There’s no shortage of diets claiming to be the answer. Paleo, carnivore, keto, Mediterranean-style, plant-based, and plenty more each have people convinced they’ve found it. Which of these is the healthiest is a common question in nutrition, and one of the most contested. Before getting into which pattern comes out ahead, it’s worth starting with a principle most of that debate skips over.
Any single food or macronutrient can cause problems in excess, plant or animal, and so can any pattern built around a narrow range of foods, so moderation and variety matter more than labelling any one food, or food group, as universally safe or harmful. If a food causes you symptoms, a GP or dietitian can investigate why, and a genuine diagnosis, coeliac disease, a confirmed lactose intolerance, an allergy, is real evidence for excluding that food; a one-off reaction without a diagnosis isn’t the same thing. The same distinction applies at the scale of a whole diet: excluding an entire food group without a diagnosed reason, on the assumption that avoidance alone is inherently healthier, isn’t what the evidence supports.
Here’s what the evidence, taken as a whole, supports, and where it’s still genuinely unsettled.
Comparing the specific dietary patterns
Not every diet claiming to work has earned that claim the same way. Health status, culture, food access, and personal preference all shape which pattern suits someone, but before any of that, the evidence behind these patterns is wildly uneven: some have been tested in the strongest trials science can run, others barely have a handful of studies behind them. Here’s how they stack up, pattern by pattern.
Mediterranean-style eating and DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) carry the strongest trial evidence of any dietary pattern, drawn from multiple systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Mediterranean-style eating reduces cardiovascular risk, built around vegetables, fruit, wholegrains, olive oil, nuts, and fish. DASH lowers blood pressure, built around fruit, vegetables, wholegrains, and lean protein including meat, fish, and low-fat dairy. Neither eliminates animal foods.
The Adventist Health Study offers a similarly substantial body of evidence, though from one large cohort rather than pooled trials. It compares diets directly within a single group rather than against the general population, following over 73,000 Seventh-day Adventists in the US, a community that broadly avoids tobacco and alcohol, and tracking death rates across vegans, lacto-ovo vegetarians, pesco-vegetarians, semi-vegetarians, and non-vegetarians. After adjusting for age, smoking, alcohol, exercise, and education, vegetarians overall had a 12% lower risk of death than non-vegetarians. Pesco-vegetarians showed the clearest reduction, 19% lower; vegans showed a 15% lower risk that didn’t quite reach statistical significance, likely because it’s a smaller subgroup. A longer follow-up of the same cohort, published in 2024, largely confirmed the lower mortality overall, particularly among men and younger participants, but also found older vegetarians, around age 85, had a higher risk of stroke, dementia, and Parkinson’s disease, a reminder that findings can shift with age as well as with diet. Those figures already account for measured differences like exercise and education, but a general difference in health-consciousness between people who choose different diets, even within this community, can’t be fully ruled out.
A systematic review of Japanese cohort studies, covering over 469,000 people, found a pattern high in vegetables, fish, soy, and seaweed tied to meaningfully lower cardiovascular deaths. The benefit traces to those specific foods rather than to “traditional Japanese eating” as a whole. In fact, one large cohort within the review found no benefit from the traditional pattern on its own, while a more Westernised pattern in that same cohort was linked to lower deaths, a reminder that it’s the foods doing the work, not the label attached to them.
Keto and carnivore sit at the more restrictive end, and the evidence behind them isn’t in the same league. Keto has real short-term trial data: a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of 53 randomised controlled trials found it lowers triglycerides and raises HDL cholesterol, both favourable, but also raises LDL and total cholesterol, both less so. Carnivore has far less than that. A scoping review pulling together every human study ever published on the diet found just nine in total, none of them randomised controlled trials, mostly case reports or small surveys that can’t rule out other explanations for what’s observed. Neither diet has been followed for long enough, or with real outcomes like heart attacks, stroke, or death tracked, to say what either one means over years rather than months. That’s a gap in the evidence, not proof that either is unsafe.
