[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Visual Abstract. Cardiometabolic Effects of Omnivorous vs Vegan Diets in Identical Twins
Cardiometabolic Effects of Omnivorous vs Vegan Diets in Identical Twins
Figure 1.  TwiNS CONSORT Flow Diagram
TwiNS CONSORT Flow Diagram
Figure 2.  Median Change From Baseline to 8 Weeks in Primary and Secondary Outcomes Between Vegan and Omnivorous Diet Arms
Median Change From Baseline to 8 Weeks in Primary and Secondary Outcomes Between Vegan and Omnivorous Diet Arms

For primary and secondary outcomes, percent change and P values are presented. A Wald test was used to evaluate a significant difference in diet at 8 weeks from baseline (interaction term). Error bars indicate IQRs. HDL-C indicates high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; and TMAO, trimethylamine N-oxide.

Table 1.  Baseline Characteristics of the Study Participantsa
Baseline Characteristics of the Study Participantsa
Table 2.  Cardiovascular Health Outcomes at the End of 8 Weeks and Main Effect Model Estimates for Primary and Secondary Outcome Analyses
Cardiovascular Health Outcomes at the End of 8 Weeks and Main Effect Model Estimates for Primary and Secondary Outcome Analyses
Supplement 2.

eMethods. Supplementary Methods

eResults. Supplementary Results

eAppendix. Plant-Based Dietary Intervention Reporting Checklist

eFigure 1. TwiNS Study Design

eTable 1. Twin Lifestyle Behaviors, n = 42 (21 Pairs of Twins)

eFigure 2. Macronutrient Distribution by Phase and Diet

eTable 2. Macronutrient Distribution by Phase and Diet

eFigure 3. Fat Distribution by Phase and Diet

eTable 3. Fat Distribution by Phase and Diet

eFigure 4. Grain Distribution by Phase and Diet

eTable 4. Grain Distribution by Phase and Diet

eFigure 5. Protein Distribution by Phase and Diet

eTable 5. Protein Distribution by Phase and Diet

eFigure 6. Carbohydrate Distribution by Phase and Diet

eTable 6. Carbohydrate Distribution by Phase and Diet

eFigure 7. Dietary Cholesterol Distribution by Phase and Diet

eTable 7. Dietary Cholesterol Distribution by Phase and Diet

eFigure 8. Dietary Vitamin B12 Distribution by Phase and Diet

eTable 8. Dietary Vitamin B12 Distribution by Phase and Diet

eFigure 9. Dietary Iron Distribution by Phase and Diet

eTable 9. Dietary Iron Distribution by Phase and Diet

eFigure 10. Vegetable Servings Distribution by Phase and Diet

eTable 10. Vegetable Servings Distribution by Phase and Diet

eFigure 11. Animal-Based Protein Distribution by Phase and Diet

eTable 11. Animal-Based Protein Distribution by Phase and Diet

eFigure 12. Meat Alternatives Distribution by Phase and Diet

eTable 12. Meat Alternatives Distribution by Phase and Diet

eTable 13. Diet Satisfaction (D-Sat28) of Participants by Diet Assignment and Phase

eTable 14. Self-Efficacy to Plan, Shop, Cook, and Choose Meals by Diet Assignment and Phase

eTable 15. Diet Preferences of Participants by Diet Assignment

eTable 16. Perceptions of Delivered, Pre-Prepared Meals by Diet Assignment

eTable 17. Barriers to Adherence to Study Eating Patterns by Diet Assignment

eTable 18. Factors that Improve Dietary Adherence and Sustainability by Diet Assignment

eTable 19. Average Self-Rated Dietary Adherence by Diet Assignment and Phase

eTable 20. Cardiovascular Health Outcomes at the End of 4 Weeks and Main Effect Model Estimates, Standard Errors, and 95% Confidence Interval for Primary and Secondary Outcome Analysis

eFigure 13. Sensitivity Analysis of the Change in Trimethylamine N-Oxide (TMAO) With Three Outliers Removed, (Mean ± SE)

eTable 21. Paired T-Tests of Cardiovascular Health Outcomes at the End of 8 Weeks

eTable 22. Unpaired T-Tests of Cardiovascular Health Outcomes at the End of 8 Weeks

eTable 23. Average Macronutrient and Micronutrient Composition of Trifecta Food Delivery Meals by Meal Type and Diet Assignment

