I'm not going to argue for or against any specific conclusion here, but there are several reasons that observational nutrition studies (and reviews of such work, like this one) need to be taken with a grain of salt, including:
- healthy user bias: People who choose a plant-based diet (or in fact, probably just about any structured diet) are more likely to be health conscious in general and more likely to have other healthy habits like exercise.
- latent variables: "meat eaters" follow a wildly diverse group of diets, including those who eat just fresh lean meats, and those who eat heavily processed foods like bacon and sausage. Or those who eat just chicken. Or just fish, etc. A lot of the contradictory claims about "meat" seem to have a lot to do with these distinctions.
- self-reporting errors: Most observational nutritional studies rely on self-reporting of diet - there's a ton of research that shows that people regularly misreport what they eat in these studies (both qualitative & quantitative).
All of this is not to dismiss the results either - a lot of the time observational nutrition studies are the best we have! Doing randomized controlled trials on these kinds of interventions is difficult, so observational studies are often the best we can get, but they're really only a piece of the puzzle.
Do you have any evidence that plant-based diets are more "health conscious", and that that by itself explains why they are healthier?
I'm personally vegan for ethical reasons, not health reasons. I wonder how many people actually go plant-based for health reasons, I doubt it's the majority.
The "healthy user bias" is a well-known phenomenon in this kind of research, and has been studied specifically with vegetarianism (for example, https://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/abstract/2019/...). But as mentioned in the comment, I suspect you'd find a similar bias in all sorts of structured diets - the group of people who follow diet X (including sub-groups who follow for health reasons, or moral reasons) will be biased towards being more health conscious.
Again, this doesn't negate the research on "diet X", but it does make coming to a conclusion more complicated.
"It should be remarked that, in the majority of the cases, people adopting plant-based diets are more prone to engage in healthy lifestyles that include regular physical activity, reduction/avoidance of sugar-sweetened beverages, alcohol and tobacco, that, in association with previously mentioned modification of diet [62], lead to the reduction of the risk of ischemic heart disease and related mortality, and, to a lesser extent, of other CVDs."
"It has also been described that vegetarians, in addition to reduced meat intake, ate less refined grains, added fats, sweets, snacks foods, and caloric beverages than did nonvegetarians and had increased consumption of a wide variety of plant foods [65]. "
I assume that this is in response to
> Do you have any evidence that plant-based diets are more "health conscious", and that that by itself explains why they are healthier?
Good to know, I didn't know this was the case. I wonder if going plant-based makes you more prone to engage in healthy lifestyles, or if having a healthy lifestyle makes you more prone to go plant-based.
I don't know the data on this, but I'm surprised you're doubtful. Don't you think the media and doctors alike have been pushing the idea that plant-based diets are healthier? My doctor suggests a plant-based diet for health. A family member of mine who gets most of his scientific and historical info from netflix is thoroughly convinced that meat will kill you. Just anecdotes of course.
Honestly, I wish media would be pushing the idea that plant-based diets are healthier. Instead, all I see in the media is advertisements for meat and dairy products. Doctors tell me that "oh maybe it's because you're vegan?" whenever there is ever anything wrong with me, like say, a cavity at the dentist.
I know about 20-30 other vegans, and literally all of them are vegan for ethical or environmental reasons. None of them do it for health reasons, otherwise vegan pizza, vegan hot chocolate and vegan muffins wouldn't have been a thing.
My experience is also just anecdotal of course. And it might also be a difference in culture or country, perhaps.
Hm, interesting! I see advertisements for meat too, but I generally don't get the impression of them trying to say meat isn't unhealthy. I mean, by and large, it does seem true that pushing veganism or vegetarianism would have a positive effect on people's health, as far as I can tell. Maybe the media should actually be pushing it more. Or at least, in your country/culture.
Malnutrition is not uncommon among people who went vegetarian/vegan due to ideology not backed by proper nutrition knowledge. Health-conscious doesn't necessarily mean healthy.
Not sure about "malnutrition", per se, but one issue is that if a vegan woman gets pregnant, and hasn't take care of her b12 needs, the embryo starts getting brain damage at 6 weeks. That can mean just two weeks after missing one period
yep whenever i see things like this im like... yeah obviously vegans eat healthier because of their conscious attitude towards diet. That doesn't mean you can't eat some meat if you actually avoid processed stuff.
