The top science papers of 2025 supporting plant-based nutrition
This year we shift from the term ‘plant-based’ to ‘plant-rich’ to describe the overwhelming evidence that supports a predominantly or exclusively plant-based diet for better health.
Our health is worsening and we know why
Lifestyle expectancy stalls in Europe, including in the UK. The slowdown is attributed to a lack of progress in reducing deaths from cardiovascular diseases and cancers, mostly due to our failure to sufficiently tackle modifiable risk factors. These risk factors include high blood pressure, dietary risks, high LDL-cholesterol, high body mass index (BMI), and tobacco use.
Globally, these same risk factors are driving the widening gap between healthspan and lifespan. This gap reflects the years lived in poor health. Women have a larger healthspan-lifespan gap than men, averaging an additional 2.4 year. The largest gaps are observed in high-income countries such as the United States (12.4 years), Australia (12.1 years), New Zealand (11.8 years), the UK (11.3 years) and Norway (11.2 years).
An updated analysis from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) collates an enormous mount of data on 375 diseases and injuries and 88 modifiable risk factors across 204 countries. Nearly half of all years lost in ill health in 2023 was attributable to modifiable risk factors and the leading causes of death were cardiovascular diseases, respiratory conditions, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes and cancer. The top risk factors globally were high systolic blood pressure, particulate matter air pollution, smoking, high fasting plasma glucose, and low birthweight/short gestation. High blood pressure alone accounted for an estimated 8.4% of years lost.
Dietary risks remain a major, modifiable driver of premature death and disability worldwide. The main risks relate to low intakes of fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts and seeds; high sodium intake; high intakes of red and processed meat and sugar-sweetened beverages; and industrial trans fats. Many diet–disease pathways are mediated through metabolic factors such as blood pressure, blood lipids and glucose.
These data support the urgent need for health systems to shift focus from merely increasing lifespan to improving healthspan by prioritising preventive care with a key focus on diet and nutrition. A new state of the art review on diet and prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer concludes that the evidence supports the implementation of a whole food plant-based diet for primary and secondary prevention.
In the UK, diet quality has continued to deteriorate with updated results of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey showing that <1 in 10 children and <1 in 5 adults meeting recommendations to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day and only 4% of the population meeting recommendations for fibre intake (30g/day). The 10 year health plan published this year by NHS England does prioritise prevention as one of its key aims, albeit with an oversized emphasise on pharmaceutical and technological solutions and very little detail on addressing dietary risk factors. Read my thoughts on the 10-year health plan and a vision for a health service that prioritises prevention.
Plant-based diets are nutritionally adequate and offer health benefits
This year saw the publication of the long awaited update of the position statement from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics on vegetarian dietary patterns. Of note, this relates to adults, 18 years and older (non-pregnant/non-lactating).
The statement reaffirms that plant-based diets (vegetarian and vegan) are nutritionally adequate and can have health benefits, although it correctly emphasises the importance of diet quality. It highlights the need for vitamin B12 supplementation and additional potential deficiencies in micronutrients including, iodine, iron, calcium and choline. These can all be easily addressed through food sources and for iodine, either iodised salt, seaweed or supplementation. Fortified plant-based drinks, even if classified as ultra-processed, are acknowledged as a useful source of nutrients such as calcium and it is noted that there are no data to suggest these drinks are harmful. The statement recommends incorporating sources of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) such as flaxseeds, chia and hemp seeds, but does not find that an algae-derived DHA/EPA is necessary for everyone. In addition, the statement acknowledges there may be benefits of a vegetarian and vegan diet for preventing and managing cardiometabolic conditions such as overweight/obesity, glucose dysregulation/diabetes, high blood lipids and blood pressure. There is also acknowledgment of the association between vegan diets and lower bone mineral density and potential increased risk of fracture. Thus ensuring sufficent intake of calcium and vitamin D and paying attention to diet quality to mitigate against these potential issues is important.
The document is aimed at dietetic, nutrition and health professionals who should have sufficient knowledge to support clients in both the outpatient, inpatient and community settings to adopt a nutrient-dense, vegetarian or vegan diet if that is their wish and that these dietary patterns can be used to manage chronic conditions. We know from our own research survey that dietitians in the UK and Ireland do not feel confident in supporting clients to adopt a plant-based diet, in part because the dietetic curricula do not sufficiently cover the topic and there is a lack of resources for use in clinical practice.
