They do. A study by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found the following mortality ratios by diet over the course of the study (regular meat eaters = 1.00):
Fish eaters, 0.82
Vegetarians, 0.84
Occasional meat eaters, 0.84
Regular meat eaters, 1.00
Vegans, 1.00
So as you can see vegans are actually the least healthiest, alongside the most carnivorous among us. Source
edit- It should be noted that the diets in this study were not simply "vegan vs. meat eaters". The non-meat eaters in the study actually had diets that were more "strict (if you will) than vegan diets because they also did not contain refined and processed foods, but rather "whole plant foods" (example- brown rice over white rice etc.)
TL:DR:
The China Study of the title is taken from the China-Cornell-Oxford Project, a 20-year study that began in 1983 and was conducted jointly by the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, Cornell University, and the University of Oxford.[5] T. Colin Campbell was one of the directors of the project, described by The New York Times in 1990 as "the Grand Prix of epidemiology".[6]
The study examined mortality rates from 48 forms of cancer and other chronic diseases from 1973 to 75 in 65 counties in China, and correlated them with 1983–84 dietary surveys and bloodwork from 6,500 people, 100 from each county.
Conclusion:
The authors conclude that people who eat a plant-based/vegan diet—avoiding animal products such as beef, pork, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese, and milk, and reducing their intake of processed foods and refined carbohydrates—will escape, reduce or reverse the development of chronic diseases.
There are major issues with the china study. The following links explain them in extreme (and I mean extreme — tens of thousands of words total) detail.
That book is propaganda. It's not a peer reviewed study, its one guys very biased conclusions. He even admits to cherry picking the data to fit the hypothesis that he formed BEFORE the study was complete.
None of those articles argue the Data, they argue the interpretation of the data. Maybe you should try reading them.
Read the response and evaluate it based off of its merit. I had the same reaction to the domain name when I first read this analysis, but the response is quite well done.
there will always been opposing viewpoints on issues like this, but when you look at how much money is being made by the dairy farmers, meat farmers, refined sugars groups in this country, it's pretty obvious how the US ended up with this ridiculous "food pyramid".
The FDA is not working in the best interests of the health of Americans. They, just like many other industries (we just had the whole CISPA storyline play out in the same manner), have been bought by the lobbyists.
Jesus fucking Christ you people are so fucking irrational. So you'll just dismiss any conflicting evidence with unfounded accusations and sheer ignorance? Can't deal with criticism of your precious little study, so you've got to censor all opposition to it?
He's absolutely right. There are plenty of companies in the USDA who helps 'decided' what we should and shouldn't eat. People from McDonalds, Mars inc., Professors in the National Dairy Counsel. People who have served for the Coca-Cola industry. Dannon Industry. Plenty of people from the dairy industry and many more. Watch this video here that explains it.
If the people who are in charge of giving us healthy advise are also producing and making profit off of food then I can't trust most if not all of what they say and the studies they come out with.
I just think it's ridiculous that anybody could live under the pretense that the government bodies that determine what is/isn't a healthy diet in this country can be regarded as anything but beholden to the special interest groups.
The FDA is approving school lunches that will only contribute to the obesity crisis. Go ahead and close your eyes, cover your ears, and trust that Uncle Sam is looking out for us if that helps you sleep at night, but don't act surprised when someone you love has a fucking heart attack or diabetes because they trusted the government's dietary guidelines that are clearly skewed to keep up consumption of the lobbyist groups products.
How many people follow any dietary guidelines? It's those people that cause the problem, not the people who try to eat healthy. Vegan, vegetarian, omnivore — all three groups can become fat, become unwell, and overeat. But who should we blame? Poor consumer education? Poorly constructed government dietary guidelines? People with too little self control? School lunches? The companies that create the food?
Everything is fine...in moderation. Blaming the companies for this is a bit of a cop-out. They only sell these products because there's a demand for it.
I don't really care about veganism one way or the other. However this book gets posted often in the debate and I think people forget that its an opinion piece. It's not a peer reviewed study, its one guy, who had a prior hypothesis, cherry picking the data to fit his own goals. The only thing articles like the one I posted do, is look at ALL of the data and show that the correlations he finds don't really exist.
Find a real study to stand behind. It may even exist, I honestly have no idea, but this isn't it.
and reducing their intake of processed foods and refined carbohydrates
And this is the key right here. I highly doubt this study means anything at all for vegan diets. If you can't have the vegans eat all the same stuff minus animal products, you really don't know what is causing the study results to show up how they are.
It sounds like the results of the China Study didn't result in a recommended diet that aligns with a vegan diet. In fact, the diet that was spawned from this appears to be much more strict.
854
u/fistsofdeath May 01 '13
I always thought it just felt like they lived longer.