eReferences

1.
Chai  BC, van der Voort  JR, Grofelnik  K, Eliasdottir  HG, Klöss  I, Perez-Cueto  FJ.  Which diet has the least environmental impact on our planet? a systematic review of vegan, vegetarian and omnivorous diets.   Sustainability. 2019;11(15):4110. doi:10.3390/su11154110 Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Fresán  U, Sabaté  J.  Vegetarian diets: planetary health and its alignment with human health.   Adv Nutr. 2019;10(suppl 4):S380-S388. doi:10.1093/advances/nmz019 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Willett  W, Rockström  J, Loken  B,  et al.  Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems.   Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447-492. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Mendoza-Vasconez  AS, Landry  MJ, Crimarco  A, Bladier  C, Gardner  CD.  Sustainable diets for cardiovascular disease prevention and management.   Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2021;23(7):31. doi:10.1007/s11883-021-00929-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Conrad  Z, Drewnowski  A, Belury  MA, Love  DC.  Greenhouse gas emissions, cost, and diet quality of specific diet patterns in the United States.   Am J Clin Nutr. 2023;117(6):1186-1194. doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.04.018 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Storz  MA.  What makes a plant-based diet? a review of current concepts and proposal for a standardized plant-based dietary intervention checklist.   Eur J Clin Nutr. 2022;76(6):789-800. doi:10.1038/s41430-021-01023-z PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Kaiser  J, van Daalen  KR, Thayyil  A, Cocco  MTARR, Caputo  D, Oliver-Williams  C.  A systematic review of the association between vegan diets and risk of cardiovascular disease.   J Nutr. 2021;151(6):1539-1552. doi:10.1093/jn/nxab037 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Dybvik  JS, Svendsen  M, Aune  D.  Vegetarian and vegan diets and the risk of cardiovascular disease, ischemic heart disease and stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.   Eur J Nutr. 2023;62(1):51-69. doi:10.1007/s00394-022-02942-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Selinger  E, Neuenschwander  M, Koller  A,  et al.  Evidence of a vegan diet for health benefits and risks – an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational and clinical studies.   Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. Published online May 16, 2022. doi:10.1080/10408398.2022.2075311 Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Satija  A, Hu  FB.  Plant-based diets and cardiovascular health.   Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2018;28(7):437-441. doi:10.1016/j.tcm.2018.02.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Gardner  CD, Vadiveloo  MK, Petersen  KS,  et al; American Heart Association Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health.  Popular dietary patterns: alignment with American Heart Association 2021 dietary guidance: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.   Circulation. 2023;147(22):1715-1730. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001146 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Thompson  AS, Tresserra-Rimbau  A, Karavasiloglou  N,  et al.  Association of healthful plant-based diet adherence with risk of mortality and major chronic diseases among adults in the UK.   JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e234714. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.4714 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Turner-McGrievy  GM, Barnard  ND, Scialli  AR.  A two-year randomized weight loss trial comparing a vegan diet to a more moderate low-fat diet.   Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15(9):2276-2281. doi:10.1038/oby.2007.270 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Parker  HW, Vadiveloo  MK.  Diet quality of vegetarian diets compared with nonvegetarian diets: a systematic review.   Nutr Rev. 2019;77(3):144-160. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuy067 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Melina  V, Craig  W, Levin  S.  Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: vegetarian diets.   J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016;116(12):1970-1980. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.025 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Bakaloudi  DR, Halloran  A, Rippin  HL,  et al.  Intake and adequacy of the vegan diet. a systematic review of the evidence.   Clin Nutr. 2021;40(5):3503-3521. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2020.11.035 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Dinu  M, Abbate  R, Gensini  GF, Casini  A, Sofi  F.  Vegetarian, vegan diets and multiple health outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies.   Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(17):3640-3649. doi:10.1080/10408398.2016.1138447PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Selinger  E, Neuenschwander  M, Koller  A,  et al.  Evidence of a vegan diet for health benefits and risks: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational and clinical studies.   Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2022;12(4):1088. doi:10.1080/10408398.2022.2075311Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Wang  T, Kroeger  CM, Cassidy  S,  et al.  Vegetarian dietary patterns and cardiometabolic risk in people with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(7):e2325658. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.25658PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Termannsen  AD, Clemmensen  KKB, Thomsen  JM,  et al.  Effects of vegan diets on cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.   Obes Rev. 2022;23(9):e13462. doi:10.1111/obr.13462PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Bedford  JL, Barr  SI.  Diets and selected lifestyle practices of self-defined adult vegetarians from a population-based sample suggest they are more ‘health conscious’.   Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005;2(1):4. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-2-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Satija  A, Bhupathiraju  SN, Spiegelman  D,  et al.  Healthful and unhealthful plant-based diets and the risk of coronary heart disease in US adults.   J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(4):411-422. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.05.047 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Vimaleswaran  KS.  A nutrigenetics approach to study the impact of genetic and lifestyle factors on cardiometabolic traits in various ethnic groups: findings from the GeNuIne Collaboration.   Proc Nutr Soc. 2020;79(2):194-204. doi:10.1017/S0029665119001186 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
World Medical Association.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.   JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.28105Google Scholar
25.
ClinicalTrials.gov. Twins Nutrition Study (TwiNS): Vegan vs. Omnivore (TwiNS). NCT05297825. Accessed October 19, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05297825
26.
Grundy  SM, Stone  NJ, Bailey  AL,  et al.  2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.   J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(24):3168-3209. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Institute of Medicine Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes.  Institute of Medicine (US) Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes and its Panel on Folate, Other B Vitamins, and Choline. National Academies Press; 1998.
28.
Termannsen  AD, Clemmensen  KKB, Thomsen  JM,  et al.  Effects of vegan diets on cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.   Obes Rev. 2022;23(9):e13462. doi:10.1111/obr.13462 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Tran  E, Dale  HF, Jensen  C, Lied  GA.  Effects of plant-based diets on weight status: a systematic review.   Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2020;13:3433-3448. doi:10.2147/DMSO.S272802 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Huang  RY, Huang  CC, Hu  FB, Chavarro  JE.  Vegetarian diets and weight reduction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.   J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(1):109-116. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3390-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Barnard  ND, Levin  SM, Yokoyama  Y.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of changes in body weight in clinical trials of vegetarian diets.   J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115(6):954-969. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2014.11.016 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Li  SS, Blanco Mejia  S, Lytvyn  L,  et al.  Effect of plant protein on blood lipids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.   J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(12):e006659. doi:10.1161/JAHA.117.006659 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Johannesen  CO, Dale  HF, Jensen  C, Lied  GA.  Effects of plant-based diets on outcomes related to glucose metabolism: a systematic review.   Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2020;13:2811-2822. doi:10.2147/DMSO.S265982 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Viguiliouk  E, Kendall  CW, Kahleová  H,  et al.  Effect of vegetarian dietary patterns on cardiometabolic risk factors in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.   Clin Nutr. 2019;38(3):1133-1145. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2018.05.032 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Joshi  S, Ettinger  L, Liebman  SE.  Plant-based diets and hypertension.   Am J Lifestyle Med. 2019;14(4):397-405. doi:10.1177/1559827619875411 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Gibbs  J, Gaskin  E, Ji  C, Miller  MA, Cappuccio  FP.  The effect of plant-based dietary patterns on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention trials.   J Hypertens. 2021;39(1):23-37. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000002604 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Lee  KW, Loh  HC, Ching  SM, Devaraj  NK, Hoo  FK.  Effects of vegetarian diets on blood pressure lowering: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.   Nutrients. 2020;12(6):1604. doi:10.3390/nu12061604 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Remde  A, DeTurk  SN, Almardini  A, Steiner  L, Wojda  T.  Plant-predominant eating patterns—how effective are they for treating obesity and related cardiometabolic health outcomes? a systematic review.   Nutr Rev. 2022;80(5):1094-1104. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuab060 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Turner-McGrievy  GM, Wilcox  S, Frongillo  EA,  et al.  Effect of a plant-based vs omnivorous soul food diet on weight and lipid levels among African American adults: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(1):e2250626. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50626 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Craig  JM, Calais-Ferreira  L, Umstad  MP, Buchwald  D.  The value of twins for health and medical research: a third of a century of progress.   Twin Res Hum Genet. 2020;23(1):8-15. doi:10.1017/thg.2020.4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Elder  SJ, Lichtenstein  AH, Pittas  AG,  et al.  Genetic and environmental influences on factors associated with cardiovascular disease and the metabolic syndrome.   J Lipid Res. 2009;50(9):1917-1926. doi:10.1194/jlr.P900033-JLR200 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Koeth  RA, Lam-Galvez  BR, Kirsop  J,  et al.  l-Carnitine in omnivorous diets induces an atherogenic gut microbial pathway in humans.   J Clin Invest. 2019;129(1):373-387. doi:10.1172/JCI94601 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Obeid  R, Awwad  HM, Keller  M, Geisel  J.  Trimethylamine-N-oxide and its biological variations in vegetarians.   Eur J Nutr. 2017;56(8):2599-2609. doi:10.1007/s00394-016-1295-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Witkowski  M, Weeks  TL, Hazen  SL.  Gut microbiota and cardiovascular disease.   Circ Res. 2020;127(4):553-570. doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.316242 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Velasquez  MT, Ramezani  A, Manal  A, Raj  DS.  Trimethylamine N-oxide: the good, the bad and the unknown.   Toxins (Basel). 2016;8(11):326. doi:10.3390/toxins8110326 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Crimarco  A, Springfield  S, Petlura  C,  et al.  A randomized crossover trial on the effect of plant-based compared with animal-based meat on trimethylamine-N-oxide and cardiovascular disease risk factors in generally healthy adults: Study With Appetizing Plantfood-Meat Eating Alternative Trial (SWAP-MEAT).   Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;112(5):1188-1199. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa203 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Cara  KC, Goldman  DM, Kollman  BK, Amato  SS, Tull  MD, Karlsen  MC.  Commonalities among dietary recommendations from 2010-2021 clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.   Adv Nutr. 2023;14(3):500-515. doi:10.1016/j.advnut.2023.03.007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Lichtenstein  AH, Appel  LJ, Vadiveloo  M,  et al.  2021 dietary guidance to improve cardiovascular health: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.   Circulation. 2021;144(23):e472-e487. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001031 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. 9th ed. US Dept of Agriculture, US Dept of Health & Human Services; December 2020. Accessed October 27, 2023. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans-2020-2025.pdf
50.
Fleming  JA, Kris-Etherton  PM, Petersen  KS, Baer  DJ.  Effect of varying quantities of lean beef as part of a Mediterranean-style dietary pattern on lipids and lipoproteins: a randomized crossover controlled feeding trial.   Am J Clin Nutr. 2021;113(5):1126-1136. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa375 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Cepni  AB, Crumbley  C, Nadeem  S, Ledoux  TA, Johnston  CA.  Incorporating nutrition counseling into lifestyle medicine.   Am J Lifestyle Med. 2022;16(3):291-294. doi:10.1177/15598276221077224 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Gardner  CD, Hartle  JC, Garrett  RD, Offringa  LC, Wasserman  AS.  Maximizing the intersection of human health and the health of the environment with regard to the amount and type of protein produced and consumed in the United States.   Nutr Rev. 2019;77(4):197-215. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuy073 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Gardner  CD, Crimarco  A, Landry  MJ, Fielding-Singh  P.  Nutrition study design issues: important issues for interpretation.   Am J Health Promot. 2020;34(8):951-954. doi:10.1177/0890117120960580d PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Barnard  ND, Cohen  J, Jenkins  DJ,  et al.  A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes.   Diabetes Care. 2006;29(8):1777-1783. doi:10.2337/dc06-0606 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Kahleova  H, Fleeman  R, Hlozkova  A, Holubkov  R, Barnard  ND.  A plant-based diet in overweight individuals in a 16-week randomized clinical trial: metabolic benefits of plant protein.   Nutr Diabetes. 2018;8(1):58. doi:10.1038/s41387-018-0067-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Gardner  CD, Landry  MJ, Perelman  D,  et al.  Effect of a ketogenic diet versus Mediterranean diet on glycated hemoglobin in individuals with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Interventional Keto-Med Randomized Crossover Trial.   Am J Clin Nutr. 2022;116(3):640-652. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqac154 Google ScholarCrossref
5 Comments for this article
EXPAND ALL
Efficacious but what about effective?
Joshua Gibbs, MA, Francesco P Cappuccio, DSc | University of Warwick
This study by Gardner et al. is a landmark in vegan diet literature. Dozens of randomized controlled trials have been conducted to assess the cardiometabolic effects of vegan diets but this one takes it to the next level by using a sample consisting of identical twins. This novel approach controls for genetic differences between the study groups, minimizing the risk of confounding and promotes confidence in the study findings. This study provides evidence that a vegan diet improves cardiometabolic risk factors (LDL-cholesterol, fasting insulin levels, and body weight) in healthy volunteers. However, the conclusions cannot be extrapolated to patients in a clinical setting. Moreover, efficacy does not equate to effectiveness. In normal healthy populations, a vegan diet has low acceptability due to a myriad of socio-economic barriers making it ineffective for large scale public health protection and disease prevention [1]. Fortunately, the benefits of a high plant-based diet can be achieved with less stringent diets. For example, our 2020 meta-analysis of controlled trials showed that plant-based diets containing some animal products (DASH, Mediterranean, Nordic, and lacto-ovo vegetarian) significantly lowered blood pressure [2]. These diets would likely have better uptake and therefore their promotion should be prioritized. Additionally, observational studies of those following vegan diets have repeatedly shown that they are at higher risk of falling short on important micronutrients such as vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and iodine [3]. Finally, current available plant-based meat products may still be unhealthy as far as sodium content is concerned. They are unable to meet the global benchmarks for this food category of 230mg of sodium per 100gr set by the World Health Organization [4]. The present study does not provide reassurance on the sodium content of the intervention used nor does it report the effects of blood pressure.

