Plant-based diets provide well-established physical and environmental health benefits. These benefits stem in part from the degree of restriction of animal-derived foods. Historically, meat and other animal-derived proteins have been viewed as an integral component of athletes’ diets, leading some to question the adequacy of vegetarian or vegan diets for supporting athletic performance. The purpose of this review is to examine the impact of plant-based diets on human physical health, environmental sustainability, and exercise performance capacity. Based on currently available literature, it is unlikely that plant-based diets provide advantages, but do not suffer from disadvantages, compared to omnivorous diets for strength, anaerobic, or aerobic exercise performance. However, plant-based diets typically reduce the risk of developing numerous chronic diseases over the lifespan and require fewer natural resources for production compared to meat-containing diets. As such, plant-based diets appear to be viable options for adequately supporting athletic performance while concurrently contributing to overall physical and environmental health. Given the sparse literature comparing omnivore, vegetarian, and vegan athletes, particularly at the elite level, further research is warranted to ascertain differences that might appear at the highest levels of training and athletic performance.

A robust database shows that dietary supplements of vitamins E and C are safe for the general population. Because these nutrients supply antioxidant and other functions for homeostasis and protection against free radical damage, supplementation has been intensively studied. Because of perceived benefits, many persons consume quantities of vitamins E and C well above the recommended dietary allowances. As safety guidance, tolerable upper intake levels have been established by the Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, at 1000 mg for vitamin E and 2000 mg for vitamin C in adults. Many clinical trials with these vitamins have involved subjects with various diseases, and no consistent pattern of adverse effects has occurred at any intake. Numerous studies of vitamin C supplementation have provided no pattern of evidence to support concerns about safety other than occasional gastrointestinal upset or mild diarrhea resulting from the osmotic effects of unabsorbed quantities of vitamin C. Evidence of bleeding effects and other potential adverse effects of high vitamin E intakes in humans is not convincing. Evidence of adverse effects of vitamin C that result from its effects on iron absorption and metabolism has not been confirmed in clinical trials. Thus, we conclude from clinical trial evidence that vitamin E supplements appear safe for most adults in amounts ≤1600 IU (1073 mg RRR-α-tocopherol or the molar equivalent of its esters) and that vitamin C supplements of ≤2000 mg/d are safe for most adults.

Objectives. We sought to determine prevalence rates of vitamin C deficiency and depletion in the United States. Methods. We used data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to assess intake of dietary, supplemental, and serum vitamin C. Results. Mean intakes and serum levels of vitamin C were normal; however, vitamin C deficiency and depletion were common (occurring among 5%–17% and 13%–23% of respondents, respectively). Smokers, those who did not use supplements, and non-Hispanic Black males had elevated risks of vitamin C deficiency, while Mexican Americans had lower risks. Conclusions. Health professionals should recommend consumption of vegetables and fruits rich in vitamin C and should recommend supplementation for individuals at risk of vitamin C deficiency.

Although popular and effective for weight loss, low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat (Atkins) diets have been associated with adverse changes in blood and renal biomarkers. High-protein diets low in fat may represent an equally appealing diet plan but promote a more healthful weight loss. Healthy adults (n = 20) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 low-fat (<30% energy), energy-restricted groups: high-protein (30% energy) or high-carbohydrate (60% energy); 24-h intakes were strictly controlled during the 6-wk trial. One subject from each group did not complete the trial due to out-of-state travel; two subjects in the high-carbohydrate group withdrew from the trial due to extreme hunger. Body composition and metabolic indices were assessed pre- and post-trial. Both diets were equally effective at reducing body weight (−6%, P < 0.05) and fat mass (−9 to −11%, P < 0.05); however, subjects consuming the high-protein diet reported more satisfaction and less hunger in mo 1 of the trial. Both diets significantly lowered total cholesterol (−10 to –12%), insulin (−25%), and uric acid (−22 to –30%) concentrations in blood from fasting subjects. Urinary calcium excretion increased 42% in subjects consuming the high-protein diet, mirroring the 50% increase in dietary calcium with consumption of this diet; thus, apparent calcium balance was not adversely affected. Creatinine clearance was not altered by diet treatments, and nitrogen balance was more positive in subjects consuming the high-protein diet vs. the high-carbohydrate diet (3.9 ± 1.4 and 0.7 ± 1.7 g N/d, respectively, P < 0.05). Thus, low-fat, energy-restricted diets of varying protein content (15 or 30% energy) promoted healthful weight loss, but diet satisfaction was greater in those consuming the high-protein diet.