Role of plant protein in nutrition, wellness, and health.

Plant-based diets, and more specifically plant-based proteins, have been the subject of growing interest from researchers and consumers because of their potential health benefits as well as their positive environmental impact. Of course, plant proteins are found in plant foods, and positive health benefits of plant foods are linked to dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals. In epidemiological studies it is not possible to separate out the health benefits of plant foods in general as opposed to plant proteins specifically. Additionally, few vegans, who consume only plant-based proteins, are included in existing prospective cohort studies. Isolated plant proteins (soy, pea) have been used in intervention trials, but often to improve biomarkers linked to disease risk, including serum lipids or blood pressure. This review is an overview of plant proteins, the whole foods they are associated with, and the potential health benefits linked to consumption of protein from plant sources. Plant proteins and their potential for reducing the risk of developing metabolic syndrome, diabetes management, cancer prevention, and weight management are each discussed, as are the various rating systems currently used to determine protein quality from plant sources. Although additional research is needed that focuses specifically on the role that plant protein plays in the prevention and management of these chronic illnesses, rather than the role played by a more general plant-based diet, evidence suggests that plant proteins offer nutritional benefits to those who consume them. Limitations to plant proteins, including lower protein quality, must also be considered in this discussion.

High Protein Pasta is Not More Satiating than High Fiber Pasta at a Lunch Meal, Nor Does it Decrease Mid-Afternoon Snacking in Healthy Men and Women.

This study compared satiety after high protein pasta (16 g protein, 6 g fiber), high fiber pasta (11 g protein, 8 g fiber) or control pasta (11 g protein, 6 g fiber) in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover trial. Participants were 36 healthy and men and women from the University of Minnesota campus. Fasted men and women ate calorie controlled, but macronutrient different pastas at 12:00 pm along with 500 mL of water. The primary outcome was satiety assessed by Visual Analogue Scales at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, and 180 min daily after consuming the pastas. Secondary outcomes were calories consumed at an ad libitum snack at 3:00 pm, calories from food intake, gastrointestinal tolerance, and palatability. No differences were found among the pasta treatments for satiety, snacking, or gastrointestinal tolerance. Men ate significantly more calories for the rest of the (P = 0.007) after the high protein pasta versus the high fiber pasta (1701 ± 154 compared with 1083 ± 154) with control pasta being intermediate to the other treatments. No significant differences were found for gastrointestinal tolerance, but the palatability ratings showed the high protein pasta was less tasty (P = 0.03) and less pleasant (P = 0.01) than the other 2 pastas. Satisfaction was positively associated with pleasantness and negatively associated with aftertaste. Our results do not support the idea that high protein or high fiber pasta produces a greater satiety response compared to pasta with lower amounts of either nutrient. It is likely that since pasta is already a very satiating food, the subjects were unable to differentiate between the 3 conditions.