Where plant-based diets help, and where they don’t
EPIC-Oxford, a UK study following over 48,000 adults for 18 years, found vegetarians had 22% lower risk of ischaemic heart disease than meat-eaters, roughly 10 fewer cases per 1,000 people over a decade, but 20% higher risk of stroke, mostly haemorrhagic, roughly 3 more cases per 1,000 over the same period. A related analysis from the same cohort found higher fracture risk, including hip fracture, in vegans, partly tied to lower body weight, calcium, and protein intake. A fully plant-based diet also means paying closer attention to a few nutrients that don’t come reliably from plant foods, B12 especially, which has no reliable plant source and needs a supplement or fortified food. That’s a planning requirement, not a flaw in the diet itself.
Not all plant-based eating is equal, either. Research distinguishing a healthful pattern (wholegrains, fruit, vegetables, legumes, nuts) from an unhealthful one (refined grains, chips, sugary drinks, sweets) consistently connects the healthful version to lower risk of death, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, while the unhealthful version carries the same risk direction as high red and processed meat intake. One large analysis comparing vegetarians directly with meat-eaters found lower heart disease rates in vegetarians, but no significant difference in cardiovascular deaths or stroke risk, a reminder that these findings don’t always point the same way.
Why protein source matters more than quantity
None of the patterns just covered eliminate meat entirely, whether it’s Mediterranean-style eating and DASH rebalancing it, the Adventist cohort comparing degrees of it, or the Japanese diet built around what sits alongside it. That points to a more specific question: what happens to risk when red and processed meat specifically is reduced, and plant protein increased in its place?
Several large cohort studies have looked specifically at what happens when people replace red or processed meat with something else. Swapping it for beans, lentils, nuts, fish, or poultry is consistently linked to lower risk of death, while swapping it for refined carbohydrate doesn’t carry the same benefit.
The clearest evidence on this comes from looking at protein source directly. A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis pooling 32 cohort studies, covering over 715,000 people, found that people eating more plant protein had a modestly lower overall risk of death, and a lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease; each extra 3% of daily calories from plant protein was linked to a 5% lower risk of death overall. A 2026 meta-analysis of nine further cohort studies and over a million people approached this from the opposite direction, substitution rather than intake: swapping even a modest 3% of daily protein from animal to plant sources was linked to a lower death risk, with a bigger drop in cardiovascular deaths at slightly higher swaps.
These are observational cohort studies, so they show a consistent pattern rather than proof of cause and effect. Animal protein on its own, without looking at what it’s replacing, wasn’t linked to a higher or lower risk in this same body of evidence. There’s a similar but less certain pattern for type 2 diabetes, where some reviews tie higher animal protein intake to higher risk, though this evidence is weaker and less consistent than the mortality findings.
Who recommends less red and processed meat and why?
UK guidance recommends anyone eating more than 90 g a day reduce to no more than 70 g. This rests on a substantial body of evidence linking higher intake to increased colorectal cancer risk, and to a smaller degree, cardiovascular disease. That evidence isn’t UK-specific: the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies processed meat as carcinogenic to humans and red meat as probably carcinogenic, one of the more consistent, longstanding positions in this whole area, and the World Cancer Research Fund recommends limiting red meat and avoiding processed meat on the same basis.
Multiple national guidelines and expert bodies point the same way:
- UK (Eatwell Guide, SACN, BDA): eat less red and processed meat, more beans, pulses, and fish; no recommendation to exclude animal foods entirely.
- Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (2023): a shift toward more plant protein is advisable for a healthy and sustainable diet; red meat capped at 350 g a week.
- Germany, the DGE (2024): a healthy and environmentally sustainable diet is at least 75% plant-based, with meat and sausage combined capped at 300 g a week, one of the clearest examples of a health body building environmental impact directly into its dietary advice.
