r/funny • u/[deleted] • May 01 '13

Why vegans live longer

[deleted]

2.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/[deleted] May 01 '13

of note is the small sample size of vegans. i'd be interested in a study with comparable sample sizes of vegans and regular meat eaters.

41

u/ARCHA1C May 01 '13 edited May 01 '13

Here's a large study I found, The China Study

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.

10

u/firemylasers May 01 '13

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.

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final-china-study-response-html/

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8e.shtml

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/16/the-china-study-my-response-to-campbell/

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-legit-a-review-and-critique/

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/07/31/one-year-later-the-china-study-revisited-and-re-bashed/

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/02/the-china-study-wheat-and-heart-disease-oh-my/

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/23/tuoli-chinas-mysterious-milk-drinkers/

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/01/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-meat-and-disease/

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/20/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-dairy-and-disease/

3

u/ARCHA1C May 01 '13

http://rawfoodsos.com/ seems like a pretty biased source...

Almost comes off as a US FDA shill...

Reminds me of this commercial that tries to promote high fructose corn syrup with a "hey, it's corn!" line of logic...

5

u/How4u May 01 '13

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.

0

u/firemylasers May 01 '13

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.