Acute Meat and Alternative Intake (PRotEin DIet SatisfacTION Trial 3) (PREDITION)

Acute Evidence of Digestive, Metabolic and Nutritional Differences in Beef and Meat- Analogue Meals

Introduction: Protein rich foods that are alternatives to farm-grown meat have received considerable consumer attention. Whilst meat alternatives were once niche food products aimed at vegetarians, they are increasingly marketed to omnivores and "flexitarians", thus contributing to a trend for reductions in red meat intakes [1]. Studies to date have addressed the environmental benefit, plus consumer perceptions and acceptability of meat alternatives [2, 3, 4], yet there is surprisingly a paucity of data compared the nutritional and digestive differences to meat. The aim of this trial is to compare the digestive consequences of pasture-fed and grain-finished, beef versus a plant-based meat analogue blinded meal.

Methods and analyses: Healthy, young (20-34 y) participants will be asked to consume three separate meals in a crossover, blinded investigation followed by five hours of blood testing and questionnaires to assess the digestive consequences of meat and a plant-based meat analogue. The three meals will include either pasture-fed, or grain-finished, or laboratory based protein alternative as a mixed meal, in random order, separated by one week minimum. Plasma samples will be assessed amino acid content, neurotransmitter proteins, chylomicron fatty acid distribution and general health indices.

Ethics and dissemination: The trial has been granted ethical approval by the Ministry of Health, Health and Disability Ethics Committee (Ref: 19/STH/226). All results originating from this study will be submitted for publication in scientific journals and presented at meetings.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Diet, Healthy; Protein; Disease
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Food. Beef, Pasture-raised; Other: Food. Beef, Grain-fed; Other: Food. Meat alternative; Other: Food, Lamb

Detailed Description

Introduction: Red meat consumption contributes important nutrients to the diet, including essential amino acids, long chain and complex lipids, vitamins (including B12) and minerals (including iron and zinc) [5]. While supplying these important nutrients, red meat may contain components which may negate optimal health such as the saturated fat content and nitrates, that are added during processing [5]. The degree to which red meat affects health is likely related to its inherent nutritional profile, the quantity consumed and any processing (e.g. nitrates or cooking techniques). Regardless, the simple notion of a complex whole-food containing single nutrients which are 'good' or 'bad' for health is now considered overly simplistic [6]. For example, to reduce heart disease, nutritional guidelines now suggest an increase in polyunsaturated fats at the expense of saturated fat, rather than a complete reduction of all fats [6].

Alongside the controversy over the health consequences of red meat, recent attention has focused on the possibility of using "plant-based" proteins as an alternative to red meat consumption. The search for meat alternatives has resulted in a sharp increase in the production of novel "plant-based" meat analogues that have been designed to replicate the taste and eating experience of red-meat. To date there are very few studies addressing the nutritional differences between traditional red meat and plant-based meat analogues, and the nutritional differences that arise due to different production systems. Given the nutritional composition of red meat is likely to be influenced by the farming and feeding practices of the animals, production procedures and end-user cooking techniques [7], these differences need to be accounted for in the research design and application.

Aims: To investigate the digestive responses to an acute intake of pasture-fed beef, grain-finished beef, lamb and a plant based meat-analogue consumed as a component of a mixed meal. This study is part of a larger programme to understand the nutritional implications of consuming New Zealand, pasture-fed red meat as part of a balanced diet.

Study Design and Setting: The study is designed as randomised cross-over trial to capture biological difference in postprandial nutrient dynamics. Research subjects will act as their own controls and will consume each meal (pasture raised, grain-fed beef, lamb and a meat alternative meal) on a separate occasion in random order. The study compares exemplars of pasture-fed New Zealand beef, grain-finished New Zealand beef, lamb and a meat analogue. The plant-based meat analogue has been selected on the basis of its macronutrient profile (protein and fat) and appearance in order to that best matches that of meat.

The digestion and metabolism of key nutrients in beef will be measured immediately after the ingestion of a single meal. This experimental setting will also be used to examine some subjective qualities of the meal experience, such as satisfaction score (i.e., liking, satisfaction, enjoyment, satiety, appetite) and gastrointestinal score (i.e., comfort, fullness, bloating, rumbling, flatulence, faecal urgency, diarrhoea).

