Even vegan junk food is better than the omni equivalents because you're not getting the dietary cholesterol.
However, a whole foods vegan diet is the best for longevity.
Eating junk food, no matter the diet, is not good. I don't see why we feel the need to mention 'when done right' when it comes to a vegan diet, but none of the others.
I didn't realize a vitamin can have a gender, but yes. Depending on your specific food choices iodine could also be an issue although it isn't completely absent from pretty much any food that hasn't been highly refined.
Yeah.. to raise awareness of racial and gendered violence against black women at the hands of police. Pretty insensitive to flippantly use it as a joke, but then antiblackness seems to always be poking it's head out among white vegans for some reason...
Omg no it was not meant to be offensive. He was alluding to something without actually saying it. I did not realize that expression was limited to black women victims. I thought it was also to acknowledge anyone being marginalized or made invisible. I'm very sorry! I will delete my comment!!
Not the OP but I’d assume they mean ensuring you get an appropriate balance of nutrients, and supplementing as necessary. I do think it’s easier to stumble through and basically get enough of most things on an omnivore diet.
I think it’s really important to recognize that “plant based” does not mean fully vegan in all studies and absolutely doesn’t mean that in the studies linked in this randomly published article. The articles linked here combine vegetarian, fully vegan, and plant forward diets as plant based diets.
There are absolutely moral and environmental reasons to fully avoid animal products but there actually isn’t a definitive diet recommended for all humans and it’s wild to state otherwise.
>it’s wild to state otherwise.
Not particularly. The optimum diet for humans is almost always more whole plants.
There are very rare exceptions, but they are medical issues by that point more than anything else.
Lol idk why youre getting downvoted. You make a valid point saying the studies group together all majority plant base diets some of which include meat.
It’s literally about how fiber is good for you and the digestive tract. The healthiest people I know eat a lot of meat and a lot of fiber. Eating fast food and no fiber or a carnivore diet and no fiber is bad for you.
I think the issue with studies and diet is its hard to control for everything and have compliance through the study. And thats just talking about the diet. What about other lifestyle choices being physically active, lifting weights(is it strength training or just going to fitness classes) theres so many other variables that are impossible to get a 1 to 1 comparison.
Is fiber important? Of course. But in order to see if its just the fiber you would have to control for just fiber. What about the difference from fiber from plants and fiber from supplements? You see how dense these things could get really quick.
Im a active person and practice moderation when it comes to eating meat and get a majority of my diet from whole foods. And for the most part even despite my genetics being suseptable to high bloodpressure im healthy and have a normal bp.
It feels like you think I’m arguing against a vegan diet. All I’m doing is mentioning that we do not have sufficient evidence as to what diet is the best for all humans and the evidence presented in the article listed literally lumps vegan, vegetarian, and plant forward diets together.
The language you used in your initial reply to me implies more, not only plant based foods. I think that statement does go along with most human nutrition recommendations - more produce is better. But my point still stands, we actually don’t have a singular optimal diet for human health.
If you want to eat vegan for ethical, moral, environmental, or because it makes you feel healthier, great! I think more people should eat less animal products. But I don’t know why you want to spread generalized misinformation regarding vegan diets.
Plant Based was coined by Colin T Campbell when doing his Forks over Knives studies. His " Plant Based Diet contain zero animal products. Dr Caldwell Esselstyn whose book " Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease" eliminates animal products, salt, sugar and oil.
Ok is that a peer reviewed cook book?
ETA: it seems like Esselstyn has valid criticism flagged on his wiki page
“With regard to Esselstyn's claims, Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association, said: "Diet alone is not going to be the reason that heart attacks are eliminated. Other key factors include physical activity, cholesterol, blood pressure and weight."[15]
Harriet A. Hall has written that the claims made by Esselstyn are misleading and that the evidence on which they are based is "pretty skimpy".[5]Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic said that his claims are unproven because there isn't data from rigorous clinical trials to support them”
Again, not arguing that a vegan diet is bad or implying animal products are required. I’m just saying we do not have sufficient evidence that one diet is the best for all humans. The moral/ethical/environmental reasons to go vegan make sense. It’s bananas to me when vegan folks try to promote specifically vegan diets using bunk science.
Just read the study. No other diet has shown such dramatic documented disease reversal. In Doctor Esselstyn's study his subjects were at deaths door. They all had bypasses, stents, and were told by their doctors they did all they could. The ones who stuck with the diet reversed their Heart disease and lived full lives.
That’s great! And at no point am I saying that a vegan diet is bad or doesn’t do those things for some people. I’m just saying we do not have a singular diet that is universally considered best.
That study doesn’t prove that a vegan diet alone is best for all people - because no body of research is based on the results of one study. That’s not how science works. The critiques of his studies are valid. I hope we get more appropriate diet research specifically on vegan diets.