References
1. Gibbs, J.; Cappuccio, F.P. Plant-Based Dietary Patterns for Human and Planetary Health. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1614.
2. Gibbs, J.; Gaskin, E.; Ji, C.; Miller, M.A.; Cappuccio, F.P. The effect of plant-based dietary patterns on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention trials. Journal of hypertension 2021, 39, 23-37.
3. Bakaloudi, D.R.; Halloran, A.; Rippin, H.L.; Oikonomidou, A.C.; Dardavesis, T.I.; Williams, J.; Wickramasinghe, K.; Breda, J.; Chourdakis, M. Intake and adequacy of the vegan diet. A systematic review of the evidence. Clinical nutrition 2021, 40, 3503-3521.
4. World Health Organization. WHO global sodium benchmarks for different food categories. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021; p. 1-32. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Alternative interpretation
Patrick Mullie, Ph.D. | Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Belgium
In this study comparing a vegan diet with an omnivorous diet in a group of twins, the vegan diet had a better cardiometabolic effects than the omnivorous diet. The authors recommend that clinicians consider adopting a vegan diet approach for their patients. However, I reach a different conclusion.

The vegan dietary pattern resulted in greater weight loss than the omnivorous diet pattern, 1.4 kg versus 0 kg. In this regard, I do not think it is possible to distinguish the effect of veganism diet from the effect of weight loss itself. There is a possibility that weight loss
is beneficial.

In addition, the baseline cardiovascular risk, defined as total cholesterol divided by HDL-cholesterol, was 2.8 for vegans and 2.9 for omnivores. Upon completion of the study, these values were 2.7 and 2.8. The cardiometabolic effect of both diets appears beneficial.

As a final note, the study participants were healthy at the beginning of the study, so it is difficult to draw conclusions for patients with less healthy profiles.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Cholesterol ratios, exercise, and time-retricted eating? And the climate
Steven Cunningham, MD, MLA | Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital
Kudos to Dr. Gardner and his team on a great trial design (twins) to mitigate confounders in this notoriously difficult-to-study field of nutrition. In this RCT of 22 healthy, adult, identical twin pairs, they found that those consuming a healthy vegan diet significantly improved LDL-C, fasting insulin levels, and weight loss compared with those on a healthy omnivorous diet. However, several questions arise from this interesting study.

1) Given that the cholesterol ratios are likely a more reliable predictor of cardiovascular disease than LDL-C alone, how did these ratios compare between the trial arms? The ratios
are not reported at the participant level, if I am not mistaken, but using the numbers in Tables 1 and 2, the ratios for vegans and omnivores (below) are very similar at baseline and improved in both groups over the study’s 8 weeks, as Dr. Mullie noted on 12-21-2023. In fact, the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP, or triglycerides / HDL), which is an independent predictive marker for cardiovascular disease beyond traditional risk factors [1], such as LDL alone, show more improvement in the omnivores than the vegans. It would be interesting to properly compare and statistically analyze these ratios.

Vegans baseline to end
Cholesterol / HDL ratio = 3.17 to 3.03
Triglycerides / HDL ratio = 1.69 to 1.66
LDL / HDL ratio = 1.84 to 1.70

Omnivores baseline to end
Cholesterol / HDL ratio = 3.19 to 3.13
Triglycerides / HDL ratio = 1.66 to 1.54
LDL / HDL ratio = 1.85 to 1.82

2) In the supplemental file, eTable 1 (Twin Lifestyle Behaviors) shows that most (69%) twins felt “as alike as two peas in a pod,” as twins often do, but I do not see an exercise log. What if, for example, all the vegans exercised significantly more for 8 weeks?

3) Relatedly, again, unless I missed it, I don’t see where timing of eating is reported. Time-restricted eating (TRE) [2,3] is increasingly showing promise in lowering insulin, glucose, and body weight. Were the twin sets eating on the same schedule, or had some adopted increasingly popular TRE?

And all of this is to say nothing of the improved effects on the climate by supporting regenerative agriculture as an omnivore eating grass-fed and -finished beef, one of the most nutritionally dense foods available, compared with the arguably larger carbon footprint and worse effect on the climate associated with meat substitutes often eaten by vegans [4-7].

References
1. Won, et al. Atherogenic index of plasma and the risk of rapid progression of coronary atherosclerosis beyond traditional risk factors. Atherosclerosis, 2021-05-01, Volume 324 :46-51.
2. Rovira-Llopis, et al. Circadian alignment of food intake and glycaemic control by time-restricted eating: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Endocr Metab Disord, 2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s11154-023-09853-x. Online ahead of print.
3. Kamarul Zaman, et al. Effects of time-restricted eating with different eating duration on anthropometrics and cardiometabolic health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Cardiol, 2023 Jul 26;15(7):354-374. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v15.i7.354.
4. Buxton, Jayne. The Great Plant-Based Con: Why eating a plants-only diet won't improve your health or save the planet.
5. Rodgers, Diana; Wolf, Robb. Sacred Cow: The Case for (Better) Meat: Why Well-Raised Meat Is Good for You and Good for the Planet.
6. Schwarta, Judith. Cows Save the Planet: And Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth.
7. Niman, Nicolette Hahn. Defending Beef: The Case for Sustainable Meat Production.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Comments on study design
Massimo Carollo, MD | University of Verona, Department of Diagnostics and Public Health
As a physician and pharmacoepidemiologist with a background as a dietitian, I appreciate this study’s contribution to our understanding of dietary influences on health outcomes. While I do not question the validity of the results, I would like to highlight certain methodological aspects that warrant further discussion.

