zlacker

>>lsllc+(OP)
Tl;Dr plant diet appears to be better with lower risk

>>jschve+31
It was a study of studies. The studies were meta analysis.

In other words this study used zero direct observational studies.

No one has ever fed one person a meat diet and another person meat free diet and shown there to be a increase or decreased risk of heart disease.

Daily reminder that Hong Kong has one of the highest meat consumption per person in the world And one of the highest life expectancies.

India has some of the lowest meat consumptions in the world and one of the lowest life expectancies.

So clearly meat is not the demon some of these biased studies make it out to be.

>>bairen+S6
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

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S105017...

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

>>roboti+S8
Lowering your ldl might actually make you die early.

https://www.youtube.com/live/LSIyg_Z_ye4?si=O5uMFqligFcuPS8m

A high ldl over the age of 60 is associated with a lower all cause mortality.

And you are kinda right, having a higher income means you can afford more red meat and live longer.

>>bairen+6b
If we're going to be citing a random YouTube video as the same weight as scientific studies, I don't see much point in continuing this conversation

>>roboti+Gc
It's a youtube video discussing a Scientific study.

Here is the study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33293274/

A ldl of 140 mg/dL had a overall lower all cause mortality than those with a ldl of 100 or below. Doctors will prescribe a statin at 130.

Good look having a ldl of 140 on a vegan diet. It's not happening.

If you are going to ignore my scientific studies then there is no use continuing this conversation.

>>bairen+me
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.

>>roboti+Mi
No you don't get to look at these graphs and claim a 90 ldl has the same outcomes as a 140.

That's just lying.

Yes there are edge cases. You could get hit by a car with a 140.

It's looking at all cause mortality.

A higher ldl seems to be protective. Of course it is. The body makes it for a reason.