- The Netherlands, Health Council (December 2025): 60% of dietary protein should come from plant sources, red meat capped at around 100 g a week, processed meat minimised, again citing health and environmental reasons together. This fed directly into an update of the Dutch national food guide in April 2026, cutting the overall meat recommendation from 500 g to 300 g a week.
- EAT-Lancet Commission (2025): an international scientific panel proposing a “planetary health diet” of roughly 14 g of red meat a day, designed to keep global food production within environmental limits as well as supporting health. Its proposed diet would mean cutting global ruminant meat production by around a third compared with current levels. This is a sustainability-and-health target rather than a UK clinical guideline, and no UK body has adopted its specific figures.
Together, they add up to the same conclusion: less red and processed meat and more plant protein, increasingly for environmental reasons as well as health ones. None of them recommend cutting out animal foods altogether.
Who’s challenging the evidence, and why it matters
A few specific claims about diet and health have been publicly disputed since they were first published, and in each case, who funded or produced the disputing claim changes how much weight it deserves. This isn’t about dismissing a source outright; it’s applying the same scrutiny to a study’s origin that you’d apply to its method.
The plant-protein-and-mortality finding has one notable challenge. A re-analysis of a single US dataset, a weaker form of evidence than a multi-study meta-analysis, found no link between higher animal protein and mortality, and even a slightly lower cancer mortality risk with more animal protein. That study was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a beef industry body with a direct financial stake in this exact question, a recognised reason to treat its conclusion with more caution.
The red and processed meat and cancer link has a well-known challenge too. A widely discussed 2019 review rated the cancer-risk evidence as low certainty and concluded most people don’t need to change their intake, a conclusion the major cancer research bodies have specifically disputed on methodological grounds. That 2019 review used GRADE, a scoring system built for drug trials, which automatically treats real-world population evidence as less reliable simply for not being a randomised trial, even when the findings are consistent across many large groups of people. Scored instead with NutriGrade, a system built specifically for nutrition research that doesn’t apply that automatic penalty, the same evidence came out rated moderate to high rather than low. On top of the methodological dispute, that review’s lead author had undisclosed financial ties to the beef industry: a paid position with an agricultural research body substantially funded by meat producers, negotiated while the review was being written, plus prior funding from an industry trade group. It was serious enough that the review’s own journal issued a formal correction.
The clearest recent example is the US government’s own dietary guidance. In January 2026, the US updated its national guidelines to include red meat within its core recommended protein category and raised its protein target substantially, a clear departure from UK, Nordic, German, Dutch, and international guidance alike. The panel behind this was newly appointed after the government set aside its own scientific advisory committee’s findings, and eight of its nine members had documented financial ties to the beef, dairy, egg, pork, or low-carbohydrate diet industries, now the subject of a federal lawsuit alleging the panel violated US rules on industry influence over advisory bodies.
The bottom line
Pulled together, the evidence follows a consistent shape. A diet that’s plant-forward while still including some meat, fish, dairy, or eggs, rather than excluding entire food groups, is linked to lower mortality and lower cardiovascular risk, with weaker but similar evidence for type 2 diabetes.
The Adventist cohort and EPIC-Oxford are two separate, well-established cohort studies, and both complicate the picture in a similar direction. EPIC-Oxford found higher stroke risk in vegetarians and higher fracture risk, including hip fracture, in vegans; the Adventist cohort’s oldest vegetarians had a higher risk of stroke, dementia, and Parkinson’s disease. Two unrelated datasets pointing to the same age- and vascular-related pattern is worth taking seriously, not treating as one-off noise.
The same scepticism belongs closer to home too: before accepting a social media claim that a whole food or food group should be excluded for better health, ask what the evidence is and how it’s been graded. And even where a change genuinely worked for the person making the claim, that’s still one person, not proof it works the same way for everyone. Feeling better in the short term isn’t proof of anything long term either. Everyone is free to eat how they choose, but in a world full of confident claims and conflicting information, the evidence exists to help make that choice an informed one.
If you’re weighing up a particular way of eating and aren’t sure it’s right for you, that’s a good conversation to have with a registered dietitian.