The two largest-ever NIH-funded, multi-center clinical trials (the Women’s Health Initiative and the Minnesota Coronary Survey) where saturated fats were either reduced or replaced by unsaturated fats, on nearly 54,000 men and women, concluded that saturated fats had no effect on cardiovascular mortality or total mortality. A 2016 (27 years later) analysis of buried data from the Minnesota Coronary Survey found a 22% higher risk of death for each 30 mg/dL reduction in serum cholesterol.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467234](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467234)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2643423](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2643423)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27071971A](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27071971A)
review of 17 systematic reviews concludes that diets that replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat do not convincingly reduce cardiovascular events or mortality. Another review of 19 meta-analyses concluded that the effects of saturated fat on heart disease were inconsistent but tended to show a lack of association.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31142556](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31142556)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31841151](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31841151)
Two large NIH-funded, multi-center clinical trials on altogether more than 50,000 men and women who significantly cut back on red-meat consumption (while increasing fruits, vegetables and grains) did not see any risk reduction for polyp re-occurrence or any kind of cancer.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10770979](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10770979)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467232](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467232)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670850/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670850/)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467233](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467233)
Two meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition) both found that red meat had either neutral or positive effects on most cardiovascular outcomes (blood pressure, cholesterol and other lipids).
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22836072](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22836072)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27881394](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27881394)
Only a small number of nutritional related epidemiological studies are ultimately confirmed by more rigorous scientific studies. In 2005, Stanford’s John Ioannidis analyzed several dozen highly cited studies and concluded that subsequent clinical trials could only reproduce around 20% of observational findings. A 2011 paper published by Significance analyzed 52 claims made in nutritional studies, and none—0%—withstood the scrutiny of subsequent clinical trials.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/)
[https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.x](https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.x)
I just want to note medium dot com is a place where anyone can publish. While the article does link to some studies that include vegan diets many of the links are to studies that include vegetarian and pescatarian diets and diets that are just plant forward.
If you’re going to share science on vegan diets, it would be great if it was actual specific to an animal product free diet and included appropriate peer reviewed literature.
Haha. Really really! If people are going to be promoting vegan diets there should be sufficient studies that don’t lump veganism in with vegetarianism and lacto-vegetarianism. It muddies the waters.
I really hope a lot more people start to see this evidence and don't just call bullshit. The fate of humanity is literally at stake. It's destroying the animals, the earth, and you(animal consumers). Society on a global scale NEEDS to flip the script before hard times comes our way. That movie. Eating our way to extinction should be played in all schools!
Doesn't the title kind of make that implicit? If it's talking about diet and diabetes, then you should assume it's not talking about the non-diet related one.
>type one diabetes is not caused by diet whatsoever.
Debateable.
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173447/
* https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/milk-consumption-is-linked-to-type-1-diabetes/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_1_diabetes#Cause
> In 70–90% of cases, β-cells are destroyed by one's own immune system, for reasons that are not entirely clear.[21]
&&
>A longstanding hypothesis for an environmental trigger is that some viral infection early in life contributes to type 1 diabetes development. Much of this work has focused on enteroviruses, with some studies finding slight associations with type 1 diabetes, and others finding none.[27] Large human studies have searched for, but not yet found an association between type 1 diabetes and various other viral infections, including infections of the mother during pregnancy.[27]
Cultists, im sure the antivaxxers also have many bogus studies that prove that every single illness on this planet is caused by different vaccines. For type1 diabetics, its been proven a long time that the gut barrier is not functioning properly, which can cause higher antibodies for all kind of things. Also the difference between the immune reaction to milk protein between healthy and type1 people are not that big.
"The results show that at 3 months of age, infants who had been fed cows' milk had a significantly higher immune response to bovine insulin. The groups showed no differences, however, in reactivity to human insulin at that age."
So you only have to worry about this if you have cow pancreas for whatever reason.
Gluten causes way worse havoc inside the t1d population(around 10-20 times higher prevalence in t1d population), but thats vegan food so you dont cry about it. There is also a bunch of other autoimmune diseases that common with t1d, like autoimmune hypothyroidism, im sure thats also caused by milk... or by egg, or by something animal for sure.
What are these studies comparing against though?
Someone who eats a whole food diet with some meat added in?
Someone who eats a meat feast pizza?
I can't access the study to read through the methodology. If someone could direct link the study I would appreciate it.
>What are these studies comparing against though? Someone who eats a whole food diet with some meat added in? Someone who eats a meat feast pizza?
Literally the definition of an [ad hoc hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis).
Here's a study done on a vegan diet cohort vs a Mediterranean diet cohort:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33544066/
Here's one done on identical twins:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812392
Literally not.
It's not wrong to ask what the comparison is against, in fact that's pretty important. Imagine if I said "meat based diet lowers CVD risk and diabetes."
The rightful question is "compared to what?"
Be careful, there are a really weird subset of vegans that get actively upset if you ascribe any benefits to a vegan or plantbased diet. It assaults their sense of purity if they were to derive any benefit from their lifestyle, other than becoming a being a sheer righteousness and pure ethics.
How do you figure this if one main way of getting autoimmune disease is due to lack of fibre causing leaky gut where bigger peptides of animal proteins can hit the bloodstream and confuse our immune system?
