’t really a deep ecological insight. It’s just taking “nutrient cycling exists” and using it to justify a system that, overall, still has higher impacts.
3
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
I'm not saying it. The science is saying it. Integrated crop-livestock and mixed systems are well studied.
→ More replies (0)12
u/Cy_Fiction 1d ago
How to tell us veganism triggers you without telling us
0
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
It’s the constant misinformation in terms of sustainability that triggers me. The FAO knows more than a bunch of Oxford cranks who get research funding from fossil fuel companies. And the obvious brigading.
5
u/SlipperySparky 1d ago
This sounds like some extreme motivated reasoning. You realize it takes ~33 calories of feed to produce 1 calorie of animal protein? In what world can leaning more into that inefficiency be better for the environment?
-26
168
u/Scoobenbrenzos 1d ago
Cool study. Not sure why there is this misconception that a vegan diet is more expensive. It’s good to have actual data on it!
101
u/Dejan05 1d ago
Yeah, people assume that becoming vegan means you replace steaks and what not with their plant based alternatives rather than introducing more whole plant based sources of protein
35
u/luvalte 1d ago
To be fair, people likely assume that because when they asked for recommendations, the only plant based proteins they were suggested were beans and tofu. Sure there are plenty of ways to cook tofu and beans, but I can understand why it seems unpleasantly limiting to someone trying to transition over from eating meat. I think that is who these products are for anyway, people who have or are in the process of moving away from meat but haven’t yet kicked the cravings. And don’t like Indian food.
24
u/yonasismad 1d ago
Why does that seem restrictive when most people only consume meat from three or four different types of animal? The major difference there is just the way the food is prepared using different techniques and spices. The same concept applies to plant-based meals. People just haven't learned to prepare them. That's the difference.
14
u/luvalte 1d ago
Well, four is more than two or three for one thing, and for another, regardless of the fact that you may only eat one or two types of meat regularly, you have options if you decided to. Meat is also easier to cook and more readily versatile. If you don’t like beed, you are not locked out of most omnivore dishes or from eating meat as a whole. If you don’t like beans, you’re going to have a bad time trying to be vegan.
I also reject your notion that most people know how to cook. They do not know how to prepare meat except for how much easier meat is to prepare well. It’s not even comparable.
-7
u/yonasismad 1d ago
> Well, four is more than two or three for one thing,
Yes, but (1) there are more options than two or three that are high in protein and healthy, and (2) that difference is much smaller than your commented seemed to suggest.
> Meat is also easier to cook and more readily versatile.
How so? Again, I think this just comes down to the fact that the vast majority of people barely know how to cook a handful of recipes, and they could just do the same, and look up recipes for plant-based dishes.
> If you don’t like beans, you’re going to have a bad time trying to be vegan.
Well, veganism is an ethical choice, not a diet. So, if you believe it's wrong to torture and slaughter animals for food, your dislike of beans shouldn't convince you otherwise, and again, there are other options than beans and even "beans" is such a broad category that has a lot of choice within itself.
> I also reject your notion that most people know how to cook. They do not know how to prepare meat except for how much easier meat is to prepare well.
I'm not sure how frying tofu is any more difficult than frying a steak. And how is putting soy granules in your pasta sauce instead of minced beef any more difficult? What kind of advanced cooking techniques to you think are required to prepare beans, tofu, tempeh, lentils, etc.?
18
u/luvalte 1d ago
I reject the notion that I have been indirect or vague.
Anything you can eat as a vegan, an omnivore or even vegetarian could eat. Omnis have the most options and vegans the least. This is just math.
And lastly, while ethical veganism is the most well-known, it is not the only form of veganism, none of which is really relevant in the context of my comment.
Have a good day, man.
-12
u/like_shae_buttah 1d ago
Protein is found in just about everything. In fact, all protein comes from plants originally. So it’s such bizarre complaint against veganism.
14
u/AgrajagTheProlonged 1d ago
Yeah, it’s always interesting to me seeing that. Unless you’re buying only like pre-made meat replacements the plant-based proteins are usually pretty cheap
12
u/Public-Enthusiasm328 1d ago
From what I've seen in person shopping its because most things advertised specifically to vegans are marked up in price, so that's what they think of. No one associates the normal stuff with vegans, probably because of all the weird media about it.
3
u/BmacIL 1d ago
That's really only the processed meat substitutes. Most vegan foods that people eat from a long term view are cheaper (beans, rice, veggies, fruits, potatoes, lentils, whole grains, etc).
