By Emmett Shaul
BLUF
Vegetarian and vegan tactical athletes can consume enough protein to support occupational readiness if daily intake and per meal amino acid targets are met (Leon & Gonzalez). The recommended daily protein intake is 1.4–2.0 g/kg/day, with an optimal starting point of 1.62 g/kg/day to sustain a positive nitrogen balance and maximize training adaptation/recovery (Leon & Gonzalez). However, because plant proteins can deliver less essential amino acids (EAA) and branched chain amino acids than animal sources, vegetarian/vegan athletes often need more total food/protein volume (about 20–40% more plant protein during intense training) and may need more deliberate planning/supplementation to consistently hit EAA/leucine targets (Leon & Gonzalez).
Overview
This January 2026 TSAC nutrition column addresses whether vegetarian/vegan diets can support occupational readiness, framed as the ability to (1) recover from heavy training and occupation specific tasks, (2) recover from resistance and aerobic training, (3) adapt to training, and (4) maintain readiness for the occupation (Leon & Gonzalez). The authors establish practical protein targets that exceed the RDA, including a daily intake range (1.4–2.0 g/kg/day, with 1.62 g/kg/day highlighted as a starting point) and a per-feeding approach tied to muscle protein synthesis—emphasizing that protein intake should be structured so feedings provide the amino acids (especially EAAs and leucine) needed to stimulate adaptation and support recovery (Leon & Gonzalez). They then explain why protein “quality” differs between animal and plant sources by detailing how EAA density, absorption/digestion rate, and leucine content influence the MPS response, noting that animal proteins can contain substantially more EAAs and tend to drive a stronger rise in plasma EAAs and a more robust MPS signal; they also note creatine is typically higher in animal foods than plant sources (Leon & Gonzalez; Tang et al.; Yang et al.). The authors ground these points by summarizing multiple resistance training protein studies spanning ~1.5 to 9 months and a field relevant ACFT/MRE crossover study, using these data to show when plant based approaches appear equivalent to animal-based approaches (and when they may not), and to identify the practical constraints of plant based fueling in tactical contexts—particularly greater required intake volume and increased cost (Leon & Gonzalez; Gonzalez et al.).
Key Findings
1) Protein targets
The authors recommend tactical and occupational athletes aim for 1.4–2.0 g/kg/day of protein, with an optimal “starting” daily target of 1.62 g/kg/day, to sustain a positive nitrogen balance (protein intake exceeds protein breakdown) that supports recovery and training adaptation (Leon & Gonzalez). It also notes higher protein intake may be beneficial in specific situations such as a caloric deficit (to preserve lean mass) and potentially for additional fat loss (Leon & Gonzalez).
2) Protein quality
Animal proteins (e.g., poultry/pork/beef) are described as higher quality largely because they can contain up to ~42% more EAAs, are absorbed more rapidly, raise plasma EAA concentrations more robustly, and typically stimulate a more robust MPS response; animal foods are also noted as generally higher in creatine than plant sources (Leon & Gonzalez). In the examples highlighted, whey produced greater MPS than soy (Tang et al.), and another cited comparison indicated a larger soy dose was needed post-exercise to increase MPS relative to whey (Yang et al.).
3) Training study outcomes
Despite quality differences, the authors summarize evidence that plant based approaches can still produce comparable body composition and resistance training adaptations when total protein and key amino acids are sufficient (Hevia-Larraín et al.; Candow et al.; Moon et al.). In habitual vegans consuming 1.6 g/kg/day (whole foods + soy supplementation) for 12 weeks, adaptations were similar to a protein matched omnivorous diet (Hevia-Larraín et al.). In another study summarized, six weeks of soy vs whey at 1.2 g/kg/day produced similar improvements (vs placebo) in lean mass and strength measures (Candow et al.). Likewise, 24 g/day rice vs whey alongside a 4-day/week resistance program yielded similar improvements in body mass, lean mass, and key strength outcomes (Moon et al.). The stated “common factor” across these comparisons is that daily protein was matched and the per serving dose generally contained sufficient EAA and leucine (≈10 g EAA and ≈2.0 g leucine) (Leon & Gonzalez).
