Fermented foods, their microbiome and its potential in boosting human health.

Fermented foods (FFs) are part of the cultural heritage of several populations, and their production dates back 8000 years. Over the last ~150 years, the microbial consortia of many of the most widespread FFs have been characterised, leading in some instances to the standardisation of their production. Nevertheless, limited knowledge exists about the microbial communities of local and traditional FFs and their possible effects on human health. Recent findings suggest they might be a valuable source of novel probiotic strains, enriched in nutrients and highly sustainable for the environment. Despite the increasing number of observational studies and randomised controlled trials, it still remains unclear whether and how regular FF consumption is linked with health outcomes and enrichment of the gut microbiome in health-associated species. This review aims to sum up the knowledge about traditional FFs and their associated microbiomes, outlining the role of fermentation with respect to boosting nutritional profiles and attempting to establish a link between FF consumption and health-beneficial outcomes.

The effects of substituting red and processed meat for mycoprotein on biomarkers of cardiovascular risk in healthy volunteers: an analysis of secondary endpoints from Mycomeat.

PURPOSE: Mycoprotein is a relatively novel food source produced from the biomass of Fusarium venenatum. It has previously been shown to improve CVD risk markers in intervention trials when it is compared against total meat. It has not hitherto been assessed specifically for benefits relative to red and processed meat. METHODS: We leveraged samples from Mycomeat, an investigator-blind randomised crossover controlled trial in metabolically healthy male adults (n = 20), randomised to consume 240 g/day of red and processed meat for 14 days followed by mycoprotein, or vice versa. Blood biochemical indices were a priori defined secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Mycoprotein consumption led to a 6.74% reduction in total cholesterol (P = 0.02) and 12.3% reduction in LDL cholesterol (P = 0.02) from baseline values. Change in fasted triglycerides was not significantly different between diets (+ 0.19 ± 0.11 mmol/l with mycoprotein, P = 0.09). There was a small but significant reduction in waist circumference for mycoprotein relative to meat (- 0.95 ± 0.42 cm, P = 0.04). Following the mycoprotein diet, mean systolic (- 2.41 ± 1.89 mmHg, P = 0.23) and diastolic blood pressure (- 0.80 ± 1.23 mmHg, P = 0.43) were reduced from baseline. There were no statistically significant effects of the intervention on urinary sodium, nitrite or TMAO; while urinary potassium (+ 126.12 ± 50.30 mmol/l, P = 0.02) and nitrate (+ 2.12 ± 0.90 mmol/l, P = 0.04) were both significantly higher with mycoprotein relative to meat. The study population comprised metabolically healthy adults, therefore, changes in plasma lipids had little effect on cardiovascular risk scores (- 0.34% FRS for mycoprotein P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm potential cardiovascular benefits when displacing red and processed meat with mycoprotein in the diet. Longer trials in higher risk study populations are needed to fully elucidate suggested benefits for blood pressure and body composition. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT03944421.

Substituting meat for mycoprotein reduces genotoxicity and increases the abundance of beneficial microbes in the gut: Mycomeat, a randomised crossover control trial.

PURPOSE: The high-meat, low-fibre Western diet is strongly associated with colorectal cancer risk. Mycoprotein, produced from Fusarium venanatum, has been sold as a high-fibre alternative to meat for decades. Hitherto, the effects of mycoprotein in the human bowel have not been well considered. Here, we explored the effects of replacing a high red and processed meat intake with mycoprotein on markers of intestinal genotoxicity and gut health. METHODS: Mycomeat (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03944421) was an investigator-blind, randomised, crossover dietary intervention trial. Twenty healthy male adults were randomised to consume 240 g day-1 red and processed meat for 2 weeks, with crossover to 2 weeks 240 g day-1 mycoprotein, separated by a 4-week washout period. Primary end points were faecal genotoxicity and genotoxins, while secondary end points comprised changes in gut microbiome composition and activity. RESULTS: The meat diet increased faecal genotoxicity and nitroso compound excretion, whereas the weight-matched consumption of mycoprotein decreased faecal genotoxicity and nitroso compounds. In addition, meat intake increased the abundance of Oscillobacter and Alistipes, whereas mycoprotein consumption increased Lactobacilli, Roseburia and Akkermansia, as well as the excretion of short chain fatty acids. CONCLUSION: Replacing red and processed meat with the Fusarium-based meat alternative, mycoprotein, significantly reduces faecal genotoxicity and genotoxin excretion and increases the abundance of microbial genera with putative health benefits in the gut. This work demonstrates that mycoprotein may be a beneficial alternative to meat within the context of gut health and colorectal cancer prevention.

The nutritional impact of replacing dietary meat with meat alternatives in the UK: a modelling analysis using nationally representative data.

Dietary patterns high in meat compromise both planetary and human health. Meat alternatives may help to facilitate meat reduction; however, the nutritional implications of displacing meat with meat alternatives does not appear to have been evaluated. Here, the ninth cycle of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey was used as the basis of models to assess the effect of meat substitution on nutritional intake. We implemented three models; model 1 replaced 25 %, 50 %, 75 % or 100 % of the current meat intake with a weighted mean of meat alternatives within the UK market. Model 2 compared different ingredient categories of meat alternative; vegetable, mycoprotein, a combination of bean and pea, tofu, nut and soya. Model 3 compared fortified v. unfortified meat alternatives. The models elicited significant shifts in nutrients. Overall, carbohydrate, fibre, sugars and Na increased, whereas reductions were found for protein, total and saturated fat, Fe and B12. Greatest effects were seen for vegetable-based (+24·63g/d carbohydrates), mycoprotein-based (-6·12g/d total fat), nut-based (-19·79g/d protein, +10·23g/d fibre; -4·80g/d saturated fat, +7·44g/d sugars), soya-based (+495·98mg/d Na) and tofu-based (+7·63mg/d Fe, -2·02µg/d B12). Our results suggest that meat alternatives can be a healthful replacement for meat if chosen correctly. Consumers should choose meat alternatives low in Na and sugar, high in fibre, protein and with high micronutrient density, to avoid compromising nutritional intake if reducing meat intake. Manufacturers and policy makers should consider fortification of meat alternatives with nutrients such as Fe and B12 and focus on reducing Na and sugar content.