Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Comparative Analysis of Plant and Animal Protein Sources on Cardiometabolic HealthPlant-derived protein shows potential for lower cholesterol in older adults

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Plant-derived protein shows a marginal advantage in lowering total cholesterol, while animal protein showed some benefit for DBP.

This meta-analysis evaluates the impact of protein source—specifically plant-derived versus animal-derived—on the cardiometabolic health of adults aged 50 and older. By analyzing data from 2,363 participants, the study aimed to determine if switching protein sources influences key clinical markers such as total cholesterol (T-CHOL) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), as well as physical metrics like lean mass and grip strength.

Regarding body composition, the analysis found no statistically significant differences between plant and animal protein groups. Metrics including lean mass and handgrip strength remained consistent across both cohorts, suggesting that the source of protein may not drastically alter musculoskeletal outcomes in this demographic. Furthermore, most standard blood indices showed no significant variation, indicating a baseline level of equivalence in general hematological markers.

However, specific lipid profiles showed nuanced results. A marginal reduction in total cholesterol was observed in the group receiving plant-derived proteins. This trend was particularly notable in specific subgroups, including those with lower daily protein intake or those not engaged in regular exercise. These findings suggest that plant-based proteins may offer a slight advantage in lipid management for specific patient profiles.

In contrast, the data regarding blood pressure presented a different trend. Diastolic blood pressure was found to favor animal-derived protein in specific cohorts, particularly those with lower daily protein intake. These divergent results for T-CHOL and DBP suggest that the physiological impact of protein sources may be highly dependent on the specific metabolic pathway being measured and the baseline nutritional status of the patient.

Clinicians should interpret these findings with caution due to significant heterogeneity between the included studies. The primary data often relied on soy-based isolates and dairy-derived comparators rather than whole-food substitutions. Consequently, the results may not perfectly translate to a patient transitioning from a meat-heavy diet to a whole-food plant-based diet. Ultimately, while plant-derived proteins show a slight edge in cholesterol reduction, the evidence for overall cardiometabolic superiority is limited by study design. The findings highlight the importance of individual patient factors, such as current intake levels and activity status, when counseling patients on protein sources. Further high-quality trials using whole-food sources are necessary to provide more definitive clinical guidelines.

For many adults over the age of 50, managing heart health and cholesterol levels is a primary concern. As people age, maintaining muscle mass and monitoring blood pressure becomes increasingly important for long-term wellness. This research looks at how different protein sources, specifically those from plants versus those from animals, affect these key health markers. Understanding these differences can help people make more informed choices about their daily nutrition.

To investigate this, researchers conducted a meta-analysis, which is a type of study that combines data from multiple previous trials. They looked at a large group of 2,363 adults aged 50 and older. The researchers compared the effects of plant-derived proteins against animal-derived proteins. They specifically looked at outcomes like body composition, muscle strength, blood pressure, and various blood markers, including total cholesterol.

The findings showed that for most measures, such as body composition, lean muscle mass, and handgrip strength, there was no significant difference between plant and animal proteins. Most blood indices also showed no significant differences between the two groups. However, the researchers did find a marginal reduction in total cholesterol for those who consumed plant-derived proteins. This trend toward lower cholesterol was more noticeable in specific groups, such as those who consumed less than 27 grams of protein per day or those who did not have a specific exercise intervention.

In contrast, the study noted that animal-derived protein was associated with lower diastolic blood pressure in certain specific groups. While these findings are interesting, it is important to note that the study used specific protein isolates, like soy and dairy, rather than whole foods. This means the results might not perfectly reflect what happens when someone switches from a steak to a bowl of lentils. There are several reasons to be cautious about these results. The study had a lot of variation between the different trials it combined, and the use of isolated proteins makes it hard to generalize the findings to everyday diets. Because the evidence is limited and the study was not focused on whole foods, it does not prove that a plant-based diet is superior to an animal-based one. For now, these results suggest that plant proteins may have a slight benefit for cholesterol, but they do not change current medical advice for most patients. People should continue to work with their healthcare providers to determine the best protein sources for their individual health needs.

What this means for you:
Plant-derived proteins may slightly lower cholesterol in some older adults, but more research on whole foods is needed.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 2,363
EvidenceLevel 1
Follow-up600.0 mo
PublishedOct 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Interest in plant-derived proteins and cardiometabolic health is growing, yet evidence directly comparing plant- and animal-derived protein intake in middle-aged and older adults remains inconsistent. AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of plant-versus animal-derived protein interventions on nutritional status, cardiometabolic health, and inflammatory outcomes in adults aged ≥50 years. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2000 and August 2025. Eligible studies included adults aged ≥50 years, intervention durations of >1 month, and direct comparisons between plant- and animal-derived protein interventions. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted according to daily plant- and animal-protein intake, using 27 g/day as the data-derived median for both protein sources; intervention duration, using 12 weeks as the data-derived median; sex composition; and the presence or absence of an exercise intervention. RESULTS: Twenty-nine RCTs involving 2363 participants were included; 61.3% of participants were female, with 1174 assigned to animal-protein group and 1189 to plant-protein group. Most trials compared soy-based protein interventions with dairy-derived proteins; 25 of the 29 (86%) included RCTs used soy as the plant-protein source, and 23 of 29 (79%) evaluated purified protein isolates or isolate-based products rather than whole foods. Seven trials included an exercise intervention. Pooled analyses showed no significant differences between plant- and animal-protein interventions on body composition, including lean mass and handgrip strength, and on most blood indices. A marginal reduction in total cholesterol (T-CHOL) favored plant protein with substantial between-study heterogeneity (Hedges' g = -0.31, 95% CI: -0.62 to -0.00; I = 86.20%). Exploratory analyses suggested that plant protein favored T-CHOL among comparisons with plant-protein intake <27 g/day, animal-protein intake <27 g/day, or no exercise intervention. Conversely, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) favored animal protein among comparisons with animal-protein intake <27 g/day. Findings were accompanied by increased heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Plant- and animal-derived protein interventions produced generally similar effects on nutritional, cardiometabolic, and inflammatory outcomes in adults aged ≥50 years. However, the predominance of soy-based isolates and dairy-derived comparators, together with substantial between-study heterogeneity, limits the certainty and generalizability of the findings. The results should be interpreted as evidence from controlled protein-source interventions rather than as evidence of equivalence between whole-food plant and animal protein substitutions. Further RCTs evaluating diverse whole-protein foods within protein-adequate, isocaloric, and nutritionally well-characterized dietary patterns are warranted. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD420261304953.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.