Plant-based diets lower the risk of cancer
The global burden of cancer continues to rise, in part due to an ageing population and population growth. Worryingly there is also a rising incidence of cancer in young people, less than age 50 years. Yet, 40-50% of cases could be prevented by addressing modifiable risk factors. Dietary risk factors are also a key driver and we have known for a while that meat-free diets can reduce the risk of cancer.
An updated analysis from the Adventist Health Study-2 aimed to assess the impact of vegetarian and vegan diets on a broader range of cancer types, including so called ‘medium frequency’ cancers (melanoma, endometrial, renal, urothelial, thyroid, ovarian, central nervous system, lung, rectal, pancreatic, primary liver, stomach, oesophageal, mouth-pharyngeal-laryngeal, lymphoma, lymphoid and myeloid leukemias). The study included 79,468 adults in North America, including 20,662 black participants, who were cancer-free at recruitment and followed for an average of 8 years.
Compared to omnivores, lacto-ovo vegetarians (LOV) had a 9% reduction and vegans a 24% reduction in overall cancer risk. For medium frequency cancers, LOV had a 18% reduction and vegans a 23% reduction in risk. Younger (at age 65 years) but not older vegans (at age 85 years) had a lower risk of prostate (43% reduction) and breast cancer (31% reduction). At age 85 years, vegans had a significantly lower risk of lymphoma (56% reduction). LOVs also had a lower risk of lymphoproliferative disorders in general. Pescovegetarians showed a reduced risk of total and medium frequency cancer, although to a lesser degree. They did however show a reduced rate of colorectal cancer (39% reduction) and breast cancer at an older age (43% reduction). Lower rates of carcinoma of the stomach were seen among all vegetarians combined, and also in LOVs.
Of particular interest was the further analysis around dairy consumption. Given the lower rates of breast and prostate cancer in vegans, the authors evaluated the link between dairy milk and the risk of these cancers. They found a strong positive correlation between dairy milk consumption and these cancers.
Overall the results strengthen the association between meat-free diets and cancer, with greater benefits for those on a 100% plant-based or vegan diet, including for less common cancers. There are a number of reasons why this may be the case. In general, meat free diets result in lower exposure to dietary carcinogens such as those associated with processed meat and cooking meat at high temperatures. Vegetarians and vegans have been shown to have lower levels of inflammation and a healthier gut microbiome, due to higher intakes of fibre. The lower rates of various co-morbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes may also have a positive impact for cancer.
The authors conclude that in vegetarians the ‘decreased risk of all cancers, and medium frequency cancers as a group, in this North American cohort, were strong and persuasive. The public health significance is clear, with the risk of adverse effects being very small or non-existent (for vegetarian dietary patterns), and that some benefits are likely real, although an observational study cannot establish causality with certainty’.
Hot off the press, plant-based supplements may be beneficial in slowing the progression of prostate cancer. We already know that plant-rich diets and intensive lifestyle interventions can improve outcomes for people with a diagnosis of prostate cancer. A new randomised study from the UK has demonstrated that a whole food supplement containing a variety of plant-derived nutrients along with a plant-based probiotics can slow progression of prostate cancer, improve symptoms, reduce inflammation and improve general health. Read a summary of the study.
Plant-based eaters have the best gut health
This study from the team at Zoe investigated the relationship between self-reported diet patterns and gut microbiome composition, analysing data from a large global cohort of 21,561 individuals. The three diet patterns examined, vegan, vegetarian and omnivore, significantly influenced gut microbial composition. In total, stool sample analysis from 656 vegans, 1,088 vegetarians and 19,817 omnivores was included.
The microbiome signature in omnivores was consistent with eating meat and included bacterial species such as A. putredinis, B. wadsworthia and R. torques, that have previously been implicated in inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal cancer, and are more likely to be associated with negative cardiometabolic health outcomes. Omnivores consumed fewer plant-based foods on average compared to vegetarians and vegans, resulting in lower abundance of fibre-degrading and short chain fatty acid (SFCA)-producing microbes. The lack of plant diversity contributed to reduced gut microbial richness and functionality compared to plant-based diets. Microbial functions in omnivores focused on protein and amino acid metabolism, reflecting the animal-product-heavy diet. Metabolic pathways for processing red meat and dairy products, such as the production of TMAO (trimethylamine N-oxide), were prominent in omnivorous microbiomes and are linked to inflammation and cardiovascular risk.