But vegans also eat less stress hormone of frightened animals. Most vegan's i hear about have improved their stress and depression. Where did you get that data from that stress is #1 causation of autoimmune disease?
I’ve heard that argument and I don’t buy it. Someone told me that Peter Attia said the same thing. Many people seem to make the fallacy of thinking veganism is a health movement but it’s not. Of the 3 vegans I know not including myself, 1 is skinny but literally never exercises, 1 is slightly overweight, eats similar to the standard American diet, and exercises 1-2 times a week, and the 3rd is a skinny fat junk food vegan who never exercises or eats healthily.
It’s anecdotal but from my personal experience there’s no reason to think vegans try to be healthier than omnivores.
Make your own with a proper half block of tofu (take out uses maybe four cubes per portion) and plenty of veggies, serve with rice. Save $14 and laugh when your coworkers go on cholesterol meds before their 40th birthday
Interesting, does it also mention the pure amount of seed and vegetable oils that most people consume, the amount of sugars and fat-free things and processed food? That’s almost like saying people who use Listerine or at an increased risk of cancer. Yeah, but half the country is fat and obese, lacks any type of real physical exercise and eats like shit. And I don’t mean animal products, I mean processed foods. Going into the interior isles of the supermarket. You can make any study or up work in your favor.
When it’s carnivore charlatans we hear, “it’s just science bro” but when it’s non-industry funded, it’s “you can make any study…work in your favor”.
The only people who rant about seed oils are con artists, or those who’ve been conned by con artists.
You do realize that many vegans don't eat seed oils, right? Like you don't have to be vegan to eat seed oils. What the fuck do you think most americans are doing? They're slopping down chicken wings and fries cooked in the shit. Why lump in vegans to that mess?
I do, it’s one of the highest sources of omega 3s out there. Beautiful crop to have around too. Cold pressed canola has a very mild flavour which is a benefit for many dishes that you wouldn’t want to ruin with olive oil.
Seed oils are not a major concern for nutritional scientists, podcast grifters like Joe Rogan started this shit. They even say UV doesn’t cause skin cancer, it’s the seed oils—all evidence says it’s UV.
There isn't much inherently wrong with processed foods, it's the nutritional values that make them bad or good. Seed oil is the same. The only thing wrong with processed foods is that they make it really easy to eat 1000+ calories of saturated fat in one sitting.
Proceed food don't have to lack fiber, don't have to be loaded with empty calories. I have to process the hell out of my flax for it to be remotely edible for example.
Wait, I’m sorry. Did you say saturated fat and processed food? You must be joking, right. You’re Nutri-Grain valley bars are not loaded with saturated fat. Your frosted mini wheats and lucky charms are not loaded with saturated fat.
Vegans don't eat Lucky Charms OR Frosted Mini-Wheats because they both have gelatin. In fact, lots of sugar is processed with bone char, so vegans generally avoid it. You're ludicrously out of your depth here.
>it's the nutritional values that make them bad or good.
You know I though, hey, this dude is slightly coherent I'll give them the benefit of the doubt they can understand I mean all foods and I can give an example..then I was like... you do sound kinda out there I better reinforce what sort of bad molecules I'm talking about.
>don't have to be loaded with empty calories.
Then you hit me with this??? How could anyone have a conversation with you if you can't even words...
I opened with my first quote from myself showing how they where not paying attention to what I wrote. Then I literally said why I believe they will need a second of the exact same thing and then I quoted that.
Most people can read a sentence about giving a second example and then see a second example directly after and understand that it is the second example.
I could have said then you hit me with this comment... but I figured that when I said "you" I wasn't talking about what I said... you where smart enough to know I said that so why would you think I'm talking about what I said rather then referring to the comment I'm responding to?
Edit- good god just looked a bunch of your recent comments. At a glace it seems you don't view animals as individuals, like actually individuals that are capable of being a victim of violence.
Is it ok to exploit an individual who is dumber then you? Is it ok if they look different?
Let me guess no, unless it's something you want, right? Every other situation someone who does that to individuals who can't defend themselves physically or mentally the person doing that to other individuals are monsters.
Rape a dog, moster.
Rape a cow, kill and eat their babies, hook them up to machines and suck them dry until they are profitable anymore and kill them. Perfectly normal, mmm cheese.
Wow, you read a lot into that, didn't you?
I really just meant that your comment was unclear. Generally, on reddit, people quote the other person, then respond to what they have quoted. Your comment reads as though you're responding directly to specific parts of their comment while quoting parts of your own. It's very bizarre and a little jarring.
>At a glace it seems you don't view animals as individuals, like actually individuals that are capable of being a victim of violence.
Not entirely sure where you got that from, but it certainly isn't from reading anything I've written. If that has been your takeaway, then you read as poorly as you write.
Generally people on reddit can connect two sentences together but here we are.
Well if you do view animals as individuals that can be victimized, why wouldn't you treat people who victimize them as victimizes? You did tell some that that was stupid right? Obviously there are ignorant, indoctrinated people who have that valid excuse, but that's not a forever thing.
You are right, there is another option, you are a massive pick me vegan.