There are a number of blue zones with increased longevity. One of them Loma Linda[0], CA defies pretty much all of the other US trends. That area is the home of Loma Linda University[1], a Seventh-day Adventist University.
What is interesting about Seventh-day Adventists, aside from being a slightly different protestant denomination, is that they preach a very strong health message -- it's not like don't do these things and you'll go to hell, they don't actually believe in a literal hell anyway, it's closer to "The body is the Temple of God so you should take care of it".
Anyway, I digress. Adventists are by and large vegan or vegetarian (even after leaving the church I grew up in I'm still vegetarian), they don't drink and they don't smoke. They live on average a decade longer.
There are many factors that can lead to longer life and longer quality of life, as evidenced by other bluezones, but these are relatively easy changes that you can make to your life that will have a positive impact.
Hell you don't even have to be fully vegan/vegetarian to get the benefits. Just swap out a bunch of meals that would otherwise have meat with vegetarian alternatives. Have a steak once a month vs once a week (etc).
Note: My father is a retired Adventist pastor in Australia. I am no longer religious but was within the Adventist church from 0 to 22ish.
I went this direction slowly over time, originally because I didn’t want to support what I see as being an incredibly inhumane animal agriculture system, but now I’ve found I get a lot more satisfaction from an occasional really awesome, expensive cut of meat than I did having cheaper meat more frequently.
Buying pasture-raised meat also made me realize that a lot of standard supermarket meat is just kind of…bad these days, see “woody” chicken breast.
If I recall correctly from the original Blue Zones book, the main difference in diet they noted in Loma Linda was the high amounts of nuts in their diet
> Adventists are by and large vegan or vegetarian (even after leaving the church I grew up in I'm still vegetarian), they don't drink and they don't smoke.
There is the problem all these studies: which of the above is the cause factor and which is irrelevant. In general vegetarians are likely to not smoke as well, so is it not smoking or is it their diet, or some mix - it is very difficult to tell.
It's a combination of factors most likely. A lot of the blue zones also have strong communities and that's another impact. The way a lot of meat-eaters eat is not overly balanced as well, our farming is likely problematic at the industrial scale.
A lot of the problems with seafood have nothing to do with the animals and everything to do with the way we're trashing our planet.
This is very much a loaded question, but have you ever looked into the longetivity of the Californian Mormons, who as far as I know eat animal products?
I agree that this is a good title for an academic research, but could be clarified a little. Many people don't read articles these days, only the titles. It's imperative titles are not misleading.
I'm not a doctor but I briefly worked in cancer research (not on medical side) and the doctors said there the biggest problem with meat is the preservatives. Nitrosamine, specifically.
People on plant based diets probably are healthier on this metric than others, on average. But I wonder if that’s more of a case that the control group generally has a shit diet?
Would love to know if a primarily plant based diet (lots of varied vegetables, berries, nuts and fruit) + some lean meat and plenty of seafood on top would be as healthy as plant based, or healthier even?
You can definitely be vegetarian and still be unhealthy. Excessive pasta, bread and cheese is one good path, but also processed foods and sugars. It gets a lot harder to be unhealthy when you're vegan but nothing is impossible.
Many of the other blue zones are heavy on the seafood, but on the flip side there are problems with seafood that have nothing to do with the actual fish themselves and everything to do with chemicals and the way we're trashing out planet.
I grew up around a lot of Seventh Day Adventists who are mostly vegetarian and they had lots of healthy people but _also_ a good few morbidly obese people who had diets with a lot of dairy and carbs. I suspect the latter might have benefited from being able to satisfy cravings for savory with things like lean chicken breast, etc.
I like a plant-based diet myself and have been on and off them over life, but the one habit that seems to keep me healthier than others is avoiding bread, pasta, and cheese.
Ah yes, I've definitely struggled personally with a deep love of cheese and pasta. It's not and can never be a silver bullet. It still requires dilligence. Eating well is such a hassle. SO SO much easier to eat badly.
Edit: it's also statistical, not everyone is going to be healthier.
Absolutely! I found most advice about what to eat to be mediocre, and I'm at a decent weight now (185lb/85 kg, long ago I was 280 lb/127 kg - I could stand to lose a few kg but could be worse) and all that really works is what I call "veg mountain". Basically just eating an absolutely enormous amount of vegetables so I actually feel full. Air fryers help a lot for this, brussels sprouts are pretty filling in particular.