This content is for educational and informational purposes only and does not substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
References
Abris, G.P., Shavlik, D.J., Mathew, R.O., Butler, F.M., Oh, J., Sirirat, R., Sveen, L.E. and Fraser, G.E. (2024) ‘Cause-specific and all-cause mortalities in vegetarian compared with those in nonvegetarian participants from the Adventist Health Study-2 cohort’, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 120(4), pp. 907–917.
Barrantes-Espinola, G., Alberti, P., Jaramillo-Morales, E., Rodriguez, A. and López-Moreno, M. (2026) ‘Isocaloric substitution of animal protein with plant protein and its impact on all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Clinical Nutrition, 61, 106654.
Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K.Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F.E., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Guha, N., Mattock, H. and Straif, K. (2015) ‘Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat’, The Lancet Oncology, 16(16), pp. 1599–1600.
British Dietetic Association (2020) One Blue Dot: Nutritional Considerations for Dietitians. Birmingham: BDA.
Dinu, M., Abbate, R., Gensini, G.F., Casini, A. and Sofi, F. (2017) ‘Vegetarian, vegan diets and multiple health outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies’, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 57(17), pp. 3640–3649.
Estruch, R., Ros, E., Salas-Salvadó, J., Covas, M.I., Corella, D., Arós, F., Gómez-Gracia, E., Ruiz-Gutiérrez, V., Fiol, M., Lapetra, J., Lamuela-Raventós, R.M., Serra-Majem, L., Pintó, X., Basora, J., Muñoz, M.A., Sorlí, J.V., Martínez, J.A., Fitó, M., Gea, A., Hernán, M.A. and Martínez-González, M.A. (2018) ‘Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts’, New England Journal of Medicine, 378(25), e34.
Filippou, C., Thomopoulos, C., Mihas, C., Dimitriadis, K., Sotiropoulou, L., Siafi, E., Zammanis, I., Dimitriadi, M., Chrysochoou, C., Nihoyannopoulos, P., Tousoulis, D. and Tsioufis, C. (2020) ‘Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet and blood pressure reduction in adults with and without hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials’, European Heart Journal, 41(Supplement 2), ehaa946.2765.
German Nutrition Society (DGE) (2024) Food-Based Dietary Guidelines for Germany. Bonn: DGE. Available at: https://www.dge.de/english/fbdg/
Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Vist, G.E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P. and Schünemann, H.J. (2008) ‘GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations’, BMJ, 336(7650), pp. 924–926.
Health Council of the Netherlands (2025) Dutch Dietary Guidelines: Protein Sources and Dietary Patterns 2025. The Hague: Gezondheidsraad.
Hernandez, A.V., Piscoya, A., Marti, K.M., Marti, K.E., Pasupuleti, V., Benites-Zapata, V.A. and Roman, Y.M. (2020) ‘Effect of Mediterranean diets on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases in the primary prevention setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials’, European Heart Journal, 41(Supplement 2), ehaa946.2856.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (2015) IARC Monographs Evaluate Consumption of Red Meat and Processed Meat. Press release no. 240. Lyon: WHO/IARC.
Johnston, B.C., Zeraatkar, D., Han, M.A., Vernooij, R.W.M., Valli, C., El Dib, R., Marshall, C., Stover, P.J., Fairweather-Taitt, S., Wójcik, G., Bhatia, F. et al. (2019) ‘Unprocessed red meat and processed meat consumption: dietary guideline recommendations from the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium’, Annals of Internal Medicine, 171(10), pp. 756–764.
Lietz, A., Dapprich, J. and Fischer, T. (2026) ‘Carnivore diet: a scoping review of the current evidence, potential benefits and risks’, Nutrients, 18(2), 348.