4) When it fails
The authors note one reviewed study failed to demonstrate favorable outcomes for a plant based regimen and attribute this to a likely failure to ensure careful planning to match (or meet minimum thresholds for) the EAA and leucine delivered by the plant source (Leon & Gonzalez). They then provide practical targets for plant-based athletes: daily protein ~1.4–2.0 g/kg/day, the plant protein source providing ~8–10 g or more of EAAs daily, and ~2.0 g leucine supplied by the plant source (Leon & Gonzalez).
5) Field feeding and recovery
In the featured ACFT/MRE study (randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover), cadets completed two 4 day sequences comparing plant based vs pork based MREs, with biomarkers (urine/blood), mood/soreness questionnaires, cognitive tests, and repeat ACFT performance measured across 72 hours of recovery (Gonzalez et al.). Three days were sufficient to reproduce ACFT performance in both conditions, but the pork based regimen showed less soreness, lower urinary urea, lower cortisol, lower depression scores, higher testosterone to cortisol ratio, and greater appetite satisfaction, while the plant based regimen improved blood lipid profiles more (Gonzalez et al.). The authors interpret this as the animal based regimen potentially providing slightly more robust MPS/net protein balance acutely, while still showing that performance can be upheld when daily protein is matched; they also note longer duration work may be warranted given fatigue accumulation over time (Leon & Gonzalez).
6) Logistics
The authors emphasize that vegetarian/vegan athletes may need more total food consumed to obtain EAA and leucine comparable to animal products; they cite that plant based protein can yield ~39% less EAA and ~37% less branched chain amino acids than animal sources in some cases (Leon & Gonzalez). They also stress adequate calories/protein during intense training to maintain positive protein balance and promote adaptation (Leon & Gonzalez). Cost is flagged as another constraint, with the provided price ranges for plant based vs whey protein powders overlapping but described as tending higher for plant based sources (Leon & Gonzalez).
Practical Applications
For vegetarian/vegan tactical athletes, the prescription is straightforward: target 1.4–2.0 g/kg/day (with 1.62 g/kg/day as the stated “starting point”) and ensure each protein serving (a 20–40 g dose) includes adequate EAA and leucine to support MPS and training adaptations (Leon & Gonzalez). Because plant proteins can provide less EAA/leucine per unit, vegetarian/vegan athletes commonly require ~20–40% more plant protein—especially during intense training—plus adequate total calories to sustain positive protein balance (Leon & Gonzalez). This higher total food/protein intake typically increases total food volume and can also increase cost (Leon & Gonzalez).
For field/operational feeding, the ACFT/MRE data suggest both plant and pork based regimens can preserve short term performance when daily protein is matched, but the pork based approach showed more favorable soreness/catabolic-stress markers over the four day window (Gonzalez et al.). Based on that finding, the study recommends that plant based military style MREs include 6–10 g/day of EAAs and 2–3 g/day of creatine monohydrate to address potential gaps (Gonzalez et al.).
Bibliography
- Tang JE, Moore DR, Kujbida GW, Tarnopolsky M, Phillips S. Ingestion of whey hydrolysate, casein, or soy protein isolate: Effects on mixed muscle protein synthesis at rest and following resistance exercise in young men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 2009.
- Yang Y, et al. Myofibrillar protein synthesis following ingestion of soy protein isolate at rest and after resistance exercise in elderly men. Nutrition and Metabolism, 2012.
- Candow DG, Burke NC, Smith-Palmer T, Burke D. Effect of whey and soy protein supplementation combined with resistance training in young adults. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2006.
- Moon JM, Ratliff KM, Blumkaitis JC. Effects of daily 24-gram doses of rice or whey protein on resistance training adaptations in trained males. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2020.
- Volek JS, et al. Whey protein supplementation during resistance training augments lean body mass. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2013.
- Gonzalez DE, et al. Effects of pork protein ingestion prior to and following performing the army combat fitness test on markers of catabolism, inflammation, and recovery. Nutrients, 2025.
- Morton RW, et al. A systematic review/meta-analysis of protein supplementation effects on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2018.