Towards the in Silico Design of Diets: A Method for Reference Diet Templates Based on Objective Data and Institution Guidelines

Background: In silico diet design may represent a flexible approach in diet planning and adaptation to a variety of conditions, and it may take advantage from standard diet(s) as reference template(s). The concept of standard diet(s) is, however, quite vague and poorly defined. Objective: The aim of this work was to develop templates of omnivorous (OMN), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (LOV), and vegan (VEG) standard diets, based on data produced in European countries and the USA in 1998–2024, and adapted to an adult subject requiring ≈2200 kcal/day. Design: Online databases were used to identify papers containing experimentally determined (EXP) data of daily food frequencies, or reporting dietary recommendations (REC) from (inter)national agencies or specific studies. Only sources reporting quantitative food data (as g/day) in OMN, LOV, and VEG diets were accepted. Results: Out of >200 publications initially identified, 24 EXP and 20 REC sources complied with the selection criteria. By combining the EXP and REC data within each diet type, total meat intake in OMN diet was 99 ± 36 g/day. Total dairy food in LOV diets (247 ± 107 g/day) tended to be lower (by ≈15%, NS) than in OMN diets (272 ± 100). In VEG diets, total vegetal foods were ≈33% greater than in LOV (p < 0.01), and ≈1-fold greater than in OMN ones (p < 0.00001). Total cereal foods were similar in OMN (272 ± 122) and LOV (264 ± 122) diets, but tended to be ≈20–25% greater in VEG diets (to 326 ± 103, NS). Potato and other starchy foods were not different among the three diets. Legumes and pulses were modestly but insignificantly greater in LOV (55 ± 25) and VEG diets (112 ± 137) than in OMN ones (31 ± 24). Soy products were greater in VEG than in LOV diets. The “nuts, seeds, and spreads” food group in VEG diets was ≈3-fold greater than in OMN (p < 0.0005), and ≈90% greater than in LOV diets (p < 0.002). Fruit intake in VEG diets was ≈14% (p = NS) and ≈ 60% (p < 0.005) greater than in LOV and OMN diets, respectively. Finally, the “protein and energy-rich vegetal alternatives” food group in LOV and VEG diets was ≈5- to ≈6-fold greater than in the OMN diet (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: The exclusion of meat, fish, and egg in LOV diets is not compensated by increased dairy foods, rather by more total vegetal foods and protein-rich vegetal alternatives. VEG diets replace animal-derived proteins mainly with nuts, seeds, and spreads, soy products and protein-rich vegetal alternatives. On the basis of these data, templates to design “standard” OMN, LOV, and VEG diets are proposed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Sciences
Published
2025-12-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/app16010257
Primary Topic
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Towards the in Silico Design of Diets: A Method for Reference Diet Templates Based on Objective Data and Institution Guidelines

Anna Lante, Paolo Tessari
Applied Sciences
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
article

Towards the in Silico Design of Diets: A Method for Reference Diet Templates Based on Objective Data and Institution Guidelines

Anna Lante, Paolo Tessari
article en

Abstract

Background: In silico diet design may represent a flexible approach in diet planning and adaptation to a variety of conditions, and it may take advantage from standard diet(s) as reference template(s). The concept of standard diet(s) is, however, quite vague and poorly defined. Objective: The aim of this work was to develop templates of omnivorous (OMN), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (LOV), and vegan (VEG) standard diets, based on data produced in European countries and the USA in 1998–2024, and adapted to an adult subject requiring ≈2200 kcal/day. Design: Online databases were used to identify papers containing experimentally determined (EXP) data of daily food frequencies, or reporting dietary recommendations (REC) from (inter)national agencies or specific studies. Only sources reporting quantitative food data (as g/day) in OMN, LOV, and VEG diets were accepted. Results: Out of >200 publications initially identified, 24 EXP and 20 REC sources complied with the selection criteria. By combining the EXP and REC data within each diet type, total meat intake in OMN diet was 99 ± 36 g/day. Total dairy food in LOV diets (247 ± 107 g/day) tended to be lower (by ≈15%, NS) than in OMN diets (272 ± 100). In VEG diets, total vegetal foods were ≈33% greater than in LOV (p < 0.01), and ≈1-fold greater than in OMN ones (p < 0.00001). Total cereal foods were similar in OMN (272 ± 122) and LOV (264 ± 122) diets, but tended to be ≈20–25% greater in VEG diets (to 326 ± 103, NS). Potato and other starchy foods were not different among the three diets. Legumes and pulses were modestly but insignificantly greater in LOV (55 ± 25) and VEG diets (112 ± 137) than in OMN ones (31 ± 24). Soy products were greater in VEG than in LOV diets. The “nuts, seeds, and spreads” food group in VEG diets was ≈3-fold greater than in OMN (p < 0.0005), and ≈90% greater than in LOV diets (p < 0.002). Fruit intake in VEG diets was ≈14% (p = NS) and ≈ 60% (p < 0.005) greater than in LOV and OMN diets, respectively. Finally, the “protein and energy-rich vegetal alternatives” food group in LOV and VEG diets was ≈5- to ≈6-fold greater than in the OMN diet (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: The exclusion of meat, fish, and egg in LOV diets is not compensated by increased dairy foods, rather by more total vegetal foods and protein-rich vegetal alternatives. VEG diets replace animal-derived proteins mainly with nuts, seeds, and spreads, soy products and protein-rich vegetal alternatives. On the basis of these data, templates to design “standard” OMN, LOV, and VEG diets are proposed.

Applied SciencesVol. 16(1)
University of Padua (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 29%
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.