» Articles » PMID: 36296936

Adherence to the EAT-Lancet Diet: Unintended Consequences for the Brain?

Overview
Journal Nutrients
Date 2022 Oct 27
PMID 36296936
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In January 2019, the EAT-Lancet Commission defined a universal reference diet to promote human and environmental health. However, in doing so, the potential consequences for brain health were not considered. Whilst plant-based diets are generally associated with better cognitive and affective outcomes, those that severely limit animal products are not. Therefore, the potential ramifications of the EAT-Lancet diet on cognition, mood, and heart rate variability were considered ( = 328). Adherence to the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) was associated with having a better mood, focused attention, working and episodic memory, and higher heart rate variability. However, when the EAT-Lancet diet was considered, the effects were either smaller or not significant. Cluster analysis identified a dietary style characterised by a strong adherence to the EAT-Lancet recommendation to limit meat intake, representing a sixth of the present sample. This group had a lower Mean Adequacy Ratio (MAR); did not meet the Recommended Nutrient Intake (RNI) for a range of nutrients including protein, selenium, zinc, iron, and folate; and reported a poorer mood. These data highlight the potential unintended consequences of the EAT-Lancet recommendations for nutritional adequacy and affective health in some individuals. There is a need to better optimise the EAT-Lancet diet to support brain health. As we move towards more sustainable diets, these findings emphasise the need to consider how such diets might affect the brain.

Citing Articles

Nourishing the mind: how the EAT-Lancet reference diet (ELD) and MIND diet impact stress, anxiety, and depression.

Kamrani F, Kachouei A, Sobhani S, Khosravi M BMC Psychiatry. 2024; 24(1):709.

PMID: 39427151 PMC: 11490120. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-024-06165-5.


Association of adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet with risk of dementia according to social economic status: a prospective cohort in UK Biobank.

Zhao W, Chen Q, Zhang Q, Li S, Zhao J, Chen W Geroscience. 2024; .

PMID: 39264406 DOI: 10.1007/s11357-024-01333-7.


Typical Guidelines for Well-Balanced Diet and Science Communication in Japan and Worldwide.

Shobako N, Itoh H, Honda K Nutrients. 2024; 16(13).

PMID: 38999861 PMC: 11243298. DOI: 10.3390/nu16132112.


Adherence to the planetary health diet and cognitive decline: findings from the ELSA-Brasil study.

Goncalves N, Cacau L, Ferreira N, Lotufo P, Goulart A, Viana M Nat Aging. 2024; 4(10):1465-1476.

PMID: 38942982 DOI: 10.1038/s43587-024-00666-4.


"Climate-friendly" diets from an allergy point of view.

Reese I Allergol Select. 2024; 8:199-205.

PMID: 38756209 PMC: 11097189. DOI: 10.5414/ALX02471E.


References
1.
Shekhar M, Rahnev D . Sources of Metacognitive Inefficiency. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020; 25(1):12-23. PMC: 8610081. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.007. View

2.
Chiuve S, Fung T, Rimm E, Hu F, McCullough M, Wang M . Alternative dietary indices both strongly predict risk of chronic disease. J Nutr. 2012; 142(6):1009-18. PMC: 3738221. DOI: 10.3945/jn.111.157222. View

3.
Bingham S, Gill C, Welch A, Day K, Cassidy A, Khaw K . Comparison of dietary assessment methods in nutritional epidemiology: weighed records v. 24 h recalls, food-frequency questionnaires and estimated-diet records. Br J Nutr. 1994; 72(4):619-43. DOI: 10.1079/bjn19940064. View

4.
Knuppel A, Papier K, Key T, Travis R . EAT-Lancet score and major health outcomes: the EPIC-Oxford study. Lancet. 2019; 394(10194):213-214. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31236-X. View

5.
Ibsen D, Christiansen A, Olsen A, Tjonneland A, Overvad K, Wolk A . Adherence to the EAT-Lancet Diet and Risk of Stroke and Stroke Subtypes: A Cohort Study. Stroke. 2021; 53(1):154-163. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.036738. View