First, regarding the macronutrient distributions shown in eFigure 2, the rationale behind the percentage distribution choice is unclear. General international guidelines suggest that energy from carbohydrates should be greater than 50%, and energy from fats should be less than 35% (see Seidelmann SB et al., 2018). Additionally, the servings of meat in
the omnivorous diet exceed the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Second, concerning the first 4 weeks of meal delivery by Trifecta Nutrition, while standardizing diets is undoubtedly necessary, the reasons behind this specific company choice are not explicitly disclosed. Furthermore, the inclusion of the business company name raises questions about its relevance to the scientific research. Lastly, delivering food only once a week could impact the freshness and quality of the food, which is a key aspect of a healthy plant-based diet.

Third, regarding study's lack of an isocaloric design raises questions about the specific impact of diet composition independent of caloric intake. Although the authors discussed this in the Strengths & Limitations section and stated in the Introduction that "A vegan dietary pattern is typically lower in energy density," the absence of caloric intake control in the study design, especially given the observed differences in weight loss and caloric restriction between groups, is a notable omission and authors should have tried to address this confounding with a different study design. Future studies that control caloric intake would help isolate the effects of diet composition.

Fourth, a minor point. Considering the small sample size and the reported standard deviations (SDs), the use of means rather than medians might have masked data variability and skewness. If this is not the case, testing for normality should have been reported in the methods section to provide a clearer understanding of the data distribution.

The study by Landry et al. is indeed a valuable addition to the field of nutritional research. My comments aim to suggest avenues for further research to enhance this important work. I appreciate the opportunity to share my views and look forward to future studies that continue to explore this vital area of health and nutrition.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Interesting findings, but methodological questions arise
Stefan Tax, MSc | Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences
Having seen the Netflix documentary, which provides enough detail to stimulate refraining from eating meat and fish, some details of the intervention remained unclear to me, so I have read the paper and accompanying materials. This raises the following questions:

1. I saw participants exercising upon instruction, but this part of the intervention was not reported at all. Was this intervention only administered to the 8 Netflix-recruited participants? If all participants where put on an exercise regime, this could explain part of the measured pre-post differences.

2. In the documentary and in the paper, it appears as if
in the first 4 weeks ALL food was administered, but in the last page of the supplementary material it becomes clear that only 1 breakfast and 2 entrees have been offered, and that participants were coached to add food according to their needs. Should this have been reported more clearly?

3. For the meat-eating group, the baseline intakes of meat were lower than the meat intake in both the first 4 weeks and the next four weeks. This may contribute to why the vegan group did better on some key measures than the meat group in the 4 week and 8 week measurement. 

I understand that experimental nutritional studies are exceptionally complicated and think that the starting point of working with twins is a solid one, but in order to maximize acceptance of the findings under a wide audience, a more selfcritical strengths and limitations study would be beneficial, and also a discussion section that would offer alternative explanations for the effects reported.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Original Investigation
Nutrition, Obesity, and Exercise
November 30, 2023

Cardiometabolic Effects of Omnivorous vs Vegan Diets in Identical Twins: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Author Affiliations
  • 1Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
  • 2Department of Population Health and Disease Prevention, Program in Public Health, University of California, Irvine
  • 3Quantitative Sciences Unit, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
  • 4Department of Microbiology and Immunology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
  • 5Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, California
  • 6Center for Human Microbiome Studies, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(11):e2344457. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.44457
Key Points

Question  What are the cardiometabolic effects of a healthy plant-based (vegan) vs a healthy omnivorous diet among identical twins during an 8-week intervention?

Findings  In this randomized clinical trial of 22 healthy, adult, identical twin pairs, those consuming a healthy vegan diet showed significantly improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, fasting insulin level, and weight loss compared with twins consuming a healthy omnivorous diet.

Meaning  The findings from this trial suggest that a healthy plant-based diet offers a significant protective cardiometabolic advantage compared with a healthy omnivorous diet.

Abstract

Importance  Increasing evidence suggests that, compared with an omnivorous diet, a vegan diet confers potential cardiovascular benefits from improved diet quality (ie, higher consumption of vegetables, legumes, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and seeds).

Objective  To compare the effects of a healthy vegan vs healthy omnivorous diet on cardiometabolic measures during an 8-week intervention.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This single-center, population-based randomized clinical trial of 22 pairs of twins (N = 44) randomized participants to a vegan or omnivorous diet (1 twin per diet). Participant enrollment began March 28, 2022, and continued through May 5, 2022. The date of final follow-up data collection was July 20, 2022. This 8-week, open-label, parallel, dietary randomized clinical trial compared the health impact of a vegan diet vs an omnivorous diet in identical twins. Primary analysis included all available data.

Intervention  Twin pairs were randomized to follow a healthy vegan diet or a healthy omnivorous diet for 8 weeks. Diet-specific meals were provided via a meal delivery service from baseline through week 4, and from weeks 5 to 8 participants prepared their own diet-appropriate meals and snacks.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was difference in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration from baseline to end point (week 8). Secondary outcome measures were changes in cardiometabolic factors (plasma lipids, glucose, and insulin levels and serum trimethylamine N-oxide level), plasma vitamin B12 level, and body weight. Exploratory measures were adherence to study diets, ease or difficulty in following the diets, participant energy levels, and sense of well-being.

Results  A total of 22 pairs (N = 44) of twins (34 [77.3%] female; mean [SD] age, 39.6 [12.7] years; mean [SD] body mass index, 25.9 [4.7]) were enrolled in the study. After 8 weeks, compared with twins randomized to an omnivorous diet, the twins randomized to the vegan diet experienced significant mean (SD) decreases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration (−13.9 [5.8] mg/dL; 95% CI, −25.3 to −2.4 mg/dL), fasting insulin level (−2.9 [1.3] μIU/mL; 95% CI, −5.3 to −0.4 μIU/mL), and body weight (−1.9 [0.7] kg; 95% CI, −3.3 to −0.6 kg).

Conclusions and Relevance  In this randomized clinical trial of the cardiometabolic effects of omnivorous vs vegan diets in identical twins, the healthy vegan diet led to improved cardiometabolic outcomes compared with a healthy omnivorous diet. Clinicians can consider this dietary approach as a healthy alternative for their patients.

Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05297825

Introduction

Plant-based diets have gained recent popularity not only for their lower environmental impact compared with an omnivorous dietary pattern but also for their health benefits.1,2 The most significant global health crises affecting our generation are noncommunicable diseases and climate change, which are both inextricably linked to diet,3 and dietary patterns high in plants and low in animal foods can maximize health and environmental benefits.4,5 Plant-based diets contain a diverse family of dietary patterns, which encourage a reduced consumption of animal foods.6 Abundant evidence from observational and intervention studies7-13 indicates that vegan diets are associated with improved cardiovascular health and decreased risk of cardiovascular disease, likely because of the higher daily consumption of vegetables and fruits, legumes, whole grains and nuts, and seeds compared with other different types of dietary patterns.14

A vegan dietary pattern is typically lower in energy density but higher in fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients compared with other dietary patterns.15 However, sometimes a vegan dietary pattern can limit specific nutrients, such as vitamin B12, iron, and calcium.15,16 Most studies17,18 examining vegan diets have been epidemiologic examinations, with a few reported clinical studies.19,20 A confounding factor to consider in epidemiologic studies is the bias of self-decided vegans who may differ from nonvegans in factors that may influence diet and health.21 In addition, a poorly formulated vegan diet can include low-quality plant foods, such as refined carbohydrates and added sugars.22 To address these concerns, we designed a trial to compare the cardiometabolic effects of a healthy vegan diet with a healthy omnivorous diet, exposing both groups to vegetables, legumes, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and seeds. To control for genetic differences that might alter the cardiometabolic effects of diet,23 we randomly assigned identical twins to follow the 2 diets for 8 weeks.

