Nutrition Science

Study Dismantles Nutritional Ideology

12. März 2023Dario, we.fit AG 6 min read

A landmark study challenges the ideological Planetary Health Diet, revealing that animal products are essential for optimal nutrition and health—proving that science trumps ideology.

There's a fine distinction between idealism and ideology: idealism strives for the best possible, «ideal» outcome. Ideology, on the other hand, will go to any lengths—naturally always for «noble reasons,» needless to say.

Looking at how global food systems should be organized by 2050 to feed around 10 billion people, a groundbreaking concept was published a few years ago: the so-called «Planetary Health Diet.» It came from an «expert commission» under the auspices of the prestigious journal The Lancet and Norwegian physician Gunhild Stordalen, who is simultaneously an environmental activist and founded the EAT Initiative in 2013. Today, it's known as the «EAT-Lancet Commission.»

The Planetary Health Diet is supposed to be a nutritional approach that embodies a unified field theory of eating: prevent animal suffering, protect the climate, save human lives. An admirable goal, in our view too. In practice, however, the diet prescribes that we cover our energy needs largely from grains, plant oils, nuts, and legumes. An adult human is allowed just 14 grams of meat per day (excluding poultry).

Is this still idealism, or is it ideology? A new study [source no longer available] demonstrates through concrete examples the massive flaws in this dietary approach. To name a few:

The USDA database was used as the calculation foundation—not representative of the world.
For many food groups, researchers simply cherry-picked one example (e.g., only spinach for leafy greens).
Calculations were based mainly on the nutrient content of raw foods, even though many are not edible in that state.
New nutrient recommendations from EFSA and IOM were not considered.
Bioavailability of individual nutrients was also not factored into calculations.
The researchers «forgot» that women of reproductive age need roughly twice as much iron as men.
Some food groups were not considered at all, such as organ meat, seeds, or different categories of seafood (e.g., shellfish).

Who would calculate a new global nutrition plan with such carelessness and disregard for detail?

The new study showed how it should be done: For each food group, researchers gathered globally representative data on food composition and then cross-checked it against those critical nutrients that are frequently insufficient worldwide: folate, vitamin A, vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and zinc.

It's worth noting: anyone with a bit of critical thinking will realize that these nutrients are precisely critical because so many people still have to eat largely without animal products! In a sense, this reveals a circular argument! Because logically, a grain-based diet with few animal products will inevitably lead to poor intake of these substances!

In any case, the authors of this new study used their findings to design a Planetary Health Diet that is appropriate for all adults—including women of childbearing age, etc. The results:

The proportion of animal products in the diet must double—to 27% (instead of 14%) of calories!
The phytic acid content of the diet (especially high in grains and legumes) must be halved, since it severely inhibits zinc and iron absorption.
More starchy root vegetables are needed (e.g., potatoes) and more fish and shellfish (including mussels).
The share of beef, poultry, and pork should be increased again.
More phytic-acid-poor, refined grains should be consumed, along with more seeds and organ meat.
Intake of whole grains, legumes, nuts, and soy products should be significantly reduced to make caloric room for the aforementioned foods.
And nutrient supplementation should be used where appropriate!

Moreover, the study offers a brilliant suggestion: perhaps we shouldn't recommend «the ideal diet for everyone,» but instead emphasize that adapted, regional nutrition—tailored to different cultural contexts and environmental conditions—is more effective.

Anyone still awake will have noticed that this basically describes edubily nutrition point-for-point. Local sourcing when possible, diverse offerings of high-quality, nutrient-dense animal products, avoiding grain-feeding, a good amount of fruits, vegetables, and starchy root vegetables, rounded out with nuts, seeds, and such, smart supplementation—is that really so difficult?

Ultimately, it's presumptuous to believe that a human who, three million years ago, only became human because meat was increasingly on the menu, can also thrive largely without animal products. This might be true for some people, but not for most. Animal products simply provide a far higher, more bioavailable density of nutrients on a mass or caloric basis. This isn't new—and comes from the same researcher, incidentally.

And it's not even about commonplace nutrients like iron, zinc, or vitamin A, but also about choline, taurine, carnitine, creatine, and many other substances that are found only in animal products and are highly valuable for human health.

Bottom line: Obviously, nobody needs the cheapest doner meat in bulk or XXL schnitzel feasts for ten dollars. On the other hand, nutrition should be grounded in regional eating traditions that advocate conscious consumption of animal products—favoring high-quality animal products with good husbandry practices and nose-to-tail approaches. That's idealism.

Read next

Your cart is empty