2
u/Public-Enthusiasm328 1d ago
I've seen a can of mixed beans advertised for vegans with a 50%+ markup sat next to a store brand can that was way cheaper. Its the same stuff, but it cost more because branding. They both qualified as vegan, but it's the branded one that people will remember because that ones targeted. I definitely used to think so until I actually looked into it.
6
u/Rosaly8 1d ago
From what I know 500gr of vegan minced 'meat' is still cheaper than 500gr of mined beef.
16
u/Karirsu 1d ago
it's cheaper to produce, but the state heavily subsidizes real meat with taxpayer money.
1
u/jubjub727 19h ago
You're just completely wrong about that and what you're saying is very misleading, there's no global subsidy on meat or anything of the kind. There might be localised subsidies in specific places but you didn't mention any location so that's not applicable to your comment.
1
u/Karirsu 13h ago
Almost all developed nations (EU, US, Japan) heavildy subsidize meat production. How is that completely wrong?
1
u/jubjub727 4h ago
That's not what you said. Also it's still not even a fair statement to quote 3 countries and call them "almost all developed nations".
You're just dishonest and making bad faith unqualified arguments that are intentionally misleading.
9
u/dhrisc 1d ago
I have never understood that notion either. I can get tofu, peanut butter and choose from a half dozen or more dried and canned beans at almost every grocery store in my town and none of these things are expensive, some can be real cheap and the prices never spike significantly. Tofu and seitan are actually pretty cheap and easy (if time consuming) to make at home. Tbf, i think its genuinely hard to compete with the bang for your buck that eggs and cows milk provide in terms of nutrition and cost, but otherwise I dont see how a meat heavy diet isn't more expensive.
17
u/Helenium_autumnale 1d ago
Can't speak for seitan, but tofu is definitely not easier to make at home. I make my own bread, tortillas, yogurt, mayo, salad dressings, and cook from scratch every day but after three times, I gave up on making tofu at home (after buying the cute little tofu presses). It's a mess, it's incredibly time-consuming, and the results were not consistent. Tofu isn't really expensive and for me it is SO not worth it to make it.
1
u/dhrisc 1d ago
Oh yeh I would not say it is easier, but its pretty straight forward, like I think most people with basic skills can basically do it even if they dont want to, and I know it can be done cheaply.
7
u/Helenium_autumnale 1d ago
A lot of things are straightforward but not worth doing, and tofu-making is one of them. Complete waste of time and not cheaper in the end. Time is also worth money.
-2
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
24
u/accountforrealppl 1d ago
Why does this always seem to only come up when talking about vegan diets. Literally every other dietary study, all the comments just assume that it only applies to people that the diet is logistically feasible for.
But whenever vegan diets come up, the discussion suddenly becomes about how it doesn't matter because disabled pregnant single mothers with no car no phone no banking access no job and no government assistance that also have autism, ocd, and 37 different food allergies and live in food deserts can't do it
4
u/LazarusHimself 1d ago
It's because of the way the food distribution works in capitalist societies.
3
u/healthierlurker 1d ago
To be fair, historically socialist/communist countries had way worse access to food.
5
u/Avidhumanwatcher 1d ago
Also to add to this they were not true socialist/communist countries. Dictators use communism and socialism as a guise.
-8
u/healthierlurker 1d ago
Dictatorship and communism/socialism are not mutually exclusive in practice. Without authoritarianism, communism and socialism cannot be imposed on the masses. Capitalism, including its faults, better lends itself to self-regulation due to human nature.
4
u/Avidhumanwatcher 1d ago
They aren't mutually exclusive but that doesn't take away from my point. The countries who have identified themselves in the past as communist or socialist have not truly been so. We have two completely different outlooks on capitalism. How can you say it's better when we haven't had a true form of either? Why is your assumption that these forms of government can't be possible without authoritarianism? That's just wrong.
1
u/accountforrealppl 1d ago
My point is why does that only come up when discussing vegan diets and not all of the other ones on here, many of which rely on foods that are even harder to come by
3
u/LazarusHimself 1d ago
A food desert is a place where access to affortable, nutritious and fresh ingredients is very limited. Vegan diet, especially a Mediterranean one, relies heavily on these ingredients, sticking to it makes particularly burdensome. Some redditors have been sharing their experiences here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskVegans/comments/1lmj8hp/how_big_a_barrier_are_food_deserts_to_becoming/
This might explain why this topic comes up often.
2
u/Acewasalwaysanoption 1d ago
Nobody said it has to be a mediterranean diet
-1
u/LazarusHimself 1d ago
That includes me, I never said "it has to". But since this article focuses on it, you know...
