Plant based diet studies show heart benefits

[Oldvatr]

I have just received the newsletter from this site, which is touting this article
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/202...-of-heart-disease-two-studies-have-found.html

I just read the spiel, and note the following which seems to be an inbuilt bias from the start
"
New evidence reveals that people who regularly eat plant-based meals are less likely to develop heart complications, whatever their age.


Two different studies have found that severe cardiovascular problems, such as heart attacks and heart disease, is less common in younger people and middle-aged females who often consume plant-based foods.


The first study called ‘A Plant-Centered Diet and Risk of Incident Cardiovascular Disease during Young to Middle Adulthood’ discovered that young adults who follow plant-based diets are less at risk of developing ill heart health.

Academics from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health analysed the eating regimes of nearly 5,000 18 to 30-year-olds to determine the key causes of heart disease

The system gathered each person’s results by assessing how much of their diet could cause heart disease, for example fried foods and red meat are more likely to trigger cardiovascular complications compared to fruit and vegetables.."


During the trial, participants could consume what they liked and were assessed eight times, with their results remaining anonymous to avoid affecting the overall outcome.A Priori Diet Quality Score (APDQS) system revealed that individuals who have a healthy balanced diet recorded high results, with those following a diet rich in plant-based foods scoring the highest.

What do you think? Systemic Bias ?

 

[EllieM]

I think high processed food diets (eg Mcdonalds every meal) will score badly, so plant based score well because they are less peocessed?

 

[Ronancastled]

Decide on endpoint
Seek funding from those who benefit from endpoint
Cherry pick study group & structure questions to achieve desired outcome
??????
Profit

Rinse & repeat

 

[Mbaker]

The official carbohydrate amount is set at 50% of calories. I would say well over 90%, if not 100% of meals a person in the general population has includes plants predominately. We only have to look at these staples:

Breakfast Cereals (including Oats)
Sandwiches
Chips / Fries
Cakes
Biscuits
Pasta
Rice
Vegetables
Bread

During lockdown, meals with burgers and pizza were the most popular - these have minority of real (and processed) meat compared to items that are plant based.

A plant based diet should be defined, as in the context I see on TV adverts it is over processed food like substances / meals; whereas the WFPB ingredients are whole and what some of us selectively choose as part of a low carb diet. I feel sure that the improvements over the standard diets (against Akins and the recent keyto vs ww, plant based has inferior results), were not achieved with Beyond Burgers and the like, as studies such as the Women's Health Initiative and the Sydney diet-heart study show all cause mortality negative results for diets that positively replace sat fat with poly, so yes, it is easy to get one up on the standard diet.

 

[Dr Snoddy]

I too am becoming increasingly frustrated with the headlines that appear for news articles by 'Editor' on this site. They are often an inaccurate summary of what the article actually discussed over and above the validity of the actual research quoted. Many people simply read the headlines.
The latest one implies that wildfires have caused outbreaks of Covid 19, not that resulting air pollution have been a factor. I am not attempting to derail this thread over this particular case but just highlighting a worrying trend.
More journalist responsibility is necessary.

 

[Oldvatr]

I think high processed food diets (eg Mcdonalds every meal) will score badly, so plant based score well because they are less peocessed?

Such as impossible burgers and vegan ice cream? These carry an ingredients list that rivals a chemistry textbook.

Would Quorn products be classed as plant-based?

I believe vegetable oil tends to be highly processed. Canola can be. What about HFCS?

 

[bulkbiker]

Healthy user bias and how on earth did they trace heart health in 18-30 year olds...

Usual vegan nonsense I suspect.. will have a read later.

 

[Oldvatr]

I remember grinding up the beef or pork straight from the butcher in a hand-cranked mincing mill on the kitchen table . I remember my grannie filling sausages from said minced meat and breadcrumbs. I remember my grandpa curing his own bacon from sides of pork directly delivered by the butcher's boy on his bike. We made our own ice cream from real cream, eggs, and vanilla extract. These foods are now classed processed, and detrimental to health. I was brought up on bread and dripping and suet pud .aka Spotted D**k. We used to hang game birds for a week before eating them and hung onions from the onion man in the garage. Potatoes were clamped for the winter. Even now I am outliving many contemporaries despite my health issues.

 

[Oldvatr]

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.020718
Here it is @bulkbiker Happy reading

 

[Oldvatr]

The report is based on follow-up at 0 years, 7 years, and 20 years. Table 3 states that the results used in the tables are predicted values from the previous review. So the report is an estimate based on predictions.

 

[ziggy_w]

I too am becoming increasingly frustrated with the headlines that appear for news articles by 'Editor' on this site. They are often an inaccurate summary of what the article actually discussed over and above the validity of the actual research quoted. Many people simply read the headlines.
The latest one implies that wildfires have caused outbreaks of Covid 19, not that resulting air pollution have been a factor. I am not attempting to derail this thread over this particular case but just highlighting a worrying trend.
More journalist responsibility is necessary.

