Older adults reveal what makes or breaks a shift to plant-based protein

By Vijay Kumar MalesuReviewed by Susha Cheriyedath, M.Sc.Aug 28 2025

A Dutch study reveals that older adults want plant-based diets that preserve muscle and taste good, but knowledge gaps, habits, and doubts about substitutes stand in the way.

Study: Perspectives of adults aged 55+ on plant-based diets rich in protein. Image Credit: dropStock / Shutterstock

In a recent study published in the journal Scientific Reports, researchers in the Netherlands identified facilitators and barriers for adults aged 55 years and older to adopt predominantly plant-based diets that still meet protein needs for muscle preservation.

Background

Every decade after midlife, strength slips while protein needs rise, and can plant-forward eating still protect muscle?

Sarcopenia raises risks of falls, fractures, mortality, and disability. Adults are advised to consume 0.83 grams per kilogram per day; older adults require 1.0 grams per kilogram per day, and up to 2.0 grams per kilogram per day when ill or active.

Moving toward 60% plant protein can reduce emissions but may lower protein intake and decrease the availability of essential nutrients, including vitamin B12, calcium, iron, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The paper also emphasized that plant proteins generally have lower digestibility, absorption, and quality compared with animal proteins, making adequacy a challenge.

Taste, habits, cost, and knowledge shape choices, and further research is urgently needed.

About the study

This qualitative study used three focus groups to explore perspectives of Dutch adults aged 55–74 years on adopting predominantly plant-based, protein-rich diets.

Participants (n=30) were recruited via university networks and a public fitness center, provided consent, and completed a short questionnaire on age, gender, meat intake, and exercise.

Sessions (April–June 2023) were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and held either in person or online via Microsoft Teams. A semi-structured guide, aligned with the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model, steered discussions of skills, experiences, facilitators, barriers, and practical needs. Two moderators facilitated each session.

Analyses followed a thematic analysis approach with a two-step process: three researchers independently performed inductive open coding, and then deductively mapped codes to COM-B categories, labeling each as a facilitator or barrier. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus.

MaxQDA software supported coding, and code frequencies were reported. The study adhered to Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines and received ethics approval from the Hogere Agrarische School (HAS) Green Academy Ethics Committee.

The researchers maintained neutrality, disclosed their professions after each session to limit bias, and judged data saturation to be achieved after three groups. Demographics were summarized using counts, distribution, and the interquartile range (IQR) for age.

Study results

Thirty adults (14 men, 16 women; median age, 63 years; IQR, 60–67) participated in three focus groups, each lasting 80–100 minutes. Most exercised two to three times weekly; meat intake ranged from less than one day to seven days per week.

Health and taste dominated all conversations, acting as both facilitators and barriers. Participants widely viewed health, particularly the preservation of muscle, as the primary reason for increasing protein; some saw plant-based eating as healthy, while others doubted the benefits or worried about processed meat alternatives.

Taste was described as both a strong motivator and a deterrent—some preferred familiar meat flavors, while others enjoyed certain plant-based options.

Within Capability, knowledge-enabled action: knowing protein sources, label reading, and dietary guidance supported choices.

Knowledge gaps and limited cooking experience hindered change, particularly due to uncertainty about replacing animal products with plant-based foods that match protein quantity and quality.

Within Opportunity, social influence cut both ways: partners, children, friends, media, and clinicians could spark change, but household roles, pressure, or dependence on a primary cook could block it.

Limited plant-based options when eating out, as well as perceptions of longer preparation times, were additional deterrents for some.

Cost was not always a barrier; some participants expressed willingness to spend more on plant-based foods, similar to their choices with organic foods.

Within Motivation, beyond health and taste, environmental impact and animal welfare were mentioned as additional benefits, but were not primary motivators for most participants. Some participants also expressed skepticism about whether choosing more plant-based foods would meaningfully reduce environmental impact, reflecting doubts about the efficacy of such changes.

Concerns about the lower protein density of plant foods and the salt, sugar, or saturated fat content of some meat substitutes reduced enthusiasm.

Many participants also expressed deeply negative views of processed substitutes, describing them as “unappetizing,” “too processed,” or even “disgusting.”

Habits anchored routines (“always some meat or fish”), making gradual, “fifty-fifty” shifts more acceptable than abrupt change.

Participants proposed practical supports, including recipe packs, meal examples, and product lists; a “replacement list” linking animal products to plant alternatives with equivalent protein content; digital or paper diet-tracking tools to build awareness; and transparent on-pack information that shows the environmental footprint alongside nutrition.

Overall, mapping themes to COM-B highlighted knowledge (Capability) and social context (Opportunity) as pivotal levers, with health and taste (Motivation) as decisive tipping points.

Participants contrasted whole foods with processed substitutes, describing meat analogs as “unappetizing” or “too processed,” yet some reported positive experiences with legumes, nuts, eggs, and dairy.

Perceived convenience mattered: those with time did not view preparation as a barrier, whereas others preferred simple swaps.

Eating out limited options and discouraged experimentation.

Many favored phased transitions, such as smaller portions of meat, meat-free breakfasts and lunches, or alternating days, over complete elimination.

Requested tools included protein targets per meal and examples tailored to typical Dutch dishes.

Conclusions

In adults aged 55 years and older, decisions about transitioning to protein-rich, plant-based diets are influenced by health and taste, with knowledge, social context, and habits shaping behavior.

People want foods that preserve muscle without sacrificing flavor, clarity on how to replace animal proteins like cheese or meat with legumes, nuts, dairy alternatives, or fortified options, and reassurance about nutrient adequacy, including vitamin B12, iron, calcium, EPA, and DHA.

Improving sensory quality, offering substitution tools, and adding information may accelerate adoption.

The authors also noted that the study participants were generally more health-conscious and physically active than the broader Dutch population aged 55 and above, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.