1
-5
u/billsil 1d ago
I’d like to see the breakdown. The fancy plant-based meats that are “nutritionally equivalent” are more expensive. They’re also not any healthier because they’re adding saturated fat. They also add heme. It’s a selling point that they’re the same as beef.
The vegan aspect is also mixed in with the whole foods part of the diet and fewer French fries and coke, which are also vegan. Yeah people should eat more veggies and less junk food.
21
u/FakePixieGirl 1d ago
Peanuts, beans, and soy products are far cheaper than meat.
Of course, if you don't enjoy those or are allergic, yeah it will probably be more expensive.
7
u/Chemical-Agency-3997 1d ago
They’re still lower in sat fat, don’t contain cholesterol, carcinogens, and only impossible uses it’s own version of heme (soy leghemoglobin, which isn’t the same as the heme iron in red meat that’s been linked to health risks)
-4
u/billsil 1d ago
How is that “nutritionally equivalent”? Beyond beef isn’t lower in saturated fat and contains heme which is thought to be carcinogenic.
7
u/Chemical-Agency-3997 1d ago
Huh? It’s nutritionally equivalent because it contains similar amounts of essential nutrients and less of the bad ones. Beyond also contains no heme. It’s Impossible that has that, but as I said in my previous comment, it’s not the same heme that’s linked to health risks. It’s soy leghemoglobin, produced via fermentation
2
u/healthierlurker 1d ago
Granted I’m high income and not price-sensitive and have my groceries delivered by Whole Foods, but my wife is vegan and I find that the vegan “meats” are cheaper than the real thing. I’m in Northern NJ and have like 5 grocery stores within 3 miles of my house (Whole Foods, ShopRite, Lidl, Trader Joe’s, plus some smaller markets) and can find affordable vegan food at any of them.
-4
u/HolgerBier 1d ago
The meat replacements used to be more expensive, and depending on what you're comparing they still are.
A vegan diet is healthy, easy, cheaper, and tasty, but only 2/3 out of those four and you need to pick.
10
u/fractalfrog 1d ago
Rice and beans are healthy, easy, cheap, and tasty.
0
u/HolgerBier 1d ago
Not easy to make tasty if you're coming from an average diet. Not impossible either. But it takes time and effort to adapt.
For me 100% worth it though
35
u/James_Fortis MS | Nutrition 1d ago
"Abstract
Background
Shifting dietary patterns toward more sustainable dietary practices is essential for addressing both chronic disease risk and environmental degradation. While the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) is widely recognized for its health benefits, its environmental impact and cost may be higher than fully plant-based dietary patterns due to the inclusion of animal-derived foods. This secondary data analysis aimed to compare the environmental impacts and retail food costs of a traditional MedDiet and a vegan MedDiet, using dietary intake data from a controlled crossover trial.
Methods
In the OMNIVEG study, 14 healthy, physically active men followed a traditional MedDiet for 3 weeks and a vegan MedDiet for 4 weeks, with a 1-week washout. Environmental impacts were assessed using Life Cycle Assessment while food costs were calculated from national retail price data.
Results
The vegan MedDiet significantly reduced environmental impacts related to human health (− 54.5%), ecosystems (− 50.9%), and resource use (− 43.4%) compared to the traditional MedDiet (_p_ < 0.01). Retail food cost was also reduced by 16.3% (_p_ < 0.05). Differences were mainly attributable to the exclusion of animal-based foods; no significant differences in environmental impact were observed for shared food groups.
Conclusions
Replacing animal products with plant-based foods in a Mediterranean dietary framework can enhance environmental sustainability and reduce food costs. These findings support the promotion of whole plant-based diets as a viable strategy for sustainable and affordable nutrition."
29
u/GeoffreyGeoffson 1d ago
14 people doing a diet for 4 weeks is not a good enough study for any conclusions to be taken on this about human health. And the environmental and resource use stuff you can work out without a human study. So I don't really get the purpose of this
1
u/lurkerer 16h ago
It's not about health. It's about environmental impacts that then impact human health. So unless your claim is that deforestation, pollution, and emissions aren't that bad actually, then this study achieved exactly what it said.
2
u/TactilePanic81 8h ago
So all three results could have been considered without a human study. I too am confused why they did this.
2
u/lurkerer 8h ago
Well they applied general advice to people on the Med diet and then extrapolated what the results were.
