The protein illusion: New study finds human cells struggle to absorb nutrients from plant-based meat

• A new study challenges the protein equivalence of plant-based meats, finding that the human body may not absorb protein from a plant-based meat analog as effectively as it does from chicken.
• The research used a simulated digestion model and found that peptides (digested protein) from the plant-based product were less water-soluble and larger, making them harder for human intestinal cells to absorb.
• This highlights a key “bioavailability gap”—the amount of protein listed on a nutrition label does not reflect how much the body can actually use, questioning claims of nutritional parity.
•  The findings add to a growing scientific critique, suggesting that despite being marketed as healthier, these highly processed alternatives are not a direct nutritional substitute for animal meat.
• The researchers call for improved food science, aiming to enhance both the sensory qualities and the nutritional bioavailability of future plant-based meat products.

In the bustling landscape of modern nutrition, where grocery aisles are increasingly dominated by plant-based burgers, nuggets and grounds, a fundamental question has been largely glossed over in the marketing frenzy: Can the human body actually use the protein in these products as effectively as it uses protein from the meat they aim to replace? A groundbreaking new study from The Ohio State University delivers a sobering answer, suggesting that the much-touted nutritional equivalence of meat substitutes may be more illusion than reality. The research, led by Dr. Da Chen and published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, employed a simulated human digestion model to reveal that peptides—the broken-down building blocks of protein—from a plant-based meat analog were significantly less absorbable by human cells than those from chicken.

A clash of nutritional narratives

For years, the public health narrative has been clear and compelling: Reduce red and processed meat consumption for the sake of personal health and the planet. This directive fueled a gold rush in food technology, with companies engineering plant-based products to mimic the taste, texture and even the sizzle of animal meat. Central to their marketing has been the claim of nutritional parity or superiority, often highlighting high protein content alongside lower levels of saturated fat. This new research challenges that claim at a cellular level, adding to a growing body of science questioning whether these ultra-processed alternatives are the health panacea they are portrayed to be.

Deconstructing digestion: The science of absorption

The Ohio State team set out to investigate a known but under-explored issue. Previous studies indicated that plant proteins from meat substitutes do not break down into peptides as efficiently as animal proteins during digestion. Dr. Chen’s team took the next critical step: determining if human cells could absorb those plant-derived peptides as readily. They created a model meat alternative using soy and wheat gluten, designed to mimic the fibrous structure of chicken. Both the plant-based model and real chicken were ground, cooked and then subjected to a sophisticated laboratory simulation of human digestion.

The peptides derived from the plant-based meat were found to be less water-soluble, a scientific term meaning they do not dissolve or mix easily in water. In the body, this property of hydrophobicity makes nutrients harder to absorb through the intestinal wall. Furthermore, these plant peptides were larger, on average, than those from chicken. Imagine trying to absorb a long chain through a small gate versus a series of short, manageable links. The study found that the “gate” of the human intestinal cells allowed significantly fewer of the plant-based peptide chains to pass through.

Beyond the protein count: The bioavailability gap

This research highlights a crucial concept often missing from nutrition labels: bioavailability. It is not merely what you eat, but what your body can actually extract and use. A product can boast 20 grams of protein per serving, but if the form of that protein is not readily broken down and absorbed, a substantial portion may pass through the digestive system unused. The study’s co-author, Dr. Osvaldo Campanella, noted that while plant-based meats provide essential amino acids, the difference in how cells absorb their peptides warrants deeper investigation.

Historical context and the modern diet

This news arrives at a pivotal moment in dietary history. The push toward plant-based eating is often framed as a return to a simpler, more natural way of life. However, the products at the center of this shift are anything but simple; they are highly processed creations of food science. For millennia, humans have evolved to efficiently digest and derive nourishment from animal proteins. The current study suggests that attempting to replicate the complex nutritional matrix of meat through industrial processing faces significant biological hurdles. It forces a re-examination of the trade-offs: while reducing certain fats, consumers may inadvertently be sacrificing the efficient uptake of high-quality protein and other nutrients.

The path forward for food science

The researchers are clear that their work is not a condemnation of plant-based diets but a call for more nuanced science and better products. Dr. Campanella stated that the team is now working to improve the protein nutrition of meat analogs by altering formulations and processing conditions. The goal is to enhance what experts call organoleptic properties—the taste, texture and mouthfeel—without compromising nutritional bioavailability.

“Plant-based meats are food products designed to mimic the taste, texture and appearance of animal meat using plant-derived ingredients,” said BrightU.AI‘s Enoch. “They are typically made from sources like soy, peas, wheat gluten and legumes, often combined with oils, starches and flavorings. These products offer a vegetarian or vegan alternative for those seeking to reduce or eliminate animal products from their diet.”

The conclusion from Columbus is unambiguous: the nutritional journey of a plant-based burger, from box to cell, is fundamentally different from that of a piece of chicken.  The promise of plant-based meat remains, but fulfilling it requires moving beyond mimicking mere appearance and taste to replicating the fundamental nourishing power of the foods we have consumed for centuries. The truth on the label may need to account for not just what is present, but what is truly present for the body to use.

Watch and learn about a plant-based meat scam.

This video is from the Andreash channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include: 

IntegrativePractitioner.com

WattagNet.com

Pubs.acs.org

BrightU.ai

Brighteon.com