I absolutely agree, @Dr. Snoddy. The journalism in this piece is absolutely appalling. Much of what is written is unclear und is missing important information. For example, what were the diets exactly, rather than just some sample foods. What were these diets compared to? The standard Western diet with about 50% of calories coming from processed foods? Putting red meat and foods fried mostly in inflammatory vegetables oils in the same category also seems to be a problem to me (though this doesn't seem to be uncommon in epidemiological research). What were the hazard ratios for consuming other diets rather than the ones recommended. We know that in epidemiological research, low hazard ratio should not be interpreted as causal. Worst of all, however, I have seen no link to the studies this article is based on, so we can't judge the validity of this research ourselves.

Only, when plant-based diets (probably vegan diets, though not even this becomes clear in this article) are compared to low-carb or keto diets predominantly consisting of unprocessed food, and health outcomes will be significantly better, will I be convinced. To my knowledge, no such studies exist.

 

[Oldvatr]

I too am becoming increasingly frustrated with the headlines that appear for news articles by 'Editor' on this site. They are often an inaccurate summary of what the article actually discussed over and above the validity of the actual research quoted. Many people simply read the headlines.
The latest one implies that wildfires have caused outbreaks of Covid 19, not that resulting air pollution have been a factor. I am not attempting to derail this thread over this particular case but just highlighting a worrying trend.
More journalist responsibility is necessary.

Journalists are responsible only for the bottom line, it seems nowadays.

 

[Oldvatr]

I absolutely agree, @Dr. Snoddy. The journalism in this piece is absolutely appalling. Much of what is written is unclear und is missing important information. For example, what were the diets exactly, rather than just some sample foods. What were these diets compared to? The standard Western diet with about 50% of calories coming from processed foods? Putting red meat and foods fried mostly in inflammatory vegetables oils in the same category also seems to be a problem to me (though this doesn't seem to be uncommon in epidemiological research). What were the hazard ratios for consuming other diets rather than the ones recommended. We know that in epidemiological research, low hazard ratio should not be interpreted as causal. Worst of all, however, I have seen no link to the studies this article is based on, so we can't judge the validity of this research ourselves.

Only, when plant-based diets (probably vegan diets, though not even this becomes clear in this article) are compared to low-carb or keto diets predominantly consisting of unprocessed food, and health outcomes will be significantly better, will I be convinced. To my knowledge, no such studies exist.

From the looks of it, they were eating their normal foods not any particular diet plan involved. Ad Libertum, ie unrestricted in frequency, portion size, or measured in any way. They simply filled in 3 questionnaires in the 32 years of the study that asked what foods did you eat over the previous >n> years, and in what frequency or proportion. Then each tick box probably had a list of food items for each section. The standardised thing they used was their scoresheet, which they do not disclose as to its contents or rankings, and produced by someone somewhere (a bit like the glycaemic Index, really). This is where they perform their magic number crunching.

The ADVENT study does this, and they asked the questions during Lent when meat-eating was forbidden by the Church, and unleavened bread was the order of the day. So grain products won the day, and the meat was deemed harmful. This is the study quoted by some well known vegan acolytes and feeds into our Eatwell / ADA guidelines too.

 

[Member496333]

Plants schmants. I’ll take an extra ribeye instead. Wrapped in bacon.

 

[Beefeater]

I find the vegan propaganda by the editor hilarious. This not a true study. For a start it only shows association not causation even if the basis wasn't as flimsy as it is. For instance it gives the impression that saturated animal fats are bad and yet a number of randomised controlled trials have shown that such fats have no effect whatsoever on health outcomes.


If this isn't blatant advertising for veganism I don't know what is!

 

[TriciaWs]

As a statistician I find the promotion of 'research' like this appalling. All it does is reinforce existing incorrect, unsubstantiated assumptions about healthy diets.
If you believe that red meat causes heart disease then a diet without any red meat theoretically reduces the future risk of heart disease. If you ignore past diet and only look at current diet then you have no idea what might increase the future risk of developing heart disease. If you believe that the only factor that 'causes' heart disease is diet then you only look at diet instead of all potential risk factors.
If you believe that eating blue fruit increases the risk of heart disease in the future then a diet excluding blue fruit is better and reduces your risk.

 

[NicoleC1971]

I have just received the newsletter from this site, which is touting this article
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/202...-of-heart-disease-two-studies-have-found.html

I just read the spiel, and note the following which seems to be an inbuilt bias from the start
"
New evidence reveals that people who regularly eat plant-based meals are less likely to develop heart complications, whatever their age.


Two different studies have found that severe cardiovascular problems, such as heart attacks and heart disease, is less common in younger people and middle-aged females who often consume plant-based foods.