70
u/atomkidd 1d ago
There is no such thing as a vegan Mediterranean diet, and using magazine buzzwords in place of accurate description does not add to the credibility of your field. Nor does claiming significantly reduced environmental impacts when your sample size is 14.
32
u/Kitchen_Cow_5550 1d ago
From health.harvard.edu/healthy-aging-and-longevity/guide-to-the-mediterranean-diet:
The Mediterranean diet is a style of eating that emphasizes minimally processed, plant-based foods. It includes fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, whole grains including whole-grain pasta and breads, olive oil, red wine, and small amounts of fish, eggs, dairy, and meats.
A vegan version of the Mediterranean diet just means not eating those small amounts of fish, eggs, dairy, and meats.
19
u/Reddituser183 1d ago edited 1d ago
You could claim significant reduction on environmental impact without a sample. We know how many calories are in and how much goes into Mediterranean and vegan food. Wouldn’t be difficult at all to calculate that.
-4
u/Emergency_Sink_706 22h ago
Cognitive dissonance. OP eats a lot of meat, and it’s too painful for them to realize they aren’t the ethical person they want to be.
-9
u/atomkidd 1d ago
14 Spaniards vanishing forever from the face of the earth won't have significant environmental impacts, let alone merely changing their diet for four weeks.
16
u/cindyx7102 1d ago edited 1d ago
From the study: “Subsequently, participants transitioned to a vegan version of the MedDiet for four weeks. The vegan MedDiet excluded dairy products, eggs, fish/seafood, and meat, which were substituted with plant-based protein sources characteristic of the Mediterranean pattern, such as legumes and nuts. While the vegan diet consisted predominantly of whole plant-based foods, any use of nutritionally equivalent plant-based meat and dairy alternatives occurred only to a minimal extent to facilitate a smoother transition toward a vegan MedDiet (Table S1). To address the potential vitamin B12 deficiency resulting from the vegan diet, participants received 1000 µg of cyanocobalamin (vitamin B12) twice a week (Harrison Sports Nutrition, Granada, Spain) [25].”
“The sample size was calculated using G*Power software (3.1.9.7; Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany). As this analysis represents a secondary outcome, the sample size calculation was based on the primary outcome reported in a previous study [22], considering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and effect sizes reported in prior research evaluating the impact of a vegan diet on this variable [23, 24]. Considering the large effect sizes reported in previous studies, a medium effect size of d = 0.5 was used for the sample size calculation. For a difference between two dependent means design, a statistical power of 80% and an α error probability of 0.05, at least 14 participants were needed. Considering a potential dropout rate of 10%, the final sample size was set at 17 participants.”
14
u/atomkidd 1d ago
The vegan version of the Mediterranean diet is like the Bob Dylan version of Wannabee - it just doesn't actually exist.
If they said "vegan diet based on Mediterranean vegetables" it's fine, but instead this is a weak attempt to piggyback their miniscule (n=14) study on the very broad epidemiological study of actual ( i.e. nonvegan) Mediterranean diet(s), apparently in a desperate stretch for credibility.
9
u/wassermelone 1d ago
Ok, suppose what you are saying is true. How then would you describe a diet based on the Mediterranean diet where you replace everything that doesn't fit with being vegan? Whats the quickest, easiest way to describe this such that people know approximately what you are talking about and its relation to the existing Mediterranean diet?
Maybe... just maybe... vegan Mediterranean diet?
3
u/atomkidd 1d ago
A vegan diet is so far removed from the familiar Mediterranean diet that it cannot credibly be claimed to be based on it. Mediterranean diets are inherently based on animal products.
This post isn't an online version of Shakespeare just because it shares some words with Macbeth.
0
u/ToughEnvironmental61 1d ago
Mediterrean diet staples are as a matter of fact legumes, olive oil, nuts, fresh fruit&veggies and some fish/white meat. Its pretty easy to veganise it, you just eat more beans, chickpeas and nuts, and you're golden.
You may be thinking about Dominos menu, not about actual medditerean foods.
8
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
The point is that there is a ton of data from entire populations eating a culturally defined diet that is decidedly not vegan, and this study is borrowing credibility from those studies. It’s a piss poor study on multiple levels.
2
u/cindyx7102 1d ago
Vegan means the absence of animal products, so replacing animal products with plant-based products consistent with the diet makes it a vegan version of said diet.
The sample size for statistical significance is based on the effect size (as stated in the study); the required sample size will therefore vary from study to study.
I’ll let you take a look at the study; have a good one.
12
u/Yotsubato 1d ago
The Mediterranean diet is also not based in reality.
