↓ Skip to main content

How well do plant based alternatives fare nutritionally compared to cow’s milk?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Food Science and Technology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 1,629)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
264 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
884 Mendeley
Title
How well do plant based alternatives fare nutritionally compared to cow’s milk?
Published in
Journal of Food Science and Technology, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13197-017-2915-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sai Kranthi Vanga, Vijaya Raghavan

Abstract

Due to the issues like lactose intolerance and milk allergy arising from the consumption of cow's milk, there has been an increased demand in the plant based alternative milks around the world. Food industry has addressed these demands by introducing various milk beverages which are promoted as alternatives coming from plant sources which include almond milk and soy milk. Though they are popularly advertised as healthy and wholesome, little research has been done in understanding the nutritional implications of consuming these milk beverages in short term and long term. Further, consumers associate these alternatives to be a direct substitute of cow's milk which might not be true in all cases. This review tries to address the issue by outlining the differences between cow's milk and commercially available alternative milks in terms of their nutrient content. Though various plant based alternate milks have been studied, only the four most consumed milk beverages are presented in this review which are consumed widely around the world. A complete nutritional outline and the corresponding health benefits of consuming these plant based milk beverages have been discussed in detail which could help the consumers make an informed decision.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 287 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 884 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 884 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 166 19%
Student > Master 121 14%
Researcher 58 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 6%
Other 29 3%
Other 82 9%
Unknown 371 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 149 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 66 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 58 7%
Engineering 31 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 3%
Other 116 13%
Unknown 434 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1429. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2024.
All research outputs
#8,750
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#1
of 1,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131
of 342,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#1
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.