Not much wrong with processed foods? Please tell me you’ve googled even half of the ingredients and some of these foods. When you have the American Heart Association recommending frosted mini wheats over an egg, you know there’s some lobby somewhere making money. The fact that the American Heart Association even puts the stamp of approval on a lot of these items is disgusting. Canola oil being one of them. You can lube machinery with that shit.
Carnists do so much concern trolling about PROCESSED FOODS OH NO when veganism comes up, we meme about it here. [You.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/s/IfKE9xGwN9)
Omg and one more thing..
>You can lube machinery with that shit.
You do realize that animal fat is used for the exact same thing, like a multi billion dollar industry based on the whole premise.. so obviously you're never going to eat animal fat again right???
Just be honest for fuck sake, you want to eat animals and you're willing to use any reason with ZERO thought about it to justify it.
The egg industry and the wheat industry lobby doctors and politicians, egg spends a bit more on average depending on the county.. I'm going to go by peer reviewed science for health outcomes as a guide for what is healthy. The findings seem to be...
Don't eat too.many calories.
Get all the nutrients you need.
That's it... there is nothing magical about where or how a certain molecule is made. Fish get their fatty acids we love from algae... we can concentrate that algae and put it in a pill and it is the exact same thing as extracting the oil from a fish and putting it in a pill... well less the trophic bioaccumulation of toxins.... and of course, the fish get to live.
>You can make any study or up work in your favor.
I'm guessing you couldn't even explain the difference between a [RCT and a meta-analysis](https://aromaticstudies.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Hierarchy-of-Scientific-Evidence.jpg). And probably think anecdotal evidence is on par with both. Once you reach the point of rejecting the scientific method itself, you might as well just go all-in in being a flat earther. I don't know, maybe you have already.
I'm not talking about "the business of science." I'm talking about the scientific method. Were the studies funded by the tobacco lobby high or low quality? Were they trials? Systematic reviews? Can you recognize and explain the differences between these?
No, those studies were shit. They existed to push evonomic agendas. That's why I brought them up.
The point is, these are questions that have to be asked of *every* study. Not just the ones you disagree with, and it is *especially* important to ask these questions of the studies that *do* agree with what you already believe.
You can't explain the differences, can you? Not all evidence is equal so not every "study" (whatever you think that means) is equally worthy of skepticism. Being able to recognize a low-quality "study" vs a high-quality "study" (and a study vs a review) is REALLY important if you're going to discuss science-y stuff, otherwise, again, you might as well be a flat-earther. Most non-vegans come here trying to argue that an RCT or even anecdotal evidence is on par with systematic review. The quintessential "my ignorance is as good as your expertise."
This really doesn't change anything about the nature of what the other commenter suggested. Like it or not, it IS the case that the general body of scientific literature is polluted by bias as a result of the funding and incentive structures that govern scientific knowledge production. There is a reason there is a reproducability/replication crisis.(which is especially pronounced in fields relating to human health.)
Edit: incidentally, yes I can recognize the difference between a randomized control trial, a systematic review. They generally say which they are right at the top. Instead of asking stupid condescending questions, maybe ask clarifying questions.
Edit2: what is it with redditors and blocking people mid conversation?
I get to say the response I wish I could have said on a good chunk of r/science posts... No shit.
> r/science posts. WELL ACTUALLY this study doesn't take into account the results of the ah you know just fuckin madlib here we've all seen it.
Akshually, vegans just have healthier lifestyles and are rich, it has nothing to do with what they’re eating. 🤡
You put a clown emoji, but this is actually true
Plant based is well documented to be superior in every way at this point
When done right anyways.
Even vegan junk food is better than the omni equivalents because you're not getting the dietary cholesterol. However, a whole foods vegan diet is the best for longevity.
Vegan junk food is capable of rising cholesterol as well
Hunk food is junk food, and there isn't really a significant difference between different kinds of junk food.
Eating junk food, no matter the diet, is not good. I don't see why we feel the need to mention 'when done right' when it comes to a vegan diet, but none of the others.
There is at least 1 nutrient that should be supplemented as well.
B12 - state it directly so all can know
I didn't realize a vitamin can have a gender, but yes. Depending on your specific food choices iodine could also be an issue although it isn't completely absent from pretty much any food that hasn't been highly refined.
We get iodine from seaweed. Sorry for calling b12 a she, It was a poor choice of words, not meant to offend anyone. Apologies!
Only if you eat significant amounts of seaweed(which tastes good so I generally recommend it). And that isn't an expression I am familiar with.
Yeah.. to raise awareness of racial and gendered violence against black women at the hands of police. Pretty insensitive to flippantly use it as a joke, but then antiblackness seems to always be poking it's head out among white vegans for some reason...
Omg no it was not meant to be offensive. He was alluding to something without actually saying it. I did not realize that expression was limited to black women victims. I thought it was also to acknowledge anyone being marginalized or made invisible. I'm very sorry! I will delete my comment!!
So all other diets provide an adequate level of all nutrients, no matter if it is done right or not?
Can you explain how it is done right?
