| SvennoJ said: What evidence? Studies on the internet... They all come disclaimers that correlation does not prove causation. For example that study with 130k people over 30 years: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/vegan-meat-life-expectancy-eggs-dairy-research-a7168036.html
However, caution should be exercised when interpreting the results, as other more complex social and environment factors could affect the results rather than being solely related to diet. For instance, vegans are more likely to be younger than the general population and therefore have much lower mortality rates. Similarly, vegans can be more likely to come from socially affluent backgrounds, which can also influence mortality risk. |
You didn't respond to much of what I've been saying to you, for example my question as to what evidence do you have that vegans (many of which who do it for environmental and/or animal welfare concerns) are more health conscious than the average person. Do you have something to point to, or are you just assuming that? My experience doesn't jibe with your comment, but as far as I know neither of us has a metric to point to.
I'm not sure what you meant "studies on the internet"? I imagine most research is available on the internet.
Yes, huge amounts of research is now sponsored by vested interests. And as I pointed out, the bias in studies funded by those who would benefit one way or the other from the results is getting so brazen that health authorities around the world are increasingly ignoring all research that's funded by vested interests. That article you linked to links to a tonne of industry-funded research that uses some questionable methods. If public health authorities the world over are beginning to ignore such research, in favour of research funded by people who don't financially benefit from the results, then I see no reason not to join them. That's true whether it's funded by the evil dairy industry (your words, but fits for an industry with business practices such as it has), or funded by Pom Wonderful (that wants you to falsely believe that pomegranates are the second coming when it comes to health, when there are much healthier foods such as amla/indian gooseberries). I don't care if it's an egg marketing board, or an alliance of rice producers, bad science is bad science.
The conclusion near the end of the article you link to is that 75% of your plate should be whole plant foods, and the remaining 25% should be protein rich foods. That's about as unscientific a conclusion as one can reach! The average person in a wealthy country eats 2-3 times more protein than is ideal for optimal human health. An overabundance of protein in the body doesn't raise blood levels of protein, nor does it build muscle faster. In fact it does the reverse: it ties up the internal organs trying (and failing) to absorb all this extra protein. This creates an anti-nutrient effect on the body. This effect typically lasts for about 6 hours, usually enough time to get you to your next protein-rich meal where the process starts all over again. How can the authors look at the science and come away with that recommendation? It makes no sense.
It used to be most research was independent. It was done by public health authorities, or post-secondary institutions, or charitable foundations. These days, the majority of research is done either directly or indirectly by industry (or other vested interests). Directly is industry funding research, and a lot of that happens. Indirectly is a study being stacked with researchers who are on the payroll of a marketing board or other vested interest, so the researchers benefit from the result looking a certain way. I gave you several examples of how they can manipulate studies to get the results they want. Here's a good video summation on "set up to fail" studies like that: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/
Last edited by scrapking - on 06 November 2017
