Reviewer 1:

Comments:

The study is well conducted and brings significant knowledge regarding vegetarianism
among Saudi residentials. However, although the results are satisfactory and well
described

1. Discussion section should implement more information regarding the different groups
of foods consumed by the included individuals.

Reply: Discussion is revised and Saudi population eating behavior included as suggested.

2. Questions such as protein digestion and biological value, saturated fat regarding the
consumption of cheese and dairy and general should be addressed in the discussion
section.

Reply: Discussion is revised as suggested.

3. Discussion section should also include more data regarding worldwide information,
given the richness of the data presented by the study.

Reply: Discussion is revised by showing comparison with other countries as suggested.

4. I also suggest that the full description of the utilized questions can be presented as a
supplementary file and the tables can present more concise information in one or two
tables.

Reply: In the revised manuscript tables have been reduced from 6 to 2.

Reviewer 2:

Comments:

Abstract

1. Too long, more compact and concise, key results only, conclusion only based on the
results of the study itself

Reply: Abstract has been compressed focusing on key results and conclusion only based on
study results as suggested. Total word count in abstract is 295 words.

References

1. Nice, but there might be some prevalence and eating behavior papers to be included
as currently published 202-2022 from leading experts in the field

Reply: New References have been added in the revised manuscript.

2. Table 1+2 - more densified info to be presented in 1 large Table rather than 2 of weak
content each; sources/definitions lacking as footnote and/or Table-header

Reply: Table 1 presentation is changed as suggested.

3. Table 3 to rethink as in this form to me makes not really sense, weak info provided this
way

Reply: Table 3 is removed in the revised manuscript.

4. Generally, 6 Tables is far too much as there is huge potential to compact and better
present more favorable to a reader -> all Tables have to be much improved based on
comments and thus resulting in a reduced Number of tables of around 3-4 max!

Reply: In the revised manuscript there are 2 tables as suggested.

5. Figures - basically nice, but on contrary to Tables rather overload with colours, data-
point-numbers etc. - however, good info; maybe to rethink the form of diagram used and
how to more advantageous present to an interested reader; and take care of adopting the
same formatting for all figures; also maybe there is a way to better present your results
and keep the 3 figures in an improved presentation format.

Reply: As suggested same format is used in all figures, with different shades to represent the
response ‘Never’, ‘Rarely’, ‘Sometimes’, ‘Often’ and ‘Always’. The numbers have been removed.

Introduction

1. Good, but has to be strengthened with current state of art literature, including the
major Position statements on vegetarian diets from and some important authors and
actual up-to-date numbers on veggie prevalence! At the moment, more claim and based
on old references - must be fixed!

Reply: New references and position statements on vegetarian diet are added as suggested.

Method
1. A lot of important info is lacking while other info is redundant and more than once
repeated!

Reply: The repetitions are removed in the methodology as suggested.

2. In current form is poorly described although I hope it is not the study design that is
weak and it turns out after a major revision that study design is robust but was not
adequately presented in this actual version - needs a lot of focus, especially the sources
used, as another issue! has to be clarified and strengthened, and needs again lots of
attention and focus!

Reply: Methodology has been revised. A descriptive study design, recruitment method,
measurements and statistical notes are added as suggested.

Results

1. Some mix with Discussion from time 2 time; info lacking in method is now tracing to
results quality

Reply: Results have been revised focusing on the findings as suggested.

2. Some potential to densify - not clear what the main research question is (see title) but
the key results are not so prominently presented in structure - an interested reader like
me easily is getting lost by text and many Tables and Figures -> must be compacted and
a red line has to be drawn concisely and decision for presenting results needs rethinking

Reply: Results, tables and figures have been revised as suggested. In the revised manuscript
there are 2 tables and 3 figures.

Discussion

1. not bad started, but focus more on highlighting in the start your key results and the
aim the findings are related to now again, tracing from weak/old literature in the
Introduction to here in

Reply: Discussion is revised and key results are focused as suggested. New references have
been incorporated.

2. Discussion - it needs for comparison NEW and up-2-ate literature from 2020-2022 in
order to address the veggie boom you link your Saudi young sample to - this is lacking in
whole manuscript frequently you repeat your results but rather NOT provide numbers of
the comparing studies you mention, but this is required in Disc.

Reply: Discussion is revised and comparison is done with new literature as suggested.
Repetition is removed.

3. No straight and concise structure that will be fixed when identifying the key results
and work them down point-by-point, now often chaotic and repetitive - overall that makes
this very promising and interesting paper really hard to read, even for a passionate
reader like me!

Reply: Discussion is revised and key results have been written down point-by-point as
suggested. Repetition is removed
Conclusion

1. Not based on data, often claim, and is not linked to title as answering its main research
question

Reply: Conclusion is linked to the title and research question as suggested.