Lv, J.-L., Wu, Q.-J., Li, X.-Y., Gao, C., Xu, M.-Z., Yang, J., Zang, S.-T., Luan, J., Cai, D.-Z., Chang, Q. and Zhao, Y.-H. (2022) ‘Dietary protein and multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies’, Clinical Nutrition, 41(8), pp. 1759–1769.
Naghshi, S., Sadeghi, O., Willett, W.C. and Esmaillzadeh, A. (2020) ‘Dietary intake of total, animal, and plant proteins and risk of all cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies’, BMJ, 370, m2412.
Nordic Council of Ministers (2023) Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023: Integrating Environmental Aspects. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Orlich, M.J., Singh, P.N., Sabaté, J., Jaceldo-Siegl, K., Fan, J., Knutsen, S., Beeson, W.L. and Fraser, G.E. (2013) ‘Vegetarian dietary patterns and mortality in Adventist Health Study 2’, JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(13), pp. 1230–1238.
Papanikolaou, Y., Phillips, S.M. and Fulgoni, V.L. (2025) ‘Animal and plant protein usual intakes are not adversely associated with all-cause, cardiovascular disease-, or cancer-related mortality risk: an NHANES III analysis’, Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 50, pp. 1–8.
Public Health England (2016) The Eatwell Guide. London: PHE. Available at: gov.uk.
Rockström, J., Thilsted, S.H., Willett, W.C., Gordon, L.J., Herrero, M., Hicks, C.C. et al. (2025) ‘The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems’, The Lancet, 406(10512), pp. 1625–1700.
Satija, A., Bhupathiraju, S.N., Rimm, E.B., Spiegelman, D., Chiuve, S.E., Borgi, L., Willett, W.C., Manson, J.E., Sun, Q. and Hu, F.B. (2016) ‘Plant-based dietary patterns and incidence of type 2 diabetes in US men and women: results from three prospective cohort studies’, PLoS Medicine, 13(6), e1002039.
Satija, A., Bhupathiraju, S.N., Spiegelman, D., Chiuve, S.E., Manson, J.E., Willett, W., Rexrode, K.M., Rimm, E.B. and Hu, F.B. (2017) ‘Healthful and unhealthful plant-based diets and the risk of coronary heart disease in U.S. adults’, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 70(4), pp. 411–422.
Schwingshackl, L., Knüppel, S., Schwedhelm, C., Hoffmann, G., Missbach, B., Stelmach-Mardas, M., Dietrich, S., Eichelmann, F., Kontopantelis, E., Iqbal, K. et al. (2016) ‘Perspective: NutriGrade: a scoring system to assess and judge the meta-evidence of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in nutrition research’, Advances in Nutrition, 7(6), pp. 994–1004.
Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (2010) Iron and Health. London: TSO.
Shirota, M., Watanabe, N., Suzuki, M. and Kobori, M. (2022) ‘Japanese-style diet and cardiovascular disease mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies’, Nutrients, 14(10), 2008.
Tong, T.Y.N., Appleby, P.N., Bradbury, K.E., Perez-Cornago, A., Travis, R.C., Clarke, R. and Key, T.J. (2019) ‘Risks of ischaemic heart disease and stroke in meat eaters, fish eaters, and vegetarians over 18 years of follow-up: results from the prospective EPIC-Oxford study’, BMJ, 366, l4897.
Tong, T.Y.N., Appleby, P.N., Armstrong, M.E.G., Fensom, G.K., Knuppel, A., Papier, K., Perez-Cornago, A., Travis, R.C. and Key, T.J. (2020) ‘Vegetarian and vegan diets and risks of total and site-specific fractures: results from the prospective EPIC-Oxford study’, BMC Medicine, 18, 353.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture (2026) Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030. Washington, DC: HHS/USDA. Available at: realfood.gov.
World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (2018) Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Cancer: a Global Perspective. Continuous Update Project Expert Report. London: WCRF International.
Zhao, J., Wei, C., Gong, F., Pang, Z. and Zhao, H. (2026) ‘Ketogenic diet-induced changes in adult lipid metabolism: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials’, BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 26, 520.