Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Moont1de t1_iy8gec9 wrote

It's remarkable how so many fields from bromatology to nutrition to gerontology are converging on plant-based diets being healthier than their counterparts

18

trantheman713 t1_iy8j65e wrote

Not that I don’t find that phenomenal, but the Green-Mediterranean diet here is not a plant based diet.

73

Moont1de t1_iy8ut5b wrote

It does substitute red meat for mostly vegetables

> The green protein shake was partially substituted for dinner, replacing beef/poultry protein sources

−12

trantheman713 t1_iy929hr wrote

I don’t gather that from the article. It states “reduced red meat consumption”, which could still equate to poultry and fish consumption.

It does add the greens shake, but it does not discuss overall animal product consumption.

27

[deleted] t1_iy9batz wrote

[removed]

−5

trantheman713 t1_iy9ilor wrote

I think you’re misreading my comment, friend. I’m suggesting that the reduction of red meat does not mean that overall meat consumption is reduced (including animals of non-land habitation).

10

ecafsub t1_iy9qxx3 wrote

If my weekly meat consumption is 3 kilos and I eliminate the red meat bringing my weekly consumption down to 2 kilos, then my overall meat consumption is reduced. If I replace that with a kilo of fish or fowl, then overall meat consumption is not reduced. Does the diet say to replace the red with non-red?

Fish and fowl are demonstrably healthier than red meat and are better for you. Increasing non-red meat consumption would be beneficial despite your vegan protestations.

−4

trantheman713 t1_iy9t68i wrote

The parent comment was discussing a plant-based diet, which excludes