I eat meat too, though. Almost entirely chicken and fish. It would be really hard otherwise, though I do like tofu and a lot of meat substitutes.
I've been dabbling in plant based for a while, personally, anything that is super nutrient dense works really at helping me feel at 110%. I have meat once in a while, what I noticed was if I ate the same amount of protein via plants, then I'd get 10x the micro nutrients. My theory is getting 100g protein and having a lot of micro nutrients actually absorbed by your body is the trick.
>Can you explain to us what it feels like to "feel at 110%"?
Hyperbole to quickly explain that my skin is better, my hormone levels are more even, better sleep makes my mood better, less brain fog. So some objective facts like I've improved my skin texture, and better sleep (longer, less interruptions, easier to get to sleep). Then a few subjective things like mood, brain fog, body doesn't hurt as much working out.
Side note I also feel fuller longer and have a hard time over eating, mostly due to having a large amount of both protein and fiber. So its helped me stay much leaner as someone that has issues with bingeing
>10x some micro nutrients, and 0x others.
I think a lot of the reason why it works is that it forces you to be aware of that 0x, and build verity into your diet. I have eggs, quinoa, milk, varieties of beans and nuts to help me meet that 0x, but I also have meat every few weeks you know?
I just started to think about meat being like 15% of the meal not 40%, but protein still be to focus calories wise. So if I made a taco salad it is closer to a 2 to 1 ratio of beans to meat over a kale/spinach mixed with quinoa with a lot of salsa and a little cheese
Plant based as I understand it mostly just means fill your calories with plants first then others like diary, eggs, meats etc. I think its much healthier than restrictive diets like keto, vegan, etc where you flat out can't have some foods. Foods just started to feel like a gradient of more to less optimal
Unfortunately, any meat is unhealthy unless it's freshly caught, or served right after hunting.
The preservative used for meat curing is a known carcinogen, and can't be replaced with any other known substance. Skipping it is also not an option, as botulism is a huge risk.
When a study describes a finding as 'significantly associated,' it usually merely means that the study result can be assumed to not be due to a mere anomaly in the study data with a confidence of 95 % (the commonly used p-value of 0.05). This phrasing doesn't say anything about the effect size and its practical importance.
What is the effect size in the given study? I'm not able to find it.
The larger the sample size of a study, the more capable it becomes at identifying even weak associations between variables as "statistically significant".
The effect size might be tiny. I don't see the point of discussing these studies (and letting them influence your lifestyle) if the effect size is not part of the discussion.
The effect size should be front and center in summaries of scientific studies. I wish this was an enforced norm.
I've been eating more plant based, vs my keto beforehand. It makes sense even if it isn't the plants themselves doing it, I just feel like the products I'm getting though pricier are a league above in quality. I say this because everything I'm eating is so much more nutrient dense and mostly fresher. So when I'm eating 30g protein minimum a meal even if I'm not trying, I'm getting way more nutrients than I would if I just had some chicken. e g having a chickpea pasta with a seed/mushroom based bolognese sauce, vs, the pasta and normal bolognese sauce can't compare (though easier to make it taste better lol)
Differentiating "meat vs. plant" is too narrow of a scope - or too vague of contexts for comparison.
From my understanding in regards to meat consumption and demographics who eat plant-based, these two fundamentals issues exist:
1) Burnt red meat produces carcinogens, and
2) it's the other food that the majority of people eat as part of meat [e.g. a burger with a bun + sugar-loaded ketchup etc], as part of the industrial complex-driven Western diet that are, where people who eat plant-based are likely more conscientious about the food they are overall vs. the general population who eat meat, where also I believe the majority who eat highly processed meat rather than straight animal product.
There are easily enough people and a growing body of carnivore diet followers that could facilitate including them as a comparison, but in reality there should be other groupings like ; and what about including measuring if the participants have historically done water-only fasting (and number of days on average), and number of water fasts they've done during the study period, etc - so then we can see if there's a chance in the distribution?
Such "complex" studies ideally need to have say 100,000 to 1,000,000 participants to get enough diversity - and we'd also want to be careful that the studies aren't co-opted or influenced-captured by industrial complexes and their own interests.
It'd also be ideal to include as part of the participant cohort dietary changes for willing participants, say switching 1,000 to 10,000 people to high-quality high-fat red meat - who perhaps have other arguably healthy diet-behaviour changes to how that cohorts distribution changes vs. the general population.
