Vegetarians and vegans have a 20% increased risk of stroke

[Anonymous No.12882942]

https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4897

[Anonymous No.12882947]

>>12882942
Over 18.1 years of follow-up, 2820 cases of ischaemic heart disease and 1072 cases of total stroke (519 ischaemic stroke and 300 haemorrhagic stroke) were recorded. After adjusting for sociodemographic and lifestyle confounders, fish eaters and vegetarians had 13% (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.99) and 22% (0.78, 0.70 to 0.87) lower rates of ischaemic heart disease than meat eaters, respectively (P<0.001 for heterogeneity). This difference was equivalent to 10 fewer cases of ischaemic heart disease (95% confidence interval 6.7 to 13.1 fewer) in vegetarians than in meat eaters per 1000 population over 10 years. The associations for ischaemic heart disease were partly attenuated after adjustment for self reported high blood cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, and body mass index (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.00 in vegetarians with all adjustments). By contrast, vegetarians had 20% higher rates of total stroke (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.40) than meat eaters, equivalent to three more cases of total stroke (95% confidence interval 0.8 to 5.4 more) per 1000 population over 10 years, mostly due to a higher rate of haemorrhagic stroke. The associations for stroke did not attenuate after further adjustment of disease risk factors.

Conclusions In this prospective cohort in the UK, fish eaters and vegetarians had lower rates of ischaemic heart disease than meat eaters, although vegetarians had higher rates of haemorrhagic and total stroke.

>fish eaters and vegetarians had lower rates of ischaemic heart disease than meat eaters, although vegetarians had higher rates of haemorrhagic and total stroke.

[Anonymous No.12882950]

>>12882942
time to take the sv3irgepill

[Anonymous No.12882956]

>>12882942
good

[Anonymous No.12882957]

>>12882942
unless the study is done on a genetic basis the study is worthless.

[Anonymous No.12882959]

>>12882947
Note: VEGETARIANS, not vegans.

[Anonymous No.12882963]

>>12882942
eat greens, more stroke, less heart disease. gotcha

[Anonymous No.12882968]

>>12882959
Read the study moron

[Anonymous No.12883090]

>>12882968
>click link
>CTRL F "vegan"
>0 results
Antivegans are this retarded

[Anonymous No.12883095]

>>12882957
Not exactly. It's a huuuuge sample size.

[Anonymous No.12883099]

>>12883090
Fucking retard

[Anonymous No.12883102]

>>12882947
For the purpose of argument and discussion, this study isn't worth much, because vegetarians are not vegans. Vegetarians consume milk and eggs, so they are eating animal fat products.

(Dishonest vegan liars never bother with the truth whatsoever) but as men of science, we few should conduct ourselves with pure honestly and integrity as the baseline.

We need a study that looks at vegans and how fast they die...

[Anonymous No.12883107]

>>12883102
Are there any cohort studies to address the many infants dying in the vegan cult? (From the Malnutrition inherent to the vegan diet)

[Anonymous No.12883232]

>>12883099
Vegetarians including vegans isn't just vegans. RETARD.

[Anonymous No.12883242]

guess that guy with the big forehead is right

[Anonymous No.12883251]

>>12882942
is this equivalent to the veganoid funded studies which survey random people and health conscious vegans and find said vegans live longer?

[Anonymous No.12883359]

Did they take into account the possibility of b12 deficiency acting as a cofounder? If not supplementet for in a vegetarian/vegan diet, deficiency is likely to occur which can result in increased levels of homocysteine (a well known risc factor for vascular disease). A properly planned vegan/vegetarian diet should include b12 supplementation, thus this should not be a problem but sometimes people are stupid...

[Anonymous No.12883438]

>>12883359
These studies should observe IRL vegans, not theoretical perfect vegans who somehow know the exact supplements they need and never skip them.

Sverige debated a very confident, cocksure vegan who boasted that he took no b-12 supplements whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.12883692]

The main reason behind these diseases are cholesterol clogged arteries.
Vegans consume no cholesterol whatsoever, unlike vegitarians.
Thee only vegan substance resembling cholesterol is transfats (margarine) and it is easily replaceable.
Cope with that meatards.
I'd rather eat just beans and rice than kill and eat an animal only to get my chest split open afterwards.

