Due to a growing challenge to feed the world’s population and an increased awareness to minimize the impact of our food choices on climate change, a more plant-based diet has gained popularity with a growing number of plant-based products on the market. To stimulate a plant-based diet that also improves long-term health, data are needed to monitor whether these products are healthy alternatives to animal-based foods. Therefore, this study inventoried 916 plant-based meat, fish, and dairy alternatives from eight Dutch supermarkets. The nutritional quality of each product was assessed by (1) the Dutch food-based dietary guidelines and (2) the Nutri-Score. The results show that over 70% of meat, fish, and dairy alternatives have an A/B Nutri-Score (indicating high nutritional quality), but do not comply with the Dutch dietary guidelines. This is mainly due to high salt and low vitamin B12 and iron content (meat and fish alternatives) or low protein and calcium levels (dairy alternatives). In conclusion, the majority of plant-based products are nutritionally not full alternatives of the animal-based equivalents; however, there are still opportunities for reformulation. To aid the consumer in making healthy plant-based food choices, a better alignment between the Nutri-Score and the recommended dietary guidelines is needed.
MULTIFILE
ContextRetirement is an opportune time for people to establish new healthy routines. Exercise and nutritional interventions are promising in the prevention and treatment of sarcopenic obesity.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of nutritional and exercise interventions for the treatment of sarcopenic obesity in persons of retirement age.Data SourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases were searched in September 2021 for randomized controlled trials; a manual search was also conducted. The search yielded 261 studies, of which 11 were eligible for inclusion.Data ExtractionStudies of community-dwelling individuals with sarcopenic obesity receiving any nutritional or exercise intervention ≥ 8 weeks with the mean age ± standard deviation between 50 and 70 years were included. Primary endpoint was body composition, and secondary endpoints were body mass index, muscle strength, and physical function. The literature review, study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Data were pooled for meta-analysis when possible.ResultsMeta-analysis was only possible for the exposure “resistance training” and the exposure “training (resistance or aerobic)” in combination with the exposure “added protein” as compared with “no intervention” or “training alone.” Resistance training led to a significant body fat reduction of −1.53% (95%CI, −2.91 to −0.15), an increase in muscle mass of 2.72% (95%CI, 1.23–4.22), an increase in muscle strength of 4.42 kg (95%CI, 2.44–6.04), and a slight improvement in gait speed of 0.17 m/s (95%CI, 0.01–0.34). Protein combined with an exercise intervention significantly reduces fat mass (−0.80 kg; 95%CI, −1.32 to −0.28). Some individual studies of dietary or food supplement interventions for which data could not be pooled showed positive effects on body composition.ConclusionResistance training is an effective treatment for persons of retirement age with sarcopenic obesity. Increased protein intake combined with exercise may increase reductions in fat mass.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO registration no. CRD42021276461.
Insight into protein requirements of intensive care unit (ICU) patients is urgently needed, but at present, it is unrealistic to define protein requirements for different diagnostic groups of critical illness or at different stages of illness. No large randomized controlled trials have randomized protein delivery, adequately addressed energy intake, and evaluated relevant clinical outcomes. As a pragmatic approach, experimental studies have focused on protein requirements of heterogeneous ICU patients. Data are scarce and the absolute value of protein requirements therefore is an approximation. Experimental studies indicate a protein requirement of >1.2 g/kg protein, which is supported by several outcome-based observational studies. Protein intake levels of up to 2.0-2.5 g/kg appear to be safe. A higher level of personalized treatment, within 1.2 and 2.5 g/kg, must involve identification of patients with low muscle protein mass that might benefit most from adequate protein nutrition in the ICU.