The issue with such a study is you'd need to subsidize some participants is industrial complexes have maximized accessibility to low quality-harmful "foods" - maximizing profits too to maintain market dominance by also having more profits/money to advertise to remind people to buy their brand - and so high-quality red meat, for example, is too expensive for most people to switch to - even if the long-term cost of cancer treatment and loss of productivity far outweighs the higher initial cost; and so industry isn't going to pay for such a study, it would likely have to be heavily funded through philanthropy.
So you're saying that you believe it's possible that the problem with meat isn't the meat itself, but it's possibly just the way that it's consumed, e.g. burnt and with lots of sauce (as an example).
But to me that feels like a distraction, because have you seen what vegans eat? vegan pizza with "fake cheese", vegan burgers, highly processed hummus on a daily basis, etc.
From my own observations, almost all vegans I know are vegan for ethical reasons, not for health reasons. The fact that it appears to be healthier is just a nice bonus. Therefore, claims that plant-based diets are just healthier because they don't ever burn their burger or put sauce on their bun, feels incorrect to me.
Re: "The fact that it appears to be healthier is just a nice bonus."
Key word here, appears to be.
Upon deeper study, from what I have read, people who transition to vegan on average start having health problems related to the diet at an average of 5 years into the diet.
Note, a vegan diet is very different than a person who at least will still consume eggs or drink milk, etc.
Self-reporting may also be a major issue here as well, as it's possible that someone who is doing something for ethical reasons may put their cause above the ethics of being honest or lying; and metrics for health for the vast majority of people, especially if simply observational studies, aren't adequately or thoroughly gathered in the vast majority of cases; and especially long-term and qualitative comparisons on quality of life haven't been done yet - so the "appears" to be healthier could simply be a person feeling better because of feeling good for the ethics of it, no?
Re: "Therefore, claims that plant-based diets are just healthier because they don't ever burn their burger or put sauce on their bun, feels incorrect to me."
That's a straw man argument, I didn't make that claim.
There are proteins in meat that turn into carcinogens when burnt - I don't know if that's the case with whatever the plant-based "burgers" / patties consist of, if they turn into carcinogens from being burnt.
There are more counter-arguments to other things you state but I don't have time at the moment, e.g. your food examples of what vegans may it, they may also eat far less food than the average meat eater - which provides less food-energy for potential cancers, where it's known that lower calorie intake over a lifetime appears to also be a factor for life expectancy.
E.g. "The researchers found that people who cut their calories slowed the pace of their aging by 2% to 3%, compared to people who were on a normal diet. That translates, Belsky said, to a 10% to 15% reduction in the likelihood of dying early." - first google result for me, https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/calorie-restricte....
It's one of these complex topics that no one has yet organized into a proper-complete distribution of arguments and counter-arguments, to lead towards designing adequate clinical trials to get definitive-scientifically derived answers - and that aren't perverted by influences of industrial complexes.
Sorry, I thought that all foods (animal-based or plant-based) are carcinogens when burnt, but I don't actually know if that's true. I know that I avoid burnt vegetables for that reason.
It's likely that self-reporting is indeed an issue, but I wonder whether it's not a "balanced" issue on both sides. E.g. there are so many people who want to eat meat, they might be willing to lie about their health when asked how meat affects their health.
First Google result for me: "No. Acrylamide from burnt toast, burnt chips, or crispy potatoes is unlikely to increase the risk of cancer. You might've read about a possible link between acrylamide and cancer. But there isn't enough good quality evidence to show this." -
So maybe this is a myth perpetuated for burned meat, too??
Indeed. There's also the issue of lean meat vs. high-fat meat - where the body needs and benefits from the fat concentration being there as part of digestion and proper nutrients, along with another significant difference between white meat vs. red meat consumption.
What we care about is all causes mortality, or old age quality of life (I'm not even sure how you would measure this). Heart attacks and cancer are the two largest killers, but there are lots of others and so trading a big one for a lesser one at the same age isn't interesting (in fact it could be a negative as the big ones get more research).