[Anonymous No.12883815]

>>12883692
OP FOREVER BTFO JUST LIKE THIS RETARDED CARNI
https://youtu.be/znZCmkn1UKc

[Anonymous No.12883832]

>>12883438
You just drink unchlorinated (spring) water for b12.
Just like all other animals do.
Even if you took the supplements, they are dirt cheap and are given to farm animals with no access to the soil or untreated water either way.
You just end up with the second hand b12 + clogged arteries as a bonus.

[Anonymous No.12883865]

Limit red meat intake. We know it's harmful and we know we don't need it.
So cut the steak to once a month or even less, and you'll be fine.
Doubt eating chicken and other lean meats is unhealthy.

[Anonymous No.12883869]

>>12883692
Jesus fuck, I’m always amazed that vegetards still believe this 1980s pseudoscience. It’s like you just stopped reading anything new since then. Here I’ll make it abundantly fucking clear for you:

THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE SHOWING AN INCREASE IN DIETARY CHOLESTEROL IS CORRELATED WITH INCREASED SERIUM CHOLESTEROL, IN FACT IF ANYTHING THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THE CORRELATION IS THE INVERSE.

additionally the evidence shows that PUFAs like your coveted margarine ARE in fact linked to increases in dietary cholesterol.

[Anonymous No.12883878]

>>12883865
>animal fats are bad for you

[Anonymous No.12883883]

>>12882942
That's because most guzzle oil and don't eat vegetables.

[Anonymous No.12883905]

>>12883878
Red meat is bad for you. That is well established. Read about carnitine.

[Anonymous No.12883914]

>>12882942
Probably because of all the toxic pesticides. Eat an animal who's body has already cleansed the pesticides for you.

[Anonymous No.12883922]

Realistically, raising a child on a vegan diet is unhealthy. Child is going to be malnourished.

Sure, maybe scientifically there is some Soylent type combination of leafy crap to technically give them complete nutrition but realistically it ain't gonna happen. Children already hate vegetables as it is.
It's going to take superhuman effort to manage full nutrition on a vegan diet.

[Anonymous No.12883927]

>>12883869
>It’s like you just stopped reading anything new since then.

Vegetarianism/Veganism isn't about facts or logic, it's a religion.

[Anonymous No.12883931]

>>12883905
Source? I googled but can’t find much.

[Anonymous No.12883960]

>>12883931
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Carnitine-HealthProfessional/#h1

All meats have carnitine. If you eat too much red meat like many people do, you get too much of it which is bad for your health.

[Anonymous No.12883965]

>>12883922
Pretty sure you could just raise a kid on soylent.

[Anonymous No.12883975]

>>12883965
My point is, the kid will just refuse to eat it, so unless you want to funnel it into their mouth, forcefully, you'll end up with a malnourished child.

Also Soylent is meant for adults with different dietary needs. Pretty sure it doesn't quite have enough carbs and protein for a growing child.

[Anonymous No.12883987]

>>12882942
For how fucking high strung vegans are, I believe it.

[Anonymous No.12883989]

>>12882942

>https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/suggested-move-to-plant-based-diets-risks-worsening-brain-health-nutrient-deficiency/

>The momentum behind a move to plant-based and vegan diets for the good of the planet is commendable, but risks worsening an already low intake of an essential nutrient involved in brain health, warns a nutritionist in the online journal BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health.

>https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2019/07/16/bmjnph-2019-000037

>Could we be overlooking a potential choline crisis in the United Kingdom?

Several studies against veganism in the past few weeks hitting major newpapers as well. What's going on?

[Anonymous No.12883993]

>>12882957

This is the exact same kind of study used to link red meat with cancer.

[Anonymous No.12884003]

>>12883989
>fad diet based on feels and pseudoscience gets ousted as unscientific
Would have never guessed it. Veganism is based on the feelings of bees and grasshoppers. It's not even vegetarianism which is semi sensible.

[Anonymous No.12884014]

>>12883989
Maybe it's because people realized "Oh fuck, we haven't actually evolved in tens of thousands of years, though omnivorous, we're still built to consume mostly animals."

[Anonymous No.12884025]

>>12883438
>>12883359
You do understand that you need micro amounts of b-12 and the body stores years of it, right? I'm not even a vegan and that is the most retarded argument ever.

[Anonymous No.12884027]

>>12883993
Yeah, he had a point though. This study is also garbage tier science. But I would be interested in hearing the counter arguments.

