[flagged]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Greger
While vegan science might have grounds for debate, I would not put much weight on people that have literally made vegetarianism their religion.
EDIT: also given your post history, seems like you're here, on a site called Hacker News, to do nothing else but push a certain nutritional agenda.
Op claimed that a vegan diet (a much stricter diet than “eating vegetables”) can reverse atherosclerosis to the point of not needing surgery (a much stronger claim than “is healthy”), and for that, very much yes, citation needed.
Anyway, a two minute Google search can even find some US-friendly related material (but probably someone could be able to say that Harvard is a vegan-soviet-wokist psyop, one could never know...)
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/disease-prevent...
"The best diet for preventing heart disease is one that is full of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fish, poultry, and vegetable oils; includes alcohol in moderation, if at all; and goes easy on red and processed meats, refined carbohydrates, foods and beverages with added sugar, sodium, and foods with trans fat."
See also https://web.archive.org/web/20131207154611/http://www.cnpp.u...
2. That claims to prevent, not reverse the disease.
The question was about evidence which would show that it could reverse heart disease not prevent it.
IMHO that’s an extremely important distinction.
It's under the video in the list of sources :)
Ellis FR, Sanders TA. Angina and vegan diet. Am Heart J. 1977 Jun;93(6):803-5
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00028...
Four patients were placed on a vegan diet in 1977. Three of them adhered to the diet and experienced a reversal of the disease (an improvement in their symptoms), while one patient saw improvement but later switched back to a regular diet, resulting in a return of his symptoms.
Esselstyn CB Jr, Gendy G, Doyle J, Golubic M, Roizen MF. A way to reverse CAD? J Fam Pract. 2014 Jul;63(7):356-364b
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25198208/
In a study involving 198 patients with cardiovascular disease, 89% adhered to a plant-based diet, eliminating dairy, fish, and meat while adding oil. These adherent patients experienced only one recurrent cardiac event (a stroke), resulting in a low recurrence rate of 0.6%. In contrast, 62% of nonadherent participants experienced adverse events. This suggests that intensive counseling on plant-based nutrition can be successful in reducing cardiac events and warrants further testing in broader populations to address the cardiovascular disease epidemic.
The Framingham Heart Study: Another long-running study, the Framingham Heart Study, has looked at heart disease risk factors and health outcomes in a large population. It has demonstrated the positive effects of a diet rich in vegetables on heart health
https://www.bumc.bu.edu/camed/2021/02/25/plant-based-diets-i...
Plant-based Diets Improve Cardiac Function, Cognitive Health
The EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) Study: This study involves multiple countries in Europe and has provided significant evidence of the health benefits of plant-based diets, including lower risks of cancer and chronic diseases.
The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Trial: While not exclusively focused on vegetables, the DASH trial emphasizes the importance of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables for managing blood pressure and overall health
Source? The link you've provided doesn't say anything about it.
> While vegan science might have grounds for debate
Scientific disciplines specifically focused on veganism or vegetarianism do not exist.
Edit: It's not about nutrition; it's the ultimate hack to protect biodiversity, which is being driven to extinction by our agricultural practices, and to safeguard our society from collapse. As such, it belongs here. Lately, it seems to me to be more important than the newest JavaScript frameworks. You're welcome to spend some time in my post history and read on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
While red meat and dairy can provide certain nutrients, it's important to emphasize that a well-planned plant-based diet can also meet children's nutritional needs.
No adult mammals need milk to be healthy. Children who drink mother's milk are, of course, following a vegan diet.
American Dietetic Association
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."
NHS UK
"A vegetarian or vegan diet can be suitable for everyone, regardless of their age."
British Dietetic Association
"[I]t is possible to follow a well-planned, plant-based, vegan friendly diet that supports healthy living in people of all ages, and during pregnancy and breastfeeding."
In academia one is supposed to list commercial conflicts of interests, but no one asks to write down the author's religious affiliations. Just search all the organisations Greber is part or founding member of, and notice how many are affiliated with SDA. It is well-known at this point that most of the research in vegetarianism is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists.
Again, this time I'm not here to discuss the shoddy science of demonising meat and animal fat. I just want to point out that when a theory becomes a tenet of your religion, there is not much scientific discussion to be had.
- Guilt by Association: Associating the individual with a group (SDA) to which they may not belong or identify with is misleading and serves to further discredit the argument, as it’s based on false premises.
- Conspiracy Theory: Suggesting that most vegetarian research is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists without evidence. Example: "Most of the research in vegetarianism is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists."
- Straw Man: The comment misrepresents the argument by suggesting that anyone who supports vegetarianism or has religious affiliations cannot engage in scientific discussion. Example: "When a theory becomes a tenet of your religion, there is not much scientific discussion to be had."
- Generalization: Making a sweeping and unsupported claim about all research related to vegetarianism. Example: "Notice how many are affiliated with SDA."
- Appeal to Motive: Assuming that the author's religious beliefs automatically taint their scientific research. Example: "It is well-known at this point that most of the research in vegetarianism is sponsored by Seventh-day Adventists."
In constructive and respectful debates, it's essential to address the actual scientific evidence and arguments rather than resorting to personal attacks, conspiracy theories, or logical fallacies. These tactics detract from the quality of the discussion and hinder productive dialogue.