> Overall, vegetarian and vegan diets are significantly associated with better lipid profile, glycemic control, body weight/BMI, inflammation, and lower risk of ischemic heart disease and cancer. Vegetarian diet is also associated with lower mortality from CVDs. On the other hand, no difference in the risk of developing gestational diabetes and hypertension were reported in pregnant women following vegetarian diets. Study quality was average. A key limitation is represented by the high heterogeneity of the study population in terms of sample size, demography, geographical origin, dietary patterns, and other lifestyle confounders.
> Plant-based diets appear beneficial in reducing cardiometabolic risk factors, as well as CVDs, cancer risk and mortality. However, caution should be paid before broadly suggesting the adoption of A/AFPDs since the strength-of-evidence of study results is significantly limited by the large study heterogeneity alongside the potential risks associated with potentially restrictive regimens.
tl;dr (which you've heard many times before): Eat less/no meat if you want to live longer and healthier. Ignore this advice at your own peril. I learned this lesson the hard way.
> However, caution should be paid before broadly suggesting the adoption of A/AFPDs since the strength-of-evidence of study results is significantly limited by the large study heterogeneity alongside the potential risks associated with potentially restrictive regimens.
This meta analysis talks about the findings of various RCT (Randomized controlled trial) studies in there.
From another meta analysis which talks about this more directly:
>Nevertheless, several RCTs have examined the effect of vegetarian diets on intermediate risk factors of cardiovascular diseases (Table 1). In a meta-analysis of RCTs, Wang et al. (22) found vegetarian diets to significantly lower blood concentrations of total, LDL, HDL, and non-HDL cholesterol relative to a range of omnivorous control diets. Other meta-analyses have found vegetarian diets to lower blood pressure, enhance weight loss, and improve glycemic control to greater extent than omnivorous comparison diets (23-25). Taken together, the beneficial effects of such diets on established proximal determinants of cardiovascular diseases found in RCTs, and their inverse associations with hard cardiovascular endpoints found in prospective cohort studies provide strong support for the adoption of healthful plant-based diets for cardiovascular disease prevention
India and Hong Kong have very different levels of income. Comparing the two is rather misleading when that's going to affect things like access to healthcare
Earlier you were saying how you didn't trust only observational studies and wanted to see people actually doing randomized trials. That was for a meta-analysis, but this neither a meta-analysis nor an RCT. It is a single purely observational study.
Further, looking at their 95% confidence interval graphs... you can see the many of trends could potentially be completely reversed and still within the 95% confidence interval. Their 95% confidence interval contain probable outcomes where 140mg/dL was the worst possible level as well
Further it also still finds increased risk for heart issues with higher LDL.
> Any increase in LDL-C levels was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction.
But I wonder if the high saturated fat content in fattier meats and meat's higher caloric content are still confounders here. I would be shocked if controlling for calories, saturated fat, and fiber still yielded differences in these risk factors.
Yea I definitely don't consider the SAD diet meat based since they insist 45-65% daily food should come from carbs. According to the USDA I should be eating 300-400grams of carbs per day which is just insane to me. Based on my fam history it guarantee I will be a diabetic. On any day I eat maybe 0 to 30g of carbs from whole foods. The liver is always producing endogenous glucose there is no need for dietary carbohydrates. The USDA's guidelines are an absolute disgrace.
My common sources of carbs are potatoes (microwaved, then chilled in the fridge, consumed cold), stone fruits, citrus, apples, berries, avocado, peanut butter, peppers, tomatoes, yogurt, fermented vegetables.
I dont get cramps but I do supplement magnesium glycinate or taurate daily you may want to look into that if you havent.
Ive fasted for multiple days and done cardio each day w/ no cramps, just sharing my experience.
- healthy user bias: People who choose a plant-based diet (or in fact, probably just about any structured diet) are more likely to be health conscious in general and more likely to have other healthy habits like exercise.
- latent variables: "meat eaters" follow a wildly diverse group of diets, including those who eat just fresh lean meats, and those who eat heavily processed foods like bacon and sausage. Or those who eat just chicken. Or just fish, etc. A lot of the contradictory claims about "meat" seem to have a lot to do with these distinctions.
- self-reporting errors: Most observational nutritional studies rely on self-reporting of diet - there's a ton of research that shows that people regularly misreport what they eat in these studies (both qualitative & quantitative).
All of this is not to dismiss the results either - a lot of the time observational nutrition studies are the best we have! Doing randomized controlled trials on these kinds of interventions is difficult, so observational studies are often the best we can get, but they're really only a piece of the puzzle.