Methods

This study followed the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki24 and was approved by the Stanford University Human Subjects Committee on March 9, 2022. All study participants provided written informed consent. The trial protocol is given in Supplement 1. Additional methods are available in the eMethods in Supplement 2. This report follows the 25-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline of design, participants, interventions, outcomes, sample size, randomization, participant flow, baseline data, outcomes, ancillary analyses, limitations, and interpretation. Race and ethnicity data were collected via self-report and included to characterize the population for generalizability of findings.

Study Design

This single-site, parallel-group, dietary intervention randomized clinical trial randomized healthy, adult identical twins to a healthy vegan or omnivorous diet for 8 weeks. Participant enrollment began March 28, 2022, and continued through May 5, 2022. The date of final follow-up data collection was July 20, 2022.

The primary outcome was the difference from baseline to 8 weeks in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels between the diet groups. Secondary outcomes included differences from baseline to 8 weeks in body weight and levels of fasting triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, glucose, insulin, trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), and vitamin B12. Exploratory assessments included diet quality, adherence, and qualitative factors to help interpret the study’s findings (eFigure 1 in Supplement 2).

Participants

We aimed to recruit 22 pairs of identical twins 18 years or older, a sample size determined by resource availability rather than a formal power calculation. Identical twins were recruited primarily from the Stanford Twin Registry and randomized using computerized random-number generation by a statistician (K.M.C.) blinded to the intervention, delivery, or data collection. Adult twins 18 years or older willing to consume a plant-based (vegan) or omnivore diet for 8 weeks were included. We excluded participants who weighed 45.36 kg (100 lb) or less, had a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 40 or higher, had an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher (to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0259), had a systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher, or were pregnant. Individuals self-reported race and ethnicity for the purpose of demographic reporting. Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been previously published.25

Dietary Intervention

The study consisted of two 4-week phases: delivered meals and self-provided meals. Participants were provided all no-cost meals for the first 4 study weeks by a nationwide meal delivery company (Trifecta Nutrition). It was expected that after 4 weeks of food delivery and health educator counseling that participants would understand the amounts and types of foods they should purchase and prepare to achieve maximum adherence to the diets when self-providing meals.

Research staff worked with Trifecta Nutrition to develop menu offerings to match a healthy vegan and omnivorous diet, which emphasized vegetables, fruits, and whole grains while limiting added sugars and refined grains. During the initial 4 weeks, meals were delivered once each week, with 7 days of breakfast, lunch, and dinner meals. Participants also purchased and consumed snacks to meet their energy requirements following guidance from health educators.

Guiding principles were reinforced: (1) choose minimally processed foods; (2) build a balanced plate with vegetables, starch, protein, and healthy fats; (3) choose variety within each food group; and (4) individualize these guidelines to meet preferences and needs (eAppendix in Supplement 2). Although weight loss was not discouraged, our diet design did not include a prescribed energy restriction and was not intended to be a weight loss study. Participants were told to eat until they were satiated throughout the study.

Collection of Dietary Intake

Two types of dietary data were collected. For the primary reporting data, 3 unannounced 24-hour dietary recalls—a structured interview intended to capture detailed information about food and drink intakes—were administered within a 1-week window (2 weekdays and 1 weekend day) of each time point (baseline, week 4, and week 8). Data were collected via telephone by a registered dietitian (L.R.D.) using Nutrition Data System for Research (Nutrition Coordinating Center). For the secondary reporting data, participants were encouraged to log their food intake using the Cronometer app (Cronometer Pro, Nutrition Tracking Software for Professionals; Cronometer); these data were used by health educators for real-time guidance of participants.

Anthropometric and Metabolic Data

At 3 time points, participants visited the Stanford Clinical and Translational Research Unit after an overnight fast of 10 to 12 hours: baseline, 4 weeks (phase 1), and 8 weeks (phase 2). Blood draw and clinical measures were assessed using standard methods (eMethods in Supplement 2). Stool samples were collected for future analysis to examine changes to the gut microbiome (eg, microbial diversity), metabolites, inflammatory markers, and additional health factors.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics, mean (SD) or number (percentage), were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Table 1 presents baseline summary statistics by study group. For the primary analysis, we investigated differences between groups in the change from baseline to week 8 for LDL-C between vegan and omnivorous diets among identical twins. Primary analysis included all available data. A linear mixed model was used and included fixed effects for diet and time (baseline as reference) and an interaction effect for diet × time and a random effect for twin pair to account for the correlation between identical twins (ie, random intercept allowed intercept to vary for each twin pair). A Wald test was used to evaluate a significant difference in diet at 8 weeks from baseline (interaction term). Finally, we present model estimates (95% CIs) for diet at 8 weeks. For each secondary outcome, we evaluated a statistical model similar to the primary model as described herein.

Analyses were completed using R Studio, version 2022.12.0 (Posit Software). A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered to be statistically significant. No correction was applied for multiple comparisons, and secondary and exploratory analyses should be interpreted accordingly.

Results

A total of 22 pairs of randomized twins (N = 44) were enrolled in the study. The CONSORT flow diagram of participants (Figure 1) shows 22 twin pairs randomized to receive either a vegan or omnivorous diet (1 twin per diet); 21 pairs in both groups contributed to the final analyses. Baseline characteristics (Table 1) included the following: mean (SD) age, 39.6 (12.7) years; 34 (77.3%) female and 10 (22.7%) male; 5 (11.4%) Asian, 2 (4.5%) Black/African American, 1 (2.3%) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 32 (72.7%) White, 4 (9.1%) multiracial, and mean (SD) body mass index, 26.9 (4.9). Most twins (33 of 42 [78.6%]) currently lived with their twin, and most reported being similar to their twin (29 of 42 [69.0%]) (Table 2; eTable 1 in Supplement 2).

Diet and Nutrient Intake

Reported energy intake during each of the two 4-week phases (food delivery and self-provided) were lower compared with baseline for both groups (eFigures 1 to 5 and eTables 2 to 6 and 23 in Supplement 2). Intake of vegetables, animal-based protein sources, and plant-based protein sources by diet group and per intervention phase are provided in eFigures 6 to 12 and eTables 10 to 12 in Supplement 2. Additional results are available in the eResults, eTables 7 to 9, and eFigures 7 to 9 in Supplement 2.

Primary Outcome

Participants receiving the vegan diet showed a mean (SD) decrease of 13.9 (5.8) mg/dL (95% CI, −25.3 to −2.4 mg/dL) in the unadjusted mean LDL-C level at 8 weeks from baseline compared with participants receiving the omnivorous diet (Table 2). As early as 4 weeks, we observed a significant decrease in mean LDL-C level among vegans compared with omnivores (eTable 20 in Supplement 2). The percentage of change from baseline to 8 weeks in primary and secondary outcomes between vegan and omnivorous diet groups (Figure 2) showed a significant decrease in LDL-C level among the vegan compared with the omnivore group (Table 2). Participants’ mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 114 (33.5) mg/dL,26 leaving minimal room for participants to improve through diet alone.