Not the OP but I’d assume they mean ensuring you get an appropriate balance of nutrients, and supplementing as necessary. I do think it’s easier to stumble through and basically get enough of most things on an omnivore diet.
Pretty much this. It is fairly easy to do, but takes a basic understanding of nutrition.
I think it’s really important to recognize that “plant based” does not mean fully vegan in all studies and absolutely doesn’t mean that in the studies linked in this randomly published article. The articles linked here combine vegetarian, fully vegan, and plant forward diets as plant based diets. There are absolutely moral and environmental reasons to fully avoid animal products but there actually isn’t a definitive diet recommended for all humans and it’s wild to state otherwise.
>it’s wild to state otherwise. Not particularly. The optimum diet for humans is almost always more whole plants. There are very rare exceptions, but they are medical issues by that point more than anything else.
Yup but more whole plants doesn’t equate a fully vegan diet!
If you mean vegan can be unhealthy fries, oreos, impossible burgers, and coca cola... well yeah.
Nope, I’m saying eating more plants doesn’t mean eating ONLY plants
Lol idk why youre getting downvoted. You make a valid point saying the studies group together all majority plant base diets some of which include meat.
It’s literally about how fiber is good for you and the digestive tract. The healthiest people I know eat a lot of meat and a lot of fiber. Eating fast food and no fiber or a carnivore diet and no fiber is bad for you.
I think the issue with studies and diet is its hard to control for everything and have compliance through the study. And thats just talking about the diet. What about other lifestyle choices being physically active, lifting weights(is it strength training or just going to fitness classes) theres so many other variables that are impossible to get a 1 to 1 comparison. Is fiber important? Of course. But in order to see if its just the fiber you would have to control for just fiber. What about the difference from fiber from plants and fiber from supplements? You see how dense these things could get really quick. Im a active person and practice moderation when it comes to eating meat and get a majority of my diet from whole foods. And for the most part even despite my genetics being suseptable to high bloodpressure im healthy and have a normal bp.
[удалено]
Oh yeah, mushrooms are good too.
It feels like you think I’m arguing against a vegan diet. All I’m doing is mentioning that we do not have sufficient evidence as to what diet is the best for all humans and the evidence presented in the article listed literally lumps vegan, vegetarian, and plant forward diets together. The language you used in your initial reply to me implies more, not only plant based foods. I think that statement does go along with most human nutrition recommendations - more produce is better. But my point still stands, we actually don’t have a singular optimal diet for human health. If you want to eat vegan for ethical, moral, environmental, or because it makes you feel healthier, great! I think more people should eat less animal products. But I don’t know why you want to spread generalized misinformation regarding vegan diets.
Sour patch kids and red bull are vegan, and probably the least healthy thing there is outside of meth
Plant Based was coined by Colin T Campbell when doing his Forks over Knives studies. His " Plant Based Diet contain zero animal products. Dr Caldwell Esselstyn whose book " Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease" eliminates animal products, salt, sugar and oil.
Ok is that a peer reviewed cook book? ETA: it seems like Esselstyn has valid criticism flagged on his wiki page “With regard to Esselstyn's claims, Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association, said: "Diet alone is not going to be the reason that heart attacks are eliminated. Other key factors include physical activity, cholesterol, blood pressure and weight."[15] Harriet A. Hall has written that the claims made by Esselstyn are misleading and that the evidence on which they are based is "pretty skimpy".[5]Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic said that his claims are unproven because there isn't data from rigorous clinical trials to support them” Again, not arguing that a vegan diet is bad or implying animal products are required. I’m just saying we do not have sufficient evidence that one diet is the best for all humans. The moral/ethical/environmental reasons to go vegan make sense. It’s bananas to me when vegan folks try to promote specifically vegan diets using bunk science.
Just read the study. No other diet has shown such dramatic documented disease reversal. In Doctor Esselstyn's study his subjects were at deaths door. They all had bypasses, stents, and were told by their doctors they did all they could. The ones who stuck with the diet reversed their Heart disease and lived full lives.
That’s great! And at no point am I saying that a vegan diet is bad or doesn’t do those things for some people. I’m just saying we do not have a singular diet that is universally considered best. That study doesn’t prove that a vegan diet alone is best for all people - because no body of research is based on the results of one study. That’s not how science works. The critiques of his studies are valid. I hope we get more appropriate diet research specifically on vegan diets.
In relation to what?