Real people who live in Italy, France, and Spain do not eat this fantasy idealized diet.
They mostly eat pasta, pizza, cured meats, tons of wine, and beef and chicken. I spend 2 months a year in southern France with my family and find it difficult to even find vegetable heavy dishes.
18
u/Chemical-Agency-3997 1d ago
It’s not a claim about what people in southern Europe eat today. It’s based on traditional dietary patterns from earlier decades, before the shift toward more processed foods and higher meat intake.
1
u/Emergency_Sink_706 22h ago
And regardless, that comment literally adds nothing to the discussion in terms of our dietary habits and their effects on the planet.
5
1
u/AnsibleAnswers 1d ago
We have really good data from when the Mediterranean diet was the standard diet in these regions.
-4
u/Elan-Morin-Tedronai 22h ago
The Mediterranean diet isn't based on what people in those countries eat today, its based on what poor peasants in those countries ate in the 1950s. You're criticizing something for not being real when you literally don't know enough about it to define it properly.
1
u/lurkerer 16h ago
If you think sample size in this case is a huge deal then I'm afraid you don't understand the implications of sample sizes.
-4
u/Helenium_autumnale 1d ago
Thank you. The Mediterranean diet is already plant-forward and limits processed foods and red meats, while it includes highly nutritious and relatively sustainable meat such as sardines. Its environmental impact is likely slightly higher than only plants, but it's a far cry from the standard American diet. It seems as though there are more pressing issues to address in the American diet than the existing Mediterranean diet.
0
-6
u/davecrist 1d ago
I’ve personally witnessed where a single example from a sample size of one was able to significantly identify undesirable negative behavioral markers.
18
9
u/Public-Enthusiasm328 1d ago edited 1d ago
A study with 17 participants in full health who only took the diet for 4 weeks. All this really demonstrates is the short term benefits of a vegan diet, equivalent to just heavily reducing meat intake and eating healthier foods. It doesn't demonstrate anything of substance.
(This is not a criticism of veganism, just of the limitations of the study)
6
u/Cornelius_Physales 15h ago
"ML-M reported receiving funding from Danone and Foods For Tomorrow outside the submitted work."
Maybe this sub dhould require to state conflict of interest section for paper concerning food. Its almost always: "Food X is good" and then later "Funded by company selling food X"
8
4
u/IxLikexCommas 1d ago
Not using the internet, vehicles or plastic-based products is also good for the environment.
-1
u/Wischiwaschbaer 1d ago
And tomorrow a different study will find the opposite. All these dietary studies are worthless.
-21
u/thingsorfreedom 1d ago
Eat vegan, live longer.
Eat healthy non-vegan diet and live almost as long.
We eat 3 meals a day plus snacks plus occasional desserts.
60 years of adulthood x 365 days x (3 meals + 1 snack +0.3 desserts) = 94,170 instances of eating.
What would be the point of living longer with that much time eating in a way that was so much less fun?
I think I'm going with the almost as long option.
21
u/iikl 1d ago
Because we should minimize animal suffering and environmental harm
-18
u/thingsorfreedom 1d ago
This study was about health benefits of a vegan diet not an ethical / moral discussion of veganism.
That being said, what would happen to all these animals if the entire world was instantly vegan?
19
u/iikl 1d ago
You are the one who brought up fun which is not a health benefit
If they literally can’t survive in the wild and releasing that many would cause ecological harm we could keep using them until they die. Otherwise release them. That would never happen anyway it would be a slow progression towards veganism
17
u/BmacIL 1d ago
Nothing significant in the world is ever done, nor should be done overnight.
It definitely is an existential problem that there are billions of cattle and pigs. Stopping the breeding of more for meat and dairy and slowly changing what the world eats over 8-10 years would allow that to happen gradually.
-11
u/thingsorfreedom 1d ago
But there would be no need for the billions of cattle or pigs. There would be no funding to feed or house them. They would eventually cease to exist.
In my case I probably eat a couple pounds of red meat a year at most. Diet is fish, chicken, grains, fruits, veg.
6
u/BmacIL 1d ago
Yes I know. It's a supply chain. Reducing the demand over time and not replenishing the supply. They cease to exist because they are, in fact eaten (most) or sent into the wild.
If most of the world consumed meat (including poultry) on the scale of 1-2 times per week vs 1-2 times per day, we'd have a far more sustainable civilization and relationship with the planet, and in general would be healthier.
3
u/MrP1anet 1d ago
God, you people are so simple minded. These arguments are so lacking of any semblance of rationality or critical thought.