The first study called ‘A Plant-Centered Diet and Risk of Incident Cardiovascular Disease during Young to Middle Adulthood’ discovered that young adults who follow plant-based diets are less at risk of developing ill heart health.

Academics from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health analysed the eating regimes of nearly 5,000 18 to 30-year-olds to determine the key causes of heart disease

The system gathered each person’s results by assessing how much of their diet could cause heart disease, for example fried foods and red meat are more likely to trigger cardiovascular complications compared to fruit and vegetables.."


During the trial, participants could consume what they liked and were assessed eight times, with their results remaining anonymous to avoid affecting the overall outcome.A Priori Diet Quality Score (APDQS) system revealed that individuals who have a healthy balanced diet recorded high results, with those following a diet rich in plant-based foods scoring the highest.

What do you think? Systemic Bias ?

Saw that and wondered what they had done to asses the outcomes in this 18-30 year old cohort? It reads as though they assumed, a priori, that certain foods (red meat and fat) cause heart disease?
If a vegetarian eats sweets and rice cakes plus steamed veggies he or she may get a healthy diet score on this assessment tool compared to someone who fries their steak in lard so if that's so it does suggest self serving bias!
Usually the vegetarian results may be confounded by their other healthy habits (not smoking, exercise) or they may be healthier if they do cook from scratch and avoid lots of sugar. Many vegetarians may be more conscientious about doing so but this doesn't mean that its the absence of meat that's made them healthier!
An omnivore can eat a highly processed diet too with plenty of sugary stuff (Standard American Diet) or can eat highly nutritious animal food with minimal processing and likely do even better than the afore mentioned vegetarian who may run short on useful protein and many minerals and vitamins.
Its just a lot more complicated than the click baity headline. For anyone who is interested Zoe Harcombe PhD does a great weekly newsletter where she analyses these kind of studies. Clue - she usually isn't impressed by associational studies where an inference is drawn prematurely. More questions than answers normally result.

 

[Oldvatr]

I think this section says a lot
"Plant‐centered diet quality was assessed using the APDQS, which is a hypothesis‐driven index based on 46 food groups, which are derived from individual foods collected. The APDQS reflects a theoretical concept that how foods affect human health does not act in isolation, but in concert, where nutrients and bioactive compounds in a mixture of individual foods consumed over time work together to produce health outcomes.17 The food groups were classified into beneficial (20), adverse (13), and neutral (13) on the basis of their presumed prior known association with CVD"

APDQS is hypothetical. and has a theoretical concept. Plain as day, clear as mud! Classifications based on the food's presumed association with CVD. Who says?

They started with over 5,000 in the cohort but seemed to have excluded around 1.000 as being unsuitable. They claim to have contacted 90% of participants, but the cohort size in the 20-year review was less than half the 7-year group. They excluded anyone using a Low Cal or Low Carb Diet, but do not seem to require High Carb ultra low fat as pustulated for the plant-based diets. The plant-based diets cohort will probably not be clocking up the recent rise in snack foods being churned out for the vegan market. Maybe they have plans to repeat in another 7 years to ensure their findings are not being sabotaged by marketing hype and the rise in ultra-processed convenience foods.

Nowhere do they seem to define CVD. Is it the mortality events, or does it include survivable strokes and heart attacks? Or is it the number of angiograms applied, or stenting operations required?

But the abstract is laying out the case against all-cause mortality figures, so is not comparing the same things I suspect.

 

[bulkbiker]

The report is based on follow-up at 0 years, 7 years, and 20 years. Table 3 states that the results used in the tables are predicted values from the previous review. So the report is an estimate based on predictions.

"Science" eh...

 

[Mbaker]

Saw that and wondered what they had done to asses the outcomes in this 18-30 year old cohort? It reads as though they assumed, a priori, that certain foods (red meat and fat) cause heart disease?
If a vegetarian eats sweets and rice cakes plus steamed veggies he or she may get a healthy diet score on this assessment tool compared to someone who fries their steak in lard so if that's so it does suggest self serving bias!
Usually the vegetarian results may be confounded by their other healthy habits (not smoking, exercise) or they may be healthier if they do cook from scratch and avoid lots of sugar. Many vegetarians may be more conscientious about doing so but this doesn't mean that its the absence of meat that's made them healthier!
An omnivore can eat a highly processed diet too with plenty of sugary stuff (Standard American Diet) or can eat highly nutritious animal food with minimal processing and likely do even better than the afore mentioned vegetarian who may run short on useful protein and many minerals and vitamins.
Its just a lot more complicated than the click baity headline. For anyone who is interested Zoe Harcombe PhD does a great weekly newsletter where she analyses these kind of studies. Clue - she usually isn't impressed by associational studies where an inference is drawn prematurely. More questions than answers normally result.

Zoe, is brilliant, the best of the best, the only subscription in health matters I pay for...never cross her on facts, you'll lose.