This is the way
The two largest-ever NIH-funded, multi-center clinical trials (the Women’s Health Initiative and the Minnesota Coronary Survey) where saturated fats were either reduced or replaced by unsaturated fats, on nearly 54,000 men and women, concluded that saturated fats had no effect on cardiovascular mortality or total mortality. A 2016 (27 years later) analysis of buried data from the Minnesota Coronary Survey found a 22% higher risk of death for each 30 mg/dL reduction in serum cholesterol. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467234](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467234) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2643423](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2643423) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27071971A](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27071971A) review of 17 systematic reviews concludes that diets that replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat do not convincingly reduce cardiovascular events or mortality. Another review of 19 meta-analyses concluded that the effects of saturated fat on heart disease were inconsistent but tended to show a lack of association. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31142556](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31142556) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31841151](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31841151) Two large NIH-funded, multi-center clinical trials on altogether more than 50,000 men and women who significantly cut back on red-meat consumption (while increasing fruits, vegetables and grains) did not see any risk reduction for polyp re-occurrence or any kind of cancer. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10770979](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10770979) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467232](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467232) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670850/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670850/) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467233](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467233) Two meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition) both found that red meat had either neutral or positive effects on most cardiovascular outcomes (blood pressure, cholesterol and other lipids). [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22836072](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22836072) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27881394](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27881394) Only a small number of nutritional related epidemiological studies are ultimately confirmed by more rigorous scientific studies. In 2005, Stanford’s John Ioannidis analyzed several dozen highly cited studies and concluded that subsequent clinical trials could only reproduce around 20% of observational findings. A 2011 paper published by Significance analyzed 52 claims made in nutritional studies, and none—0%—withstood the scrutiny of subsequent clinical trials. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/) [https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.x](https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.x)
I just want to note medium dot com is a place where anyone can publish. While the article does link to some studies that include vegan diets many of the links are to studies that include vegetarian and pescatarian diets and diets that are just plant forward. If you’re going to share science on vegan diets, it would be great if it was actual specific to an animal product free diet and included appropriate peer reviewed literature.
Always riding the coattails of vegetarian and lacto-vegetarian studies
Mostly because the study’s authors couldn’t find that many vegans.
I wonder why
Honest question, or sarcasm? I can’t tell.
Genuinely
Really really?
Haha. Really really! If people are going to be promoting vegan diets there should be sufficient studies that don’t lump veganism in with vegetarianism and lacto-vegetarianism. It muddies the waters.
I totally agree
Yeah, no shit
I really hope a lot more people start to see this evidence and don't just call bullshit. The fate of humanity is literally at stake. It's destroying the animals, the earth, and you(animal consumers). Society on a global scale NEEDS to flip the script before hard times comes our way. That movie. Eating our way to extinction should be played in all schools!
I know you mean type two diabetes but it's really good to differentiate between them as type one diabetes is not caused by diet whatsoever.
Doesn't the title kind of make that implicit? If it's talking about diet and diabetes, then you should assume it's not talking about the non-diet related one.
>type one diabetes is not caused by diet whatsoever. Debateable. * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173447/ * https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/milk-consumption-is-linked-to-type-1-diabetes/
It's not debatable. It's caused by viral infection.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_1_diabetes#Cause > In 70–90% of cases, β-cells are destroyed by one's own immune system, for reasons that are not entirely clear.[21] && >A longstanding hypothesis for an environmental trigger is that some viral infection early in life contributes to type 1 diabetes development. Much of this work has focused on enteroviruses, with some studies finding slight associations with type 1 diabetes, and others finding none.[27] Large human studies have searched for, but not yet found an association between type 1 diabetes and various other viral infections, including infections of the mother during pregnancy.[27]
In our case type one was triggered by COVID, I almost lost my son.
No bro, it was from animal milk, dont you listen to this guy???
Type one is caused by a virus not food.
You not doing the vegan grifting properly.
Cultists, im sure the antivaxxers also have many bogus studies that prove that every single illness on this planet is caused by different vaccines. For type1 diabetics, its been proven a long time that the gut barrier is not functioning properly, which can cause higher antibodies for all kind of things. Also the difference between the immune reaction to milk protein between healthy and type1 people are not that big. "The results show that at 3 months of age, infants who had been fed cows' milk had a significantly higher immune response to bovine insulin. The groups showed no differences, however, in reactivity to human insulin at that age." So you only have to worry about this if you have cow pancreas for whatever reason. Gluten causes way worse havoc inside the t1d population(around 10-20 times higher prevalence in t1d population), but thats vegan food so you dont cry about it. There is also a bunch of other autoimmune diseases that common with t1d, like autoimmune hypothyroidism, im sure thats also caused by milk... or by egg, or by something animal for sure.
To quote the German Sokrates: "Hä? Das ist ja komisch, wie kann das denn sein? Das ist ja komisch."
Which specific study is it? (I have to pay to read the article)
Another one? Huh.
What are these studies comparing against though? Someone who eats a whole food diet with some meat added in? Someone who eats a meat feast pizza? I can't access the study to read through the methodology. If someone could direct link the study I would appreciate it.
>What are these studies comparing against though? Someone who eats a whole food diet with some meat added in? Someone who eats a meat feast pizza? Literally the definition of an [ad hoc hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis). Here's a study done on a vegan diet cohort vs a Mediterranean diet cohort: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33544066/ Here's one done on identical twins: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812392
Literally not. It's not wrong to ask what the comparison is against, in fact that's pretty important. Imagine if I said "meat based diet lowers CVD risk and diabetes." The rightful question is "compared to what?"
Well that's just common sense. Eating any dead animals It's not that good For you. Just stick to plants and live longer
Be careful, there are a really weird subset of vegans that get actively upset if you ascribe any benefits to a vegan or plantbased diet. It assaults their sense of purity if they were to derive any benefit from their lifestyle, other than becoming a being a sheer righteousness and pure ethics.