Secondary Outcomes

Compared with participants receiving the omnivorous diet, participants receiving the vegan diet saw a significant mean (SD) decrease of 2.9 (1.3) μIU/mL in fasting insulin (95% CI, −5.3 to −0.4 μIU/mL) from baseline to 8 weeks (P = .03) (to convert to picomoles per liter, multiply by 6.945) (Table 2). Vegan participants had a significant mean (SD) decrease of −1.9 (0.7) kg in body weight (95% CI, −3.3 to −0.6 kg) from baseline to 8 weeks compared with participants on the omnivorous diet (P = .01) (Figure 2), although weight loss was observed for both diet groups. Vegans also experienced a larger but nonsignificant absolute median decrease in fasting high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, vitamin B12, and TMAO levels; a lesser but nonsignificant decrease in glucose levels; and a nonsignificant increase in fasting triglycerides at 8 weeks from baseline compared with omnivores (Figure 2).

Sensitivity Analysis

Three outlier TMAO levels greater than 15 μM were noted: 2 at baseline and 1 at 8 weeks. After the outliers were eliminated, the TMAO level was significantly different between diet groups at 8 weeks: in this analysis, participants on the vegan diet showed a mean (SD) decrease of −2.1 (0.7) μM (95% CI, −3.5 to −0.7 μM) in the difference of TMAO from baseline to 8 weeks compared with participants on the omnivorous diet (eFigure 13 in Supplement 2).

Exploratory Analysis

Paired and unpaired 2-tailed t tests indicate minimal differences between statistical analysis approach (eTables 21 and 22 in Supplement 2). Participants receiving the omnivorous diet had nominally higher diet satisfaction at weeks 4 and 8 compared with vegan participants (eTable 13 in Supplement 2). Additional results are available in eResults and eTables 14 to 20 in Supplement 2.

Discussion

In this randomized clinical trial of healthy, adult identical twins, the 8-week change in LDL-C level—the primary outcome—was significantly lower for twins receiving the vegan diet compared with twins receiving the omnivorous diet. Insulin levels and weight were also significantly lower among the twins on the vegan diet from baseline to 8 weeks. Vegan-diet participants had total lower protein intake as a percentage of calories, lower dietary satisfaction, lower intake of dietary cholesterol, but higher intake of vegetable servings and intake of dietary iron. Vegans had lower intake of vitamin B12, yet serum vitamin B12 levels were not statistically different than omnivores at 8 weeks, likely because of preserved stores.27 Long-term vegans are typically encouraged to take a cyanocobalamin (vitamin B12) supplement.

Two factors may have limited our opportunity to observe additional differences between the study groups. First, participants in both diet groups were assigned to eat a healthy diet, usually healthier compared with their prestudy dietary pattern demonstrated by increased vegetable intake and decreased refined grains intake. Even the omnivorous participants improved their diet quality during the 8-week intervention (eg, increased vegetables and whole grain intake and decreased added sugars and refined grains). Second, within both groups, potential differences in clinical end point changes may have been blunted because participants were healthy at baseline. For example, participants’ mean baseline LDL-C level was 114 mg/dL,26 leaving minimal room for participants to improve through diet alone. Nonetheless, we observed significant improvements in 3 clinical outcomes (LDL-C, insulin, and weight) among the vegan participants.

Our results corroborate a previous finding showing that eating a vegan diet can improve cardiovascular health.28 A larger body of evidence from randomized clinical trials suggests that vegetarian and other plant-based dietary patterns lower weight29-31 and improve lipid management,30,32,33 glucose metabolism,33,34 blood pressure,35-37 and cardiometabolic health.38 Our results also mirror a recently completed 2-year dietary intervention trial among African Americans randomized to a vegan or low-fat omnivorous diet, finding improvements in body weight and cardiovascular disease risk factors.39

Novel to this study was our population of identical twins, a valuable resource in scientific research that provided a unique opportunity to investigate the effects of a dietary intervention while controlling for genetic and environmental factors,40 influences that can significantly impact health outcomes, including body weight, cardiovascular health, and metabolic function.40,41 Because identical twins have nearly identical DNA and many shared experiences (eg, upbringing, geographic region growing up, and similar exposure to other variables), observed differences in health outcomes after adoption of different dietary patterns can largely be attributed to the diet itself.

We were surprised that TMAO concentrations did not significantly differ between diets at 8 weeks because of the higher meat content in the omnivorous diet and of the meat TMAO precursors choline and carnitine.42,43 Although some studies44,45 report a positive association between the concentration of serum TMAO and development of cardiovascular disease, whether TMAO is a bystander or mediator of disease remains unknown. In a sensitivity analysis that removed 3 TMAO outlier participants, lower TMAO levels were found in the vegan participants. Prior research42,43 has suggested that vegans have lower TMAO levels than meat or fish eaters because of the TMAO precursors choline and carnitine in animal products. In a recent crossover dietary trial (Study With Appetizing Plantfood-Meat Eating Alternative Trial [SWAP-MEAT]),46 participants consuming plant-based alternative meat vs animal meat had significantly lower TMAO concentrations. In addition to our 3 TMAO outliers, we observed variability among participants in TMAO concentration changes. Further investigation is needed on TMAO as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and the association of dietary choline and carnitine vs fish with serum TMAO concentrations.

A recent meta-epidemiologic study47 examining dietary recommendations from current clinical practice guidelines recommends diets rich in unrefined plant foods and low in refined and animal-based foods. Clinical practice guidelines from the American Heart Association recommend that practitioners encourage patients to choose healthy sources of protein, mostly from plants, to promote cardiovascular health.11,48 Additionally, Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-202549 includes a healthy, vegetarian-style dietary pattern that can be adopted for improved health and chronic disease prevention. Although our findings suggest that vegan diets offer a protective cardiometabolic advantage compared with a healthy, omnivorous diet, excluding all meats and/or dairy products may not be necessary because research22,50 suggests that cardiovascular benefits can be achieved with modest reductions in animal foods and increases in healthy plant-based foods compared with typical diets. We believe lower dietary satisfaction in the vegan group may have been attributable to the strictness of the vegan diet, creating more barriers for people to follow the vegan diet guidelines. Some people may find a less restrictive diet preferable for LDL-C–lowering effects. Future studies assessing health benefits of less strict plant-based diets will be necessary to assess these benefits, especially in a study model limiting additional biases (eg, in twins). Within a clinical setting, patients should be supported in choosing a dietary pattern that fits their needs and preferences.41,51 Clinicians should allow patients to make informed choices that support them to choose which dietary approach is most suitable for them. At a population level, wider adoption of a culturally appropriate dietary pattern that is higher in plant foods and lower in animal foods can promote health and environmental benefits.3,4,10,52

Strengths and Limitations

Several aspects of our design and implementation were strengths. First, enrolling identical twins was beneficial because we were able to eliminate the confounding influences of age, sex, and genetic factors that may affect clinical outcomes. Identical twins often share a similar environment and lifestyle, reducing environmental factors on the study results. Second, the initial 4-week period of food delivery facilitated participants’ high adherence to the diet, whereas the latter 4 weeks of self-provided foods increased generalizability. Third, we used LDL-C, a well-established cardiometabolic clinical value, as the primary outcome.26 Fourth, we assessed an extensive set of well-studied secondary clinical outcomes to evaluate overall cardiometabolic health. Fifth, diet data collection using the state-of-the-art Nutrition Data System for Research allowed us to assess and report on adherence—an important metric in free-living trials53—and compare macronutrient and micronutrient intakes. Sixth, previous trials11,13,31,50,54,55 have reported similar metabolic and weight loss benefits of vegan diets yet tended to focus on very low–fat vegan diets, study populations with diabetes or overweight, and comparison diets with limited attention to equipoise. Novelties of the current trial were the use of a more moderate- and higher-fat vegan diet (unsaturated fat),11 the generally healthy population without diabetes or overweight, and a healthy omnivorous comparison diet (eg, higher in vegetables and fiber than the baseline diet). Seventh, to provide fair and objective comparisons and avoid “straw man” comparators, we emphasized high-quality, exemplary dietary choices to participants on both diets.