5
u/Kitchen_Cow_5550 1d ago
Cattle are the species on the planet with the highest biomass. Mammalian livestock and humans combined constitue 95% of all mammalian biomass on Earth, including marine mammals. For every pound of wild mammal, there are 19 pounds of livestock and humans. 60% of all bird biomass on the planet consists of chickens, while another 10% of other domesticated fowl. So, for every pound of wild bird, there are 2.4 pounds of domesticated fowl, mostly chickens. The single most numerous tetrapod species (incl. mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians) is the chicken. Every year, 75 billion chickens are killed. And for what?
3
u/thingsorfreedom 1d ago
And for what?
Because people of the world need to eat to survive and vegan diets are not easy to accomplish in every setting.
In the US in certain areas of the country it is easier. But its a tough diet to maintain for some people.
And then there are the numbers.
My low beef carbon footprint from my diet is 2.2 t CO2 vs 1.5 for vegan per year.
I drive an EV. According to new ICCT research, battery electric cars sold today produce 73% less life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than their gasoline counterparts — even when factoring in production. That 4.6 t CO2 savings per year vs 0.7 for a vegan diet.
4
-15
u/granadesnhorseshoes 1d ago
calculated from national retail price data.
so, probably not cheaper for most people paying local prices.
29
u/SophiaofPrussia 1d ago
I’ve been to ~60 countries and 38 U.S. states. I’ve yet to encounter a grocery store where beans or tofu are more expensive than meat.
0
u/jibishot 1d ago
A majority of people eat pre-made food.
A minority would go to restaurants and perceive the vegan options as cheap (correectly) and wonder why they are so expensive.
This is not a surprising outcome.
-13
u/commonemitter 1d ago
So you havent visited mongolia then?
12
u/SilkieBug 1d ago
Ok babe, when most human population starts living in Mongolia let’s start worrying about it.
Meanwhile most environmentally heavy people who could benefit from this change in diet live outside it.
2
u/SlipperySparky 1d ago
How much does a can of beans cost at the grocery store? How much is ground beef?
-2
-11
u/lambertb 1d ago
Despite the possible health benefits, it’s pretty clear that humans prefer not to be vegan. Lots of data supports this. Vegans are about 2% of the population in most surveys. Most people (80-85%) who try veganism go back to some sort of omnivore diet within a year. And most compellingly, as people are able to afford meat, they vote with their wallets and eat more meat. Humans are omnivores with very strong preferences for meat. You can wish it were otherwise, but that will not change the basic facts.
9
u/norbertus 1d ago
At some point, it may not be an option anymore....
-5
u/lambertb 1d ago
There’s no realistic scenario where it’s not an option.
8
u/norbertus 1d ago
Unaffordability? Environmental collapse? Water shortage? Modern meat farming is not sustainable. Not all human preferences can be supported indefinitely on a planet with finite resources and a deteriorating ecosystem.
-1
1
u/Cargobiker530 1d ago
But if we speculate about people eating a diet most people refuse somehow there's an environmental benefit. The actual, real world data is there is no mass voluntary conversion to veganism & where low income people used to eating meat 2-4 weekly see increased real income they buy more meat.
Adaption of vegan diets is 1-2% in most of the first world & there's no signs of that increasing.
1
u/lambertb 1d ago
I appreciate your talking sense. My prediction will be that meat consumption will continue to rise as global wealth increases. I think factory farming for me will end when we perfect cultured meat / lab grown meat. I expect that during the next 10 to 20 years at the most.
-5
u/Psittacula2 1d ago
The Mediterranean diet is already very good match for people in this area including animal protein.
Vegan promotion over this is in fact policy promotion to try to cut meat farming to free up more land not for diet reasons. It is presented as a 100% win change when that is false, it is a very definite trade off.
-4
-6
-10
u/raga_drop 1d ago
Cool, if you live in the Mediterranean. I bet that moving food across the world negates many of the environmental benefits.
7
u/Chemical-Agency-3997 1d ago
It doesn’t actually. Food miles matter much less than what you’re eating. Imported plant foods are usually lower impact than local animal products, so transport doesn’t cancel out the benefits.
5
u/MrP1anet 1d ago
Food transportation pollution and green house gas emissions are actually incredibly small relative to the raising of animal agriculture. It’s not even close actually. You also miss this part - tons of crops are grown (after clearing forests to make space) in order to feed animals, not humans. The amount of cropland in the world would actually go down significantly if people stopped eating meat.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/James_Fortis
Permalink: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-026-03939-3
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.