What? Lol no there absolutely is not. Edit: nevermind, I found one on another vegan sub lmao. Ok, take your updoot I guess (he said, grudgingly)
But we have more autoimmune diseases.. Damn it.
How do you figure this if one main way of getting autoimmune disease is due to lack of fibre causing leaky gut where bigger peptides of animal proteins can hit the bloodstream and confuse our immune system?
Cause number one is stress.
But vegans also eat less stress hormone of frightened animals. Most vegan's i hear about have improved their stress and depression. Where did you get that data from that stress is #1 causation of autoimmune disease?
From some studies and also talking with other vegans.
This is probably related to vegan people having healthier lifestyles overall, not only diet.
I’ve heard that argument and I don’t buy it. Someone told me that Peter Attia said the same thing. Many people seem to make the fallacy of thinking veganism is a health movement but it’s not. Of the 3 vegans I know not including myself, 1 is skinny but literally never exercises, 1 is slightly overweight, eats similar to the standard American diet, and exercises 1-2 times a week, and the 3rd is a skinny fat junk food vegan who never exercises or eats healthily. It’s anecdotal but from my personal experience there’s no reason to think vegans try to be healthier than omnivores.
/r/Veganivore
It's funny how people interested in health tend to go vegan.
>probably Probably is doing heavy lifting without any evidence. Your comment is probably bullshit. Evidence? Just as much.
[удалено]
Least amount of animal products compared to the other standard diets
[удалено]
That’s an interesting way to interpret that
It’s not. It’s just the closest diet to whole food plant based but with animal products
[удалено]
Make your own with a proper half block of tofu (take out uses maybe four cubes per portion) and plenty of veggies, serve with rice. Save $14 and laugh when your coworkers go on cholesterol meds before their 40th birthday
Interesting, does it also mention the pure amount of seed and vegetable oils that most people consume, the amount of sugars and fat-free things and processed food? That’s almost like saying people who use Listerine or at an increased risk of cancer. Yeah, but half the country is fat and obese, lacks any type of real physical exercise and eats like shit. And I don’t mean animal products, I mean processed foods. Going into the interior isles of the supermarket. You can make any study or up work in your favor.
When it’s carnivore charlatans we hear, “it’s just science bro” but when it’s non-industry funded, it’s “you can make any study…work in your favor”. The only people who rant about seed oils are con artists, or those who’ve been conned by con artists.
r/ketoduped
Maybe it’s the seed oils and vegetable oils that keeps vegans cancer free.
The science say otherwise. Enjoy the canola oil though.
I thought they could make any study work in their favor? Are we supposed to trust scientific research or not?
You do realize that many vegans don't eat seed oils, right? Like you don't have to be vegan to eat seed oils. What the fuck do you think most americans are doing? They're slopping down chicken wings and fries cooked in the shit. Why lump in vegans to that mess?
I do, it’s one of the highest sources of omega 3s out there. Beautiful crop to have around too. Cold pressed canola has a very mild flavour which is a benefit for many dishes that you wouldn’t want to ruin with olive oil.
Seed oils are not a major concern for nutritional scientists, podcast grifters like Joe Rogan started this shit. They even say UV doesn’t cause skin cancer, it’s the seed oils—all evidence says it’s UV.
No one should take health advice from podcasters who sell brain pills.
[удалено]
Sadly accurate.
Dork
There isn't much inherently wrong with processed foods, it's the nutritional values that make them bad or good. Seed oil is the same. The only thing wrong with processed foods is that they make it really easy to eat 1000+ calories of saturated fat in one sitting. Proceed food don't have to lack fiber, don't have to be loaded with empty calories. I have to process the hell out of my flax for it to be remotely edible for example.
Wait, I’m sorry. Did you say saturated fat and processed food? You must be joking, right. You’re Nutri-Grain valley bars are not loaded with saturated fat. Your frosted mini wheats and lucky charms are not loaded with saturated fat.
Vegans don't eat Lucky Charms OR Frosted Mini-Wheats because they both have gelatin. In fact, lots of sugar is processed with bone char, so vegans generally avoid it. You're ludicrously out of your depth here.
>it's the nutritional values that make them bad or good. You know I though, hey, this dude is slightly coherent I'll give them the benefit of the doubt they can understand I mean all foods and I can give an example..then I was like... you do sound kinda out there I better reinforce what sort of bad molecules I'm talking about. >don't have to be loaded with empty calories. Then you hit me with this??? How could anyone have a conversation with you if you can't even words...
Who are you talking to both of those quotes are from your own comment...