The study also has some limitations. First, the adult twin population was generally healthy and may not be generalizable to other populations. Second, we studied a small sample size (N = 44); however, the use of monozygotic twins may reduce issues of reproducibility because the twins acted as their own controls. Third, study duration was short (8 weeks); however, in this study as well as several previous trials,46,56 clinically relevant changes in cardiovascular risk factors (eg, LDL-C and weight) were observed as early as 4 weeks into the intervention. Fourth, there was no follow-up period, which limited insights of poststudy stability and sustainability of diet behaviors. Fifth, our study was not designed to be isocaloric; thus, changes to LDL-C cannot be separated from weight loss observed in the study. We designed this study as a “free-living” study; thus, the behavior of following a vegan diet may induce the physiological changes we observed. However, the biological mechanisms cannot be determined to be causally from solely the vegan diet alone because of confounding variables (weight loss, decrease in caloric intake, and increase in vegetable intake). Sixth, diversity in education and socioeconomic status was lacking.

Conclusions

In this randomized clinical trial, we observed cardiometabolic advantages for the healthy vegan vs the healthy omnivorous diet among healthy, adult identical twins. Clinicians may consider recommending plant-based diets to reduce cardiometabolic risk factors, as well as aligning with environmental benefits.

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: October 12, 2023.

Published: November 30, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.44457

Correction: This article was corrected on December 26, 2023, to fix the last sentence in the Secondary Outcomes subsection of the Results section.

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 Landry MJ et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Author: Christopher D. Gardner, PhD, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, 3180 Porter Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94304 (cgardner@stanford.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Gardner had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Landry and Ward are co–first authors.

Concept and design: Landry, Cunanan, Perelman, Robinson, J. L. Sonnenburg, Gardner.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Landry, Ward, Cunanan, Durand, Perelman, Dant.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Landry, Ward, Cunanan, Robinson, Hennings, Koh, Dant, Zeitlin, Ebel, E. D. Sonnenburg, J. L. Sonnenburg, Gardner.

Statistical analysis: Landry, Ward, Durand, Zeitlin.

Obtained funding: J. L. Sonnenburg, Gardner.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Perelman, Robinson, Hennings, Dant, E. D. Sonnenburg, J. L. Sonnenburg.

Supervision: Cunanan, Dant, E. D. Sonnenburg, J. L. Sonnenburg, Gardner.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Ebel reported receiving grants from the National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in Biology during the conduct of the study. Dr Gardner reported receiving funding from Beyond Meat outside the submitted work. Dr J. L. Sonnenburg is a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub investigator. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was funded by the Vogt Foundation (Drs Robinson, J. L. Sonnenburg, and Gardner and Ms Hennings), grants UL1TR001085 and TL1R001085 from the Stanford Clinical and Translational Science Award unit (Dr O’Hara), and grant T32HL161270 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (Dr Ward).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.

Additional Contributions: We acknowledge the study participants without whom this investigation would not have been possible.