For example, when it comes to doing epidemiological studies on meat eaters it is often pointed out that the generic “meat eater” is overal less health conscious than a vegetarian who is specifically making life/dietary choices based on health.

But how does one make the reverse hand waving argument? You can’t say this study lacks merit because vegitarians/vegans make bad life/diet choices, because it literally contradicts directly with previous arguments.

[Anonymous No.12884041]

>>12883878
>>12883865
Red meat also is a source of carcinogenic compounds when it is cooked in the ways red meat is normally cooked. Not to mention the resource demand of raising meat and the environmental impact; it is smart to reduce your intake.

[Anonymous No.12884045]

>>12883989
How the fuck is one supposed to get this nutrient if even the supposedly meat heavy diet of European whites, which we know, is already otherwise harmful, is not enough?

[Anonymous No.12884129]

>>12884045
>which we know, is already otherwise harmful
Unfounded claim, lacking any evidence or proof.

>is not enough?
Ahhhhh! Now I know why you are stupid enough to believe the first part. You simply just don’t understand science. Do you even know how an RDA is calculated?

[Anonymous No.12884326]

>>12883359
>Did they take into account the possibility of b12 deficiency acting as a cofounder?
That's not what a confounder is.
A case with an actual confounding variable would be like thinking you found a link between Werther's Original consumption and Alzheimer's when really the confounding variable of old age is what would be linked with both preference for that candy and Alzheimer's and the candy itself wouldn't be implicated.
Vegetarians hypothetically suffering from health problems related to vitamin deficiencies on the other hand wouldn't be a confounding variable situation because vitamin deficiencies aren't some hidden extra factor explaining both a greater likelihood of becoming a vegetarian and a greater likelihood of having health problems. The vegetarian would still be ending up with health problems because of their vegetarian diet.
It's not like a vitamin deficient vegetarian diet wouldn't count as vegetarian. That's like saying you would be an excellent marksman as long as someone controls for the confounding variable of all your poorly fired shots. Wouldn't be confounding because those are still your shots, not some hidden extra factor that wasn't accounted for. No hidden extra factor makes vegetarians more likely to have health problems if it's due to them not getting enough vitamins from their vegetarian diet. Those bad vegetarians are still your vegetarians, and if you're seeing more vegetarians fail to get their vitamins taken care of comapred to non-vegetarians then that's the exact opposite of a confounding variable. That would mean vegetarians DO have a demonstrable link with health problems, because (in this hypothetical) they are less likely than non-vegetarians to cover their vitamin needs.

[Anonymous No.12884396]

>>12883692
But most strokes aren't caused by cholesterol, they're caused by having high homocysteine, which is in turn caused by having low vitamin b12, b9 or b6.

[Anonymous No.12884901]

>>12884326
Ok, maybe confounder was not the perfect term to use. But I was thinking in terms of say, in a study where the association between soda and diabetes is analyzed, BMI is often seen as a potential cofounder although the overweight might be caused by the soda itself. Thus, in regards to this study it is not completely accurate to say that the vegetarian diet itself caused the increased risk if stroke, if the causal relationship is actually between b12 deficiency and stroke. A vegetarian diet is more likely to be low in vitamin b12 if not supplemented, of course, but that is not to be confused with a properly planned one.

[Anonymous No.12884936]

>Being healthcucked

Just eat what you want, you’re gonna fucking die one way or another.

[Anonymous No.12886026]

>>12884027
The vegans counter argument, if they accept that vegans do have a higher stroke risk, which they do not lol, would be to point out the meat eaters higher risk of heart attack. (Which itself is a silly argument, when healthy user bias is "accidentally" ignored and not mentioned in the vegan studies.)

1. More meat eaters smoke, than vegetarians do.
2. This explains entirely why meat eaters have "higher risk of heart attacks"
3. Vegan "scientists" casually never xplain this.
4. Blame it all on da meat!

[Anonymous No.12886090]

>>12882942
Yeah, risk of being stroked by a lover because they're so sexy ;)

[Anonymous No.12886120]

A vegetarian diet can still be quite healthy if it includes plenty of dairy products.

[Anonymous No.12887611]

>>12886120
True, which is why you can actually feed a vegetarian with common groceries, but vegans are huge fags about dairy.
Anyone of you ever tried to cook for a vegan? It's the worst.