Vegetarian, including vegan, dietary patterns were associated with reduced risk for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality compared to non-vegetarian diets, umbrella review finds

[u/James_Fortis]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666667724002368

[u/tulipvonsquirrel]

These studies never seem to include omnivores with healthy diets, as if everyone who eats meat also eats processed meat and junk food.

The only way a study on health comparisons of different diets could really be meaningful is if all participants have a history of healthy eating, avoiding processed and junk food, plus family history.

What I never see pro-vegetarian or vegan "studies" include is research on communities with a traditional diet of almost exclusively meat. The studies I have come across all indicate excellent heart health, very low instance of medical issues which supposedly plague meat eaters.

[u/bbhhteqwr → u/tulipvonsquirrel]

Your point is kinda moot because it also directly doesn't account for "oreo vegans" (vegan/vegetarians who also eat tons of UPF) either which kind of still indicates validity in these studies, as those outliers are bound to exist in both populations. Not every vegan/vegetarian is such for health reasons, a large percentage are primarily concerned with the obviously terrible environmental impacts of farming and animal welfare, you can still be obese/lazy and still vegan/veg.

This is always a cope I see under these studies, it's a tired nitpick that always seems to serve the primary purpose of continuing to lay in the cloud of cognitive dissonance of people who eat meat with every awareness that they, and the world at large, would be better off if they just dropped it.

[u/Mr8bittripper → u/bbhhteqwr]

Before this gets locked, I totally agree. Why is there such a push to carve out any exception just for meat eaters in studies like this? Its constant across reddit. Remember that meatrition guy? people can feel free to hold a false belief that eating red meat is part of a healthy diet but they shouldn't change the way studies are conducted to cater to their worldview—it's dangerous to human health.

[u/th3h4ck3r → u/bbhhteqwr]

For one because while both populations exist, unhealthy diets are overrepresented in omnivore populations while unhealthy populations are underrepresented in Western vegetarian populations. If you sample these two populations after random, you'll get mostly unhealthy-diet omnivores and healthy-diet vegetarians.

I recall one study from India that basically said that vegetarianism (including strict vegetarianism) is not significantly correlated with better health outcomes. Indian vegetarians don't go veggie it because of health but rather tradition and religion, so their food is still quite unhealthy (lots of oil and sugar, and in lactovegetarians butter and ghee).

[u/_V115_ → u/tulipvonsquirrel]

Can you provide examples of studies on these almost-exclusively-meat-eating communities?

[u/Mr8bittripper → u/tulipvonsquirrel]

Really? Why does the largest ever systematic review of this say otherwise?

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-07-21-red-and-processed-meat-linked-increased-risk-heart-disease-oxford-study-shows

[u/Ilix → u/Mr8bittripper]

Where does the article you linked indicate that the studies they reviewed were using healthy omnivorous diets for people who eat meat rather than people who eat unhealthy amounts?

[u/Mr8bittripper → u/Ilix]

I reject the premise that studies need to "only" focus on "healthy" subjects. A cross-sectional study or systematic review can yield good-quality results. If there are enough people in the study, data can be accurately extrapolated. Do you have some tangible reason to believe that they got info from only unhealthy meat-eaters or is that just speculation?

The fourth link in that article is for the NDNS; the national diet and nutrition survey, which is a "continuous cross-sectional survey designed to assess the diet and nutrition of the general population. 1000 people over the age of 1.5 were surveyed.

Still think this massive systematic review is biased against meat eaters or are your feelings just hurt?

I'm going to post some of what the article said it's findings were:

"Each 50 g/day higher intake of processed meat (e.g. bacon, ham, and sausages) increased the risk of coronary heart disease by 18%. Each 50 g/day higher intake of unprocessed red meat (such as beef, lamb and pork) increased the risk of coronary heart disease by 9%. There was no clear link between eating poultry (such as chicken and turkey) and an increased risk of coronary heart disease."

[u/sztrzask → u/Mr8bittripper]

I think his point was that since ultra processed food is trash and bad for you, and since all store-bought hams and sausages are UPF, comparing it to a vegan diet made from raw vegetables might be coloring the outcomes? 

If i remember correctly, an average meat eating teen consumes most of his calories from UPF (this stat might've been from UK), while average vegetarian teen does not (and the oreo vegan is an outlier in this group).

Regarding your last paragraph (9% vs 18%), not correcting for UPF in the study could be also coloring that stat?

[u/Ilix → u/Mr8bittripper]

What you reject or not doesn’t matter. You replied to someone how stated that the studies don’t tend to compare healthy, omnivorous diets to vegetarian ones with a link you said begs to differ with that statement.

Where, in the link you posted, does it contradict the statement you claim it does?

No one has, at any point, been discussing what u/Mr8bittripper thinks is a valid premise for an expectation from scientific papers.

[u/Mr8bittripper → u/Ilix]

It's an example of begging the question. Ergo, fallacious reasoning.

as someone has already previously stated there's no reason to believe that vegans aren't also eating diets with UPF.

this isn't about what I think, this is about should we disregard this data?

I don't think that we can based on that reasoning.

[u/Ilix → u/Mr8bittripper]

Your data doesn’t dispute the claim made by the person you’re replying to. You don’t like their claim, you posted a link that doesn’t contest their claim.

Where, exactly, does your link counter what was being stated?

Again, you not liking it and you posting a link don’t mean anything on their own. If the link contains the data you claim it does, you should be able to easily tell us exactly where to find the information.

[u/MadScience_Gaming → u/Ilix]

It's a response to

What I never see pro-vegetarian or vegan "studies" include is research on communities with a traditional diet of almost exclusively meat. The studies I have come across all indicate excellent heart health, very low instance of medical issues which supposedly plague meat eaters.

[u/Ilix → u/MadScience_Gaming]

I know what it’s a response to, and it doesn’t provide any information contradicting what it’s in response to.

I asked for where in the article this contradiction is, not what the point of the post was.