References
1.
Chai  BC, van der Voort  JR, Grofelnik  K, Eliasdottir  HG, Klöss  I, Perez-Cueto  FJ.  Which diet has the least environmental impact on our planet? a systematic review of vegan, vegetarian and omnivorous diets.   Sustainability. 2019;11(15):4110. doi:10.3390/su11154110 Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Fresán  U, Sabaté  J.  Vegetarian diets: planetary health and its alignment with human health.   Adv Nutr. 2019;10(suppl 4):S380-S388. doi:10.1093/advances/nmz019 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Willett  W, Rockström  J, Loken  B,  et al.  Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems.   Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447-492. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Mendoza-Vasconez  AS, Landry  MJ, Crimarco  A, Bladier  C, Gardner  CD.  Sustainable diets for cardiovascular disease prevention and management.   Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2021;23(7):31. doi:10.1007/s11883-021-00929-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Conrad  Z, Drewnowski  A, Belury  MA, Love  DC.  Greenhouse gas emissions, cost, and diet quality of specific diet patterns in the United States.   Am J Clin Nutr. 2023;117(6):1186-1194. doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.04.018 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Storz  MA.  What makes a plant-based diet? a review of current concepts and proposal for a standardized plant-based dietary intervention checklist.   Eur J Clin Nutr. 2022;76(6):789-800. doi:10.1038/s41430-021-01023-z PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Kaiser  J, van Daalen  KR, Thayyil  A, Cocco  MTARR, Caputo  D, Oliver-Williams  C.  A systematic review of the association between vegan diets and risk of cardiovascular disease.   J Nutr. 2021;151(6):1539-1552. doi:10.1093/jn/nxab037 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Dybvik  JS, Svendsen  M, Aune  D.  Vegetarian and vegan diets and the risk of cardiovascular disease, ischemic heart disease and stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.   Eur J Nutr. 2023;62(1):51-69. doi:10.1007/s00394-022-02942-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Selinger  E, Neuenschwander  M, Koller  A,  et al.  Evidence of a vegan diet for health benefits and risks – an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational and clinical studies.   Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. Published online May 16, 2022. doi:10.1080/10408398.2022.2075311 Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Satija  A, Hu  FB.  Plant-based diets and cardiovascular health.   Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2018;28(7):437-441. doi:10.1016/j.tcm.2018.02.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Gardner  CD, Vadiveloo  MK, Petersen  KS,  et al; American Heart Association Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health.  Popular dietary patterns: alignment with American Heart Association 2021 dietary guidance: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.   Circulation. 2023;147(22):1715-1730. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001146 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Thompson  AS, Tresserra-Rimbau  A, Karavasiloglou  N,  et al.  Association of healthful plant-based diet adherence with risk of mortality and major chronic diseases among adults in the UK.   JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e234714. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.4714 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Turner-McGrievy  GM, Barnard  ND, Scialli  AR.  A two-year randomized weight loss trial comparing a vegan diet to a more moderate low-fat diet.   Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15(9):2276-2281. doi:10.1038/oby.2007.270 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Parker  HW, Vadiveloo  MK.  Diet quality of vegetarian diets compared with nonvegetarian diets: a systematic review.   Nutr Rev. 2019;77(3):144-160. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuy067 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Melina  V, Craig  W, Levin  S.  Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: vegetarian diets.   J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016;116(12):1970-1980. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.025 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Bakaloudi  DR, Halloran  A, Rippin  HL,  et al.  Intake and adequacy of the vegan diet. a systematic review of the evidence.   Clin Nutr. 2021;40(5):3503-3521. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2020.11.035 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Dinu  M, Abbate  R, Gensini  GF, Casini  A, Sofi  F.  Vegetarian, vegan diets and multiple health outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies.   Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(17):3640-3649. doi:10.1080/10408398.2016.1138447PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Selinger  E, Neuenschwander  M, Koller  A,  et al.  Evidence of a vegan diet for health benefits and risks: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational and clinical studies.   Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2022;12(4):1088. doi:10.1080/10408398.2022.2075311Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Wang  T, Kroeger  CM, Cassidy  S,  et al.  Vegetarian dietary patterns and cardiometabolic risk in people with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(7):e2325658. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.25658PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Termannsen  AD, Clemmensen  KKB, Thomsen  JM,  et al.  Effects of vegan diets on cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.   Obes Rev. 2022;23(9):e13462. doi:10.1111/obr.13462PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Bedford  JL, Barr  SI.  Diets and selected lifestyle practices of self-defined adult vegetarians from a population-based sample suggest they are more ‘health conscious’.   Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005;2(1):4. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-2-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Satija  A, Bhupathiraju  SN, Spiegelman  D,  et al.  Healthful and unhealthful plant-based diets and the risk of coronary heart disease in US adults.   J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(4):411-422. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.05.047 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Vimaleswaran  KS.  A nutrigenetics approach to study the impact of genetic and lifestyle factors on cardiometabolic traits in various ethnic groups: findings from the GeNuIne Collaboration.   Proc Nutr Soc. 2020;79(2):194-204. doi:10.1017/S0029665119001186 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
World Medical Association.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.   JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.28105Google Scholar
25.
ClinicalTrials.gov. Twins Nutrition Study (TwiNS): Vegan vs. Omnivore (TwiNS). NCT05297825. Accessed October 19, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05297825
26.
Grundy  SM, Stone  NJ, Bailey  AL,  et al.  2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.   J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(24):3168-3209. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Institute of Medicine Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes.  Institute of Medicine (US) Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes and its Panel on Folate, Other B Vitamins, and Choline. National Academies Press; 1998.
28.
Termannsen  AD, Clemmensen  KKB, Thomsen  JM,  et al.  Effects of vegan diets on cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.   Obes Rev. 2022;23(9):e13462. doi:10.1111/obr.13462 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Tran  E, Dale  HF, Jensen  C, Lied  GA.  Effects of plant-based diets on weight status: a systematic review.   Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2020;13:3433-3448. doi:10.2147/DMSO.S272802 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Huang  RY, Huang  CC, Hu  FB, Chavarro  JE.  Vegetarian diets and weight reduction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.   J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(1):109-116. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3390-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Barnard  ND, Levin  SM, Yokoyama  Y.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of changes in body weight in clinical trials of vegetarian diets.   J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115(6):954-969. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2014.11.016 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Li  SS, Blanco Mejia  S, Lytvyn  L,  et al.  Effect of plant protein on blood lipids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.   J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(12):e006659. doi:10.1161/JAHA.117.006659 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Johannesen  CO, Dale  HF, Jensen  C, Lied  GA.  Effects of plant-based diets on outcomes related to glucose metabolism: a systematic review.   Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2020;13:2811-2822. doi:10.2147/DMSO.S265982 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Viguiliouk  E, Kendall  CW, Kahleová  H,  et al.  Effect of vegetarian dietary patterns on cardiometabolic risk factors in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.   Clin Nutr. 2019;38(3):1133-1145. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2018.05.032 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Joshi  S, Ettinger  L, Liebman  SE.  Plant-based diets and hypertension.   Am J Lifestyle Med. 2019;14(4):397-405. doi:10.1177/1559827619875411 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Gibbs  J, Gaskin  E, Ji  C, Miller  MA, Cappuccio  FP.  The effect of plant-based dietary patterns on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention trials.   J Hypertens. 2021;39(1):23-37. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000002604 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Lee  KW, Loh  HC, Ching  SM, Devaraj  NK, Hoo  FK.  Effects of vegetarian diets on blood pressure lowering: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.   Nutrients. 2020;12(6):1604. doi:10.3390/nu12061604 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Remde  A, DeTurk  SN, Almardini  A, Steiner  L, Wojda  T.  Plant-predominant eating patterns—how effective are they for treating obesity and related cardiometabolic health outcomes? a systematic review.   Nutr Rev. 2022;80(5):1094-1104. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuab060 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Turner-McGrievy  GM, Wilcox  S, Frongillo  EA,  et al.  Effect of a plant-based vs omnivorous soul food diet on weight and lipid levels among African American adults: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(1):e2250626. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50626 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Craig  JM, Calais-Ferreira  L, Umstad  MP, Buchwald  D.  The value of twins for health and medical research: a third of a century of progress.   Twin Res Hum Genet. 2020;23(1):8-15. doi:10.1017/thg.2020.4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Elder  SJ, Lichtenstein  AH, Pittas  AG,  et al.  Genetic and environmental influences on factors associated with cardiovascular disease and the metabolic syndrome.   J Lipid Res. 2009;50(9):1917-1926. doi:10.1194/jlr.P900033-JLR200 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Koeth  RA, Lam-Galvez  BR, Kirsop  J,  et al.  l-Carnitine in omnivorous diets induces an atherogenic gut microbial pathway in humans.   J Clin Invest. 2019;129(1):373-387. doi:10.1172/JCI94601 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Obeid  R, Awwad  HM, Keller  M, Geisel  J.  Trimethylamine-N-oxide and its biological variations in vegetarians.   Eur J Nutr. 2017;56(8):2599-2609. doi:10.1007/s00394-016-1295-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Witkowski  M, Weeks  TL, Hazen  SL.  Gut microbiota and cardiovascular disease.   Circ Res. 2020;127(4):553-570. doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.316242 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Velasquez  MT, Ramezani  A, Manal  A, Raj  DS.  Trimethylamine N-oxide: the good, the bad and the unknown.   Toxins (Basel). 2016;8(11):326. doi:10.3390/toxins8110326 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Crimarco  A, Springfield  S, Petlura  C,  et al.  A randomized crossover trial on the effect of plant-based compared with animal-based meat on trimethylamine-N-oxide and cardiovascular disease risk factors in generally healthy adults: Study With Appetizing Plantfood-Meat Eating Alternative Trial (SWAP-MEAT).   Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;112(5):1188-1199. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa203 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Cara  KC, Goldman  DM, Kollman  BK, Amato  SS, Tull  MD, Karlsen  MC.  Commonalities among dietary recommendations from 2010-2021 clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.   Adv Nutr. 2023;14(3):500-515. doi:10.1016/j.advnut.2023.03.007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Lichtenstein  AH, Appel  LJ, Vadiveloo  M,  et al.  2021 dietary guidance to improve cardiovascular health: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.   Circulation. 2021;144(23):e472-e487. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001031 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. 9th ed. US Dept of Agriculture, US Dept of Health & Human Services; December 2020. Accessed October 27, 2023. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans-2020-2025.pdf
50.
Fleming  JA, Kris-Etherton  PM, Petersen  KS, Baer  DJ.  Effect of varying quantities of lean beef as part of a Mediterranean-style dietary pattern on lipids and lipoproteins: a randomized crossover controlled feeding trial.   Am J Clin Nutr. 2021;113(5):1126-1136. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa375 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Cepni  AB, Crumbley  C, Nadeem  S, Ledoux  TA, Johnston  CA.  Incorporating nutrition counseling into lifestyle medicine.   Am J Lifestyle Med. 2022;16(3):291-294. doi:10.1177/15598276221077224 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Gardner  CD, Hartle  JC, Garrett  RD, Offringa  LC, Wasserman  AS.  Maximizing the intersection of human health and the health of the environment with regard to the amount and type of protein produced and consumed in the United States.   Nutr Rev. 2019;77(4):197-215. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuy073 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Gardner  CD, Crimarco  A, Landry  MJ, Fielding-Singh  P.  Nutrition study design issues: important issues for interpretation.   Am J Health Promot. 2020;34(8):951-954. doi:10.1177/0890117120960580d PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Barnard  ND, Cohen  J, Jenkins  DJ,  et al.  A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes.   Diabetes Care. 2006;29(8):1777-1783. doi:10.2337/dc06-0606 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Kahleova  H, Fleeman  R, Hlozkova  A, Holubkov  R, Barnard  ND.  A plant-based diet in overweight individuals in a 16-week randomized clinical trial: metabolic benefits of plant protein.   Nutr Diabetes. 2018;8(1):58. doi:10.1038/s41387-018-0067-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Gardner  CD, Landry  MJ, Perelman  D,  et al.  Effect of a ketogenic diet versus Mediterranean diet on glycated hemoglobin in individuals with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Interventional Keto-Med Randomized Crossover Trial.   Am J Clin Nutr. 2022;116(3):640-652. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqac154 Google ScholarCrossref
×