Vegetarians exhibited gut microbiomes enriched with microbes associated with moderate plant-based diets, such as Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus acidophilus, common in dairy products. The microbial signatures of vegetarians were linked to better cardiometabolic health outcomes than those of omnivores but not as favourable as vegans. While vegetarians consumed more plant-based foods than omnivores, their diets included fewer diverse plant sources compared to vegans, reflected in their microbial composition.
Vegans exhibited unique gut microbial compositions dominated by fibre-degrading bacteria such as Lachnospiraceae, Roseburia hominis, and Butyricicoccus sp. These microbes are linked to the production of SCFAs, which support gut health and reduce inflammation. Vegan-associated microbes showed a stronger correlation with favourable cardiometabolic health outcomes compared to omnivores and vegetarians. Signature microbes in vegans are linked to lower risks of inflammatory diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes. Vegan diets, rich in diverse plant-based foods, resulted in higher health-promoting gut microbial diversity. Specific microbial functions enriched in vegans included fermentation of dietary fibers and biosynthesis of vitamins like vitamin B7 (inositol). Vegan gut microbiomes showed significant overlap with soil and plant microbiomes, including microbes like Enterobacter hormaechei and Klebsiella pneumoniae, which are often involved in plant growth and nitrogen fixation. These findings suggest dietary sources, particularly fruits and vegetables, contribute directly to gut microbial diversity in vegans.
Overall, the results confirm prior data that dietary patterns impact gut microbiome composition. Plant-based diets, especially vegan diets, are associated with greater gut microbial diversity and characterised by bacterial species that are associated with improved gut health, lower levels of inflammation and better cardiometabolic health. Increasing plant diversity in all diet patterns, including omnivorous diets, can foster beneficial microbial profiles. The finding that vegans have gut microbiomes that are found in plants and soil is intriguing and is an area that requires more research. You can read the study summary from the research team here.
The same research team has just published another study demonstrating that a fibre-rich, whole food dietary intervention can improve the health of the gut microbiome and shift the gut bacterial community to one that is associated with better health outcome, such as butyrate-producing bacteria.
As much as I don’t rate the commercial aspects of the company Zoe, they have continued to provide us with evidence that plant-rich diets support better gut and overall health. I just don’t think we all need their microbiome testing and supplements to achieve our best health.
Red meat consumption, health outcomes and industry influence
Online influencers and the meat industry want us to believe that red meat is a ‘nutrient dense food containing essential nutrients that support better health’. It is true that red meat is a source of certain essential nutrients, including protein, iron and zinc. Yet its consumption is associated with an increased risk of several chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.
An analysis of over 200,000 participants across three major U.S. cohorts, followed for 28 years, found that higher intakes of both processed and unprocessed red meat were consistently linked to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, even among those following an otherwise high-quality diet (as assessed using the Alternative Healthy Eating Index). The higher risk persisted even after adjusting for BMI, waist circumference, and weight change, suggesting the harms of red meat are independent of body weight. The study also demonstrated that substituting red meat with healthier foods, such as plant-based proteins, whole grains, or seafood, was associated with lower diabetes risk. The benefit of lowering red meat consumption was greater in participants with a higher diet quality.
This study helps to counter the narrative that the negative health impacts of red meat consumption are due to the fact that consumption is associated with an overall unhealthy diet. In fact, there was a greater risk associated with red meat in those who ate a healthier diet. In addition, it has been suggested that it is the food that red meat is consumed with that is responsible for harm. But this study also addressed this and showed that even in people with the lowest french fries consumption there was still a greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Substitution analysis showed that replacing red meat for refined grains was also beneficial, so we can’t even blame the bun!
Processed meats, in particular, raise significant concerns given their classification as carcinogenic by the World Health Organization. A report from the Food Foundations called Meat Facts finds that in the UK, nearly one-third of meat consumed is processed, with especially high intakes seen among children and younger men. The UK is consuming twice as much meat as the global average and 42% of meat consumed is chicken, despite the concerns around antibiotic resistance, pandemic risk, use of soya feed from areas of deforestation. Sadly, chicken consumption is likely to only increase especially with KFC investing 1.5 billion into the UK. There is an urgent need for public health messaging and government policies to support the reduction of meat consumption whilst increasing consumption of healthy plant-based foods.
