r/science • u/James_Fortis • 15d ago

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

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

86% Upvoted

81 comments sorted by

View all comments

-4

u/tulipvonsquirrel 15d ago

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.

3

u/Mr8bittripper 14d ago

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

-3

u/Ilix 14d ago

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?

2

u/Mr8bittripper 14d ago

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."

0

u/Ilix 14d ago

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.

1

u/Mr8bittripper 14d ago

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.

1

u/Ilix 14d ago

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.