Adjunct Faculty, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2020 Oct 1;112(4):937-940. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa237.
The present debate outlined opposing views regarding the role of animal products in human diets. The YES position argues that the health benefits and safety of plant-based diets have been clearly established by consistent findings of randomized trials and observational studies; that animal products skew the diet toward saturated fat, excess protein, cholesterol, lactose, and exogenous hormones; and that vulnerable populations are better nourished by vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains than by striated muscle and cow milk. In contrast, the NO position asserts that animal foods are not only benign but are also key elements of the human omnivore diet, facilitating the global challenge of adequate essential nutrition. This view holds that the portrayal of animal foods as unhealthy is not supported by the evidence and that a restrictive vegan diet decreases nutritional flexibility and robustness, increasing risk for vulnerable population groups. Points of agreement and controversy were identified, as well as opportunities for further studies.
目前的辩论围绕着动物产品在人类饮食中的作用展开了两种观点的对立。支持方认为,通过随机试验和观察性研究的一致发现,植物性饮食的健康益处和安全性已经得到明确证实;动物产品会使饮食偏向饱和脂肪、过量蛋白质、胆固醇、乳糖和外源性激素;而蔬菜、水果、豆类和全谷物比条纹肌肉和牛奶更能为弱势群体提供营养。相比之下,反对方则认为动物食品不仅无害,而且还是人类杂食性饮食的关键组成部分,有助于应对全球充足基本营养的挑战。这种观点认为,将动物食品描述为不健康的说法并没有得到证据的支持,而限制的纯素饮食会降低营养的灵活性和稳健性,增加弱势群体的风险。辩论中还确定了一些共识和争议点,以及进一步研究的机会。