In a new study published innpj Science of Food, researchers measured how like-for-like swaps of meat with plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) or mycoprotein (MP) would shift energy and nutrient intakes across age groups in the United Kingdom. They used a retail nutrient database linked to the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) to model real-world substitutions.
Rising Popularity of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives
Nearly one in three UK households buys PBMAs at least once a year, driven largely by younger shoppers. Families want familiar meals such as burgers, sausages, and nuggets without the environmental impact of livestock. But meat remains a key source of high-quality protein and micronutrients like iron, zinc, and vitamin B12. Many plant products add carbohydrates and sugars to mimic flavor and texture and are often ultra-processed, which may have different health implications than minimally processed meat. The study asks whether swapping ham for a plant-based slice reduces protein at lunch but increases fiber at dinner, a question with implications for school menus, hospital meals, and budgets. More research is needed to map real-world swaps to nutrient adequacy.
Building the Retail Nutrient Database
Researchers built a five-mile catchment retail database and categorized items as meat (ME), plant-based (PB), or mycoprotein (MP). Products were grouped into everyday UK consumer categories aligned with the NDNS: bacon and ham (B&H), burgers and kebabs (B&K), chicken, turkey and dishes (CT&D), coated chicken and turkey (CC&T), and sausages (SAU). Some meat categories, like beef, lamb, and pork dishes, were excluded due to a lack of comparable PB and MP options at the time of data collection. For each product, on-pack data were collected for energy, macronutrients (fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, and protein), fiber, salt, and price per kilogram. Prices showed PB and MP options cost roughly 38–73% more per kilogram than meat equivalents. Nutrient contents were statistically compared across ingredient types and categories, with standard and multiple-comparison adjustments reported.
Modeling Nutrient Swaps Across Ages
To approximate population effects, observed ME intakes from NDNS were replaced with PB or MP within the same product category, keeping age-specific portion patterns constant. Intakes were expressed as percentages of Estimated Average Requirement (EAR), Dietary Reference Values (DRV), and Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI) for children (1.5–3, 4–10, 11–18 years), adults (19–64), and older adults (65+). The analysis highlighted nutrients tied to cardiometabolic risk, such as saturated fat, which influences LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease risk. Notably, only PBMAs, not MP, were modeled across all categories in combined analyses.
Nutritional Profiles: Meat vs PBMAs vs MP
Across categories, ME products were cheaper per kilogram and delivered more energy, fat, saturated fat, and protein. PB and MP contained more carbohydrates, sugars (especially PB), and fiber, with MP showing the highest fiber content. Modeling like-for-like swaps suggested meaningful shifts in UK eating patterns.
Category-Specific Nutrient Differences
Bacon and Ham (B&H)
ME provided the most energy, fat, saturated fat, salt, and protein, but the least carbohydrates, sugars, and fiber.
Replacing ME with PB or MP lowered saturated fat and boosted fiber. Protein contribution to the RNI fell, particularly with MP. This helps cut fat but may require extra protein sources on menus, especially for schools.
Burgers and Kebabs (B&K)
ME again delivered more energy, fat, saturated fat, and protein; PB and MP offered more carbohydrates, sugars, fiber, and salt.
Substituting reduced saturated fat across all ages and substantially increased fiber, benefitting teens who often under-consume fiber. The trade-off was lower protein contribution, relevant for active adolescents.
Chicken, Turkey, and Dishes (CT&D)
PB versions had higher energy than ME, while MP had the lowest energy.
Swapping to MP tended to lower energy and saturated fat; swapping to PB could raise energy despite fiber gains.
Salt was highest in PB CT&D (1.45 g/100 g) versus ME (0.51 g/100 g), signaling a need to monitor sodium. Protein remained highest in ME, with PB and MP lowering the protein share.
Coated Chicken and Turkey (CC&T)
Energy levels were similar across ME, PB, and MP.
PB and MP contained more carbohydrates, sugars, and fiber; saturated fat was lower than ME, while protein favored ME. Salt tended to be lower in ME, meaning some PB or MP options may raise sodium if not chosen carefully.
Sausages (SAU)
ME had higher energy, fat, saturated fat, and protein.
PB and MP reduced energy and saturated fat and increased fiber but at the cost of protein contribution to the RNI.
For older adults (65+), swaps from ME to PB or MP reduced protein contribution meaningfully, raising concerns about sarcopenia. Pairing swaps with protein-dense, lower-sodium sides can help maintain adequacy.
Combined Impacts of Full Meat Replacement
If all ME categories were swapped for PBMAs, saturated fat contribution would drop by about 2.6–3.0% of the RNI across ages, while carbohydrates and fiber rose. Protein contribution would decrease consistently. Salt effects varied by category, with no consistent overall change. The study notes that a typical 5–6% reduction in energy from saturated fat is often needed to improve blood lipids, suggesting these differences may be too small to meaningfully affect LDL cholesterol.
Balancing Fiber Gains and Protein Shortfalls
In summary, swapping ME for PBMAs or MP in the UK raises fiber and lowers saturated fat, but the reduction in saturated fat is probably too small to meaningfully improve blood lipids. These shifts could modestly support dietary quality goals but are unlikely to dramatically change LDL cholesterol. However, gains in fiber come with reduced protein contribution to the RNI, especially in adolescents and older adults at risk of sarcopenia. The analysis also lacks micronutrient data (iron, zinc, B12), which limits understanding of broader adequacy, and price differences may deter uptake. Category differences matter: some PB dishes can deliver more energy and salt, while MP often reduces energy the most. To optimize meals, choose PBMAs and MP to boost fiber and reduce saturated fat, and pair with protein-rich, lower-salt sides to maintain balance.
Related topics
Editorial Reframes Heart Monitoring for Breast Cancer Survivors
The Clean Protein Question: What Really Matters in Whey Protein Powder
Nationwide Recall Alert: Orgain Protein Powder May Contain Allergens