Meat industry influence affects scientific rigour
The scientific literature on red meat is further complicated by issues related to industry influence. A 2025 systematic review revealed that studies with financial ties to the red meat industry were far more likely to report neutral or favourable health outcomes related to unprocessed red meat consumption. In contrast, all studies without industry ties reported either neutral or unfavorable outcomes. This pattern mirrors what has been observed in other areas of public health research, including studies on tobacco and sugar-sweetened beverages, raising serious concerns about the role of industry sponsorship in shaping scientific narratives.
Importantly, the health effects of reducing red meat depend significantly on what replaces it in the diet. Research has shown that substituting red meat with refined carbohydrates or other animal proteins such as white meat or fish may not lead to significant health improvements, and in some cases may even be detrimental. This is a study design ‘trick’ used by industry players to minimise the effect size of any potential harm attributed to red meat consumption. However, replacing red meat with high-quality plant-based foods like legumes, nuts, and whole grains consistently yields better outcomes for cardiovascular and metabolic health. This highlights the importance of specificity in dietary recommendations, general advice to reduce red meat intake is insufficient without guidance on appropriate substitutions.
Despite mounting evidence, UK dietary guidelines offer only broad recommendations to reduce red and processed meat with relatively high upper limit of 70g per day of red meat.. In contrast, international frameworks, such as the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet, advocate for more precise limits, recommending no more than 14 grams of red meat per day for both health and environmental sustainability. It’s worth noting that men in general consume more meat than women as shown in the Meat Facts report and corroborated by this study from France. These habits are formed early in life according to this study from Sweden, in which diets of 4-years olds failed to meet sustainability goals with boys more likely to be consuming higher quantities of environmentally damaging foods such as meat.
Misinformation from the meat and dairy industry in the UK
The AHDB (Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board), a farmer levy board supported by Defra, continues to try and persuade us that red meat is a necessary component of a ‘healthy, balanced diet’. Their 2025 report ‘Balancing health and sustainability: the role of red meat in the UK diet’ is counter to all the available evidence. The seventh carbon budget from the UK’s Climate Change Committee make it clear that the UK needs to reduce the number of farmed cows and sheep and significantly reduce the consumption of red meat and dairy to meet climate and nature goals. The target set is to reduce red meat consumption by 40% by 2050. There is no role for red meat consumption in a healthy, sustainable future.
We don’t need meat for iron
A key argument remains the fact that red meat is a source of readily bioavailable iron and diets low or absent in red meat will increase the risk of iron deficiency. Interestingly, new research challenges this assumption. A controlled trial titled Dietary Adaptation of Non-Heme Iron Absorption in Vegans found that long-term adherence to a vegan diet is associated with physiological adaptations that enhance non-haem iron absorption. The study, which compared iron absorption between omnivores and vegans, demonstrated that despite the absence of haem iron in the vegan diet, overall iron status remained within normal ranges. Vegans exhibited increased fractional absorption of plant-based (non-haem) iron, suggesting that the human body may up-regulate absorption mechanisms in response to lower dietary iron bioavailability. These findings call into question the prevailing narrative that red meat is indispensable for maintaining adequate iron status and support the feasibility of plant-based diets in meeting nutritional needs when appropriately planned. Of course longer more in depth studies are required, but available evidence does not find an increased risk of iron deficiency anaemia in people following meat-free diets.
Plant-rich diets support better health for people and the planet
The updated EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy, Sustainable, and Just Food Systems, published in 2025, marks a significant evolution in our understanding of how food connects health, the environment, and social justice. Since the first report in 2019, the world has faced multiple converging crises including, geopolitical instability, the COVID-19 pandemic, escalating climate impacts, and deepening inequalities. Yet despite these challenges, the message is more urgent and unequivocal than ever: our global food system remains the single largest driver of environmental degradation and a fundamental determinant of human health and wellbeing.
At the heart of this new analysis lies the Planetary Health Diet (PHD), a pattern of eating that is predominantly plant-based, rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and complemented by modest amounts of animal-sourced foods. These dietary recommendations first and foremost reflect our knowledge of diet and health. The PHD obtains 87.7% of energy from plant-based foods and meat, dairy and eggs are not considered essential. Authors clearly state that a 100% plant-based or vegan diet is compatible with the PHD recommendations.
The evidence supporting this way of eating for health has only strengthened over the past six years. Adopting a largely plant-based diet could prevent up to 15 million (27%) premature deaths annually, while substantially reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, respiratory conditions, cancer, dementia, and unhealthy ageing. The diet remains flexible and culturally adaptable, providing a framework within which regional food traditions can thrive. It supports adequate nutrition at all stages of life, including pregnancy and childhood (age 2 and above), noting that careful attention to key nutrients such as vitamin B12, iron, calcium, and iodine is required.