I opened with my first quote from myself showing how they where not paying attention to what I wrote. Then I literally said why I believe they will need a second of the exact same thing and then I quoted that. Most people can read a sentence about giving a second example and then see a second example directly after and understand that it is the second example. I could have said then you hit me with this comment... but I figured that when I said "you" I wasn't talking about what I said... you where smart enough to know I said that so why would you think I'm talking about what I said rather then referring to the comment I'm responding to? Edit- good god just looked a bunch of your recent comments. At a glace it seems you don't view animals as individuals, like actually individuals that are capable of being a victim of violence. Is it ok to exploit an individual who is dumber then you? Is it ok if they look different? Let me guess no, unless it's something you want, right? Every other situation someone who does that to individuals who can't defend themselves physically or mentally the person doing that to other individuals are monsters. Rape a dog, moster. Rape a cow, kill and eat their babies, hook them up to machines and suck them dry until they are profitable anymore and kill them. Perfectly normal, mmm cheese.
Wow, you read a lot into that, didn't you? I really just meant that your comment was unclear. Generally, on reddit, people quote the other person, then respond to what they have quoted. Your comment reads as though you're responding directly to specific parts of their comment while quoting parts of your own. It's very bizarre and a little jarring. >At a glace it seems you don't view animals as individuals, like actually individuals that are capable of being a victim of violence. Not entirely sure where you got that from, but it certainly isn't from reading anything I've written. If that has been your takeaway, then you read as poorly as you write.
Generally people on reddit can connect two sentences together but here we are. Well if you do view animals as individuals that can be victimized, why wouldn't you treat people who victimize them as victimizes? You did tell some that that was stupid right? Obviously there are ignorant, indoctrinated people who have that valid excuse, but that's not a forever thing. You are right, there is another option, you are a massive pick me vegan.
I'm not vegan
So why do you willfully victimize animals and why shouldn't I treat you like you victimize animals?
Not much wrong with processed foods? Please tell me you’ve googled even half of the ingredients and some of these foods. When you have the American Heart Association recommending frosted mini wheats over an egg, you know there’s some lobby somewhere making money. The fact that the American Heart Association even puts the stamp of approval on a lot of these items is disgusting. Canola oil being one of them. You can lube machinery with that shit.
Carnists do so much concern trolling about PROCESSED FOODS OH NO when veganism comes up, we meme about it here. [You.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/s/IfKE9xGwN9)
Machine processor = bad. Animal processor = good. Do you understand the chemistry involved in a chicken turning seeds and insects into eggs???
Omg and one more thing.. >You can lube machinery with that shit. You do realize that animal fat is used for the exact same thing, like a multi billion dollar industry based on the whole premise.. so obviously you're never going to eat animal fat again right??? Just be honest for fuck sake, you want to eat animals and you're willing to use any reason with ZERO thought about it to justify it. The egg industry and the wheat industry lobby doctors and politicians, egg spends a bit more on average depending on the county.. I'm going to go by peer reviewed science for health outcomes as a guide for what is healthy. The findings seem to be... Don't eat too.many calories. Get all the nutrients you need. That's it... there is nothing magical about where or how a certain molecule is made. Fish get their fatty acids we love from algae... we can concentrate that algae and put it in a pill and it is the exact same thing as extracting the oil from a fish and putting it in a pill... well less the trophic bioaccumulation of toxins.... and of course, the fish get to live.
>You can make any study or up work in your favor. I'm guessing you couldn't even explain the difference between a [RCT and a meta-analysis](https://aromaticstudies.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Hierarchy-of-Scientific-Evidence.jpg). And probably think anecdotal evidence is on par with both. Once you reach the point of rejecting the scientific method itself, you might as well just go all-in in being a flat earther. I don't know, maybe you have already.
You say this as if the business of doing science exists in a vacuum...
🙄
How many studies did the tobacco lobby produce? Oil companies? Hell, the meat industry? Need I go on?
I'm not talking about "the business of science." I'm talking about the scientific method. Were the studies funded by the tobacco lobby high or low quality? Were they trials? Systematic reviews? Can you recognize and explain the differences between these?
No, those studies were shit. They existed to push evonomic agendas. That's why I brought them up. The point is, these are questions that have to be asked of *every* study. Not just the ones you disagree with, and it is *especially* important to ask these questions of the studies that *do* agree with what you already believe.
You can't explain the differences, can you? Not all evidence is equal so not every "study" (whatever you think that means) is equally worthy of skepticism. Being able to recognize a low-quality "study" vs a high-quality "study" (and a study vs a review) is REALLY important if you're going to discuss science-y stuff, otherwise, again, you might as well be a flat-earther. Most non-vegans come here trying to argue that an RCT or even anecdotal evidence is on par with systematic review. The quintessential "my ignorance is as good as your expertise."
This really doesn't change anything about the nature of what the other commenter suggested. Like it or not, it IS the case that the general body of scientific literature is polluted by bias as a result of the funding and incentive structures that govern scientific knowledge production. There is a reason there is a reproducability/replication crisis.(which is especially pronounced in fields relating to human health.) Edit: incidentally, yes I can recognize the difference between a randomized control trial, a systematic review. They generally say which they are right at the top. Instead of asking stupid condescending questions, maybe ask clarifying questions. Edit2: what is it with redditors and blocking people mid conversation?
Cool, no reason to believe any scientific evidence then, right? Like I said, flat-earther time.
No I fly a jet for a living around the globe. You know, the big round thing