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 30
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• New Zealand
  • [other]
    • Auckland, [other], New Zealand, 1142
      • The University of Auckland

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 20 years to 34 years (Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• All participants will be required to be omnivores willing to consume both red meat and plant-base alternatives for the purposes of the trial.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Those with chronic health conditions, hyperlipidaemia, obesity (BMI ≥ 30), use of medications (except occasional use of NSAIDs and antihistamines), history of anosmia and ageusia (issues with taste and smell), current dieting or disordered eating pattern and smoking tobacco or recreational drugs will be excluded from participating.
• Participants will be asked to complete an on-line screening which will include the Three-factor Eating Questionnaire-R18 (TFEQ) and a health survey. Participants with a TFEQ score greater than 75% will be excluded from participating on the basis their perception of food is potentially influenced by underlying psychological issues

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Basic Science
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
• Masking: Double

Number of Arms

4

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Pasture-raised; The meal contains grass/pasture fed beef	Other: Food. Beef, Pasture-raised; Pasture-raised beef
Experimental: Grain-fed; The meal contains grain-fed beef	Other: Food. Beef, Grain-fed; Grain-fed beef
Placebo Comparator: Meat Alternative; The meal contains a meat alternative	Other: Food. Meat alternative; Meat alternative
Experimental: Lamb; The meal contains lamb	Other: Food, Lamb; Lamb

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
LCPUFA (18:2 n-6, 18:3 n-3, 20:4 n-6, 20:5 n-3, 22:5 n-3, 22:6 n-3	Chylomicron fatty acids, blood test	Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Fatty acids (14:0, 16:0, 16:1 n-7, 18:0, 18:1 n-9, others)	Chylomicron fatty acids, blood test	Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Amino acids/ Neurotransmitters	blood test	Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Glucose/ Insulin	Blood test	Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Minerals/ Iron	Blood test	Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestions
Fullness	Questionnaire (8 questions), Likert scale, non-directional answers	Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Digestive Symptoms	Questionnaire (11 questions), Likert scale, higher score indicative of greater symptoms	Change from baseline to 240-minutes post meal ingestion
Meal Palatability	Questionnaire (5 questions), Likert scale, higher score indicative of greater palatability	Difference between intervention meals, 30 minutes post meal

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Auckland, New Zealand
• Collaborators: Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences; Massey University; AgResearch; The Riddet Institute
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Andrea J Braakhuis, PhD, The University of Auckland

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• 1. Thakur A. Market for Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. Environmental, Health, and Business Opportunities in the New Meat Alternatives Market. IGI Global; 2019: 218-37.
• Slade P. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite. 2018 Jun 1;125:428-437. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.030. Epub 2018 Mar 5.
• 3. Circus VE, Robison R. Exploring perceptions of sustainable proteins and meat attachment. B Food J. 2019.
• Keefe LM. #FakeMeat: How big a deal will animal meat analogs ultimately be? Anim Front. 2018 Jul 19;8(3):30-37. doi: 10.1093/af/vfy011. eCollection 2018 Jul. No abstract available.
• Ekmekcioglu C, Wallner P, Kundi M, Weisz U, Haas W, Hutter HP. Red meat, diseases, and healthy alternatives: A critical review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2018 Jan 22;58(2):247-261. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2016.1158148. Epub 2017 Jun 28.
• Forouhi NG, Krauss RM, Taubes G, Willett W. Dietary fat and cardiometabolic health: evidence, controversies, and consensus for guidance. BMJ. 2018 Jun 13;361:k2139. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k2139.
• Hicks TM, Knowles SO, Farouk MM. Global Provisioning of Red Meat for Flexitarian Diets. Front Nutr. 2018 Jun 14;5:50. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00050. eCollection 2018.
• Pham T, Knowles S, Bermingham E, Brown J, Hannaford R, Cameron-Smith D, Braakhuis A. Plasma Amino Acid Appearance and Status of Appetite Following a Single Meal of Red Meat or a Plant-Based Meat Analog: A Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial. Curr Dev Nutr. 2022 May 4;6(5):nzac082. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzac082. eCollection 2022 May.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): November 1, 2020
• Primary Completion (Actual): January 30, 2021
• Study Completion (Actual): December 20, 2021

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: May 12, 2020
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 3, 2020
• First Posted (Actual): September 11, 2020

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): November 28, 2023
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: November 27, 2023
• Last Verified: November 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: health; bioavailability; diet; amino acid; protein; meat products
• Other Study ID Numbers: 5000927; U1111-1244-9426 (Registry Identifier: Universal Trial Number)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: YES
• IPD Plan Description: As yet there is no plan but we are open to sharing the data
• IPD Sharing Time Frame: Pre-recruitment
• IPD Sharing Access Criteria: The study protocol will be freely available via publication
• IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type: STUDY_PROTOCOL; ICF

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No