Perhaps the most profound shift in this Commission is the explicit integration of justice alongside health and sustainability. The 2025 report recognises that our food systems are not only environmentally unsustainable but also socially inequitable. Nearly half of the world’s population lives below the social foundations required to meet basic human rights such as access to food, clean environments, and decent work. Meanwhile, the diets of the wealthiest 30 percent of people are responsible for more than 70 percent of the environmental impact of global food production. The Commission calls for a transformation that is both nutritious and fair, ensuring that the benefits and burdens of food systems are shared equitably and that those most affected by injustice, smallholder farmers, women, and marginalised communities, have a voice in shaping the solutions.
Scientifically, the updated Commission represents a step change. For the first time, researchers have quantified food’s contribution to all nine planetary boundaries, those thresholds that define the safe operating space for humanity. The findings are sobering: food systems are the dominant cause of transgressing five of these boundaries, including land use, biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, freshwater depletion, and nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Even with ambitious interventions, healthier diets, more efficient agriculture, and a 50% reduction in food waste, the world only just manages to return to safe limits for climate and freshwater use.
Sustainable food production does not require animal inputs
I am delighted to see that Conservation Agriculture, pioneered by my father Dr Amir Kassam, is endorsed (panel 5) as the sustainable, ecological and just solution to food production intensification, enabling food systems to operate within planetary boundaries. Conservation Agriculture does not require any inputs from farmed animals as the healthy soil and its components are self-sustaining without the need for animal grazing and manure. Biomass is incorporated directly into soils by soil biodiversity, particularly earthworms and further processed by soil bacteria and fungi. Conservation Agriculture also requires much reduced inputs of chemicals and fossil fuel than tillage-based agriculture and it is entirely possible to practice within organic farming systems. You can read more about our vision for a sustainable plant-based farming system here.
The transformation envisioned by the Commission will reshape how and what we eat. It implies a 33 percent reduction in ruminant meat production, alongside a 63 percent increase in the cultivation of fruits, vegetables, and nuts. This shift would create a food system that is less resource-intensive, less polluting, and better aligned with human health. Crucially, the authors stress that food must also be delicious, desirable, and culturally meaningful if such dietary changes are to be sustained.
Can the global population continue to eat fish?
Where I think health and planetary priorities digress are with the continued recommendations for fish consumption. This would require increased fish production by up to 46% globally, when current levels of production have been shown to be unsustainable and hugely unethical. I look forward to learning how the authors propose this will be achieved.
Country-based dietary guidelines are rapidly updating to reflect the Eat-Lancet recommendations. In 2025 I am aware of updated guidelines from Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands, which also take environmental sustainability into consideration. Swiss guidelines recommend consuming meat, including poultry and processed meat, a maximum of twice to three times per week. Sweden has advised lowering red meat intake from a maximum of 500g to 350g per week, promoted the consumption of legumes, included plant-based dairy alternatives and acknowledged the benefits of plant-based meat alternatives. Belgium guidelines advise limiting unprocessed red meat to a maximum of 300g per week, dairy and fish recommendations are in line with the PHD, consumption of legumes, including tofu and tempeh, are promoted but plant-based milk and meat alternatives have not been included. The updated Dutch guidance relates to protein source, recommending eating more plant sources of protein and less animal-sourced foods. Specific recommendations include limiting red meat consumption to 200g per week and increasing legume consumption to 250g per week. The French National Agency for Health and Food have published, in 2025, a risk/benefit analysis of vegetarian and vegan diets. They reported a lower risk of a number of chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, ischaemic heart disease and certain cancers, whilst highlighting nutrients that require particular attention when consuming a meat-free or animal-free diet.
Plant-based meat alternatives are better for health than eating meat
The Eat-Lancet report acknowledges the potential role of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMA) in panel 11. Although the more newer, ultra-processed, meat mimics are not required in the diet, they may make it easier for people to move away from eating animals.
Most of the published studies on health suggest PBMAs, even if categorised as ultra-processed, are better for health when compared to their unprocessed, animal-based counterpart. Benefits are predominantly noted for cardiometabolic risk factors, such as body weight and LDL-cholesterol, without negative impacts on blood pressure despite the high sodium content (probably because people add salt to their meat too!).
Of course we would all recommend a minimally processed plant-based diet rather than relying on PBMA’s, but even if we did, studies show that these PBMAs have a favourable nutrient profile when compared to meat, including being a source of fibre, lower in saturated fat and if fortified, a source of nutrients such as vitamin B12 and iron. If we were to replace all meat consumption with PBMA’s (which no-one is!) protein intake would remain adequate for the majority of people. The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) in the UK did not find any adverse health impact of PBMAs in their statement on processed food and health.
In fact, researchers at PCRM have shown in a number of secondary analyses of their randomised studies that a fully plant-based or vegan diet, even if consuming processed plant-based foods, is more effective for weight loss than a healthy omnivorous or Mediterranean diet, including for people with type 1 diabetes.
Read our article on PBMAs.
What about plant-based dairy alternatives?
SACN in the UK have provided an assessment of plant-based drinks (i.e. dairy alternatives/plant milks), comparing the benefits and risks to health as a replacement for cow’s milk. Their findings are sensible albeit a little cautious, but includes the sensible statement that ‘Cows’ milk is not an essential component of young children’s diets (or the diets of other age groups). But if it is not part of their diet, other foods and drinks are needed to replace the nutrients that it provides.’
Plant-based drinks are also not required in the diet and perhaps should not be considered as an equivalent replacement for cow’s dairy as they differ in nutritional profile. However, plant-based drink or dairy alternatives can play a useful role, being a vehicle for nutrients for those consuming a fully plant-based or vegan diet.
Fortified soya milk is the closest to cows milk in terms of nutritional profile. So it is useful to remember that last year a large meta-analysis of randomised studies found that replacing cow’s milk with soya milk improves markers of cardiometabolic health, regardless of the sugar content.
No wonder the meat and diary industry is lobbying to ban meat-like terms such as burger, sausage and milk for plant-based alternatives. They seem to forget that terms such as peanut butter and coconut milk are already in widespread use!
If we know plant-based diets are good, how do we shift behaviour?
This is not only about individual change but system change, i.e a food environment that priorities and normalises plant-based meals as the default option. At the moment, animal-based meals are the default in most settings. The UK policy priorities on climate and health clearly state the need to shift food service in the public sector to reflect the recommendations of the EAT-Lancet commission – less or no meat and many many more plants.
The evidence suggests that the best strategy to shift dietary norms and uptake of plant-based meals is to provide plant-based meals as the default option (without restricting choice) and incentivising their update. Provision of information or labelling on its own does not work and initiatives that appear to strict choice can sometimes backfire.
This is why our approach at Plant-Based Health Professionals UK is to champion plant-based defaults in healthcare settings, both hospitals and at health-related events and conferences through our initiative Plants First Healthcare. Check out our ‘how-to-guide’ for medical institutions, in collaboration with the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change.
The worst media headlines of 2025
Vegan’s can’t build muscle, even though the study cited did not measure muscle growth or strength! This is despite more and more evidence showing that plant-based diet can adequately support muscle strength, being equivalent to meat-based diets. There is also no evidence to suggest a detriment to physical performance as evidenced by this randomised study in semi-professional soccer players. Plant-based diets can support muscle growth in older adults as shown in a randomised, controlled, cross-over study of 34 community-dwelling adults with a median age of 72 years. A vegan diet for 10 days did not compromise muscle protein synthesis compared to an omnivorous diet. Of note, the participants were physically active, achieving 12,460 +/-4512 steps/day.
Vegan children are skinnier and shorter. This was in fact true but what was excluded from the headlines was that the study in question found that the growth of vegan children was in fact considered normal and the lower body mass index is an advantage (in contrast to risk of being overweight!), with additional benefits found for cardiometabolic health given lower levels of LDL-cholesterol. The study was useful given its large size but did not reveal any new information. It reconfirms that a vegan diet can be nutritional adequate and support good health, whilst reminding us that certain nutrients such as iron, calcium, iodine, zinc, vitamins B12 and D need particular attention, through the use of fortified foods and supplements.
And finally, don’t forget that alcohol is a dietary component and a macronutrient. There is no safe limit of alcohol, no safe limit for cancer prevention, heart health or brain health.
Wishing you all a very happy new year and see you back in 2026!
Please follow my organisation ‘plant-based health professionals UK’ on Instagram @plantbasedhealthprofessionals and facebook. You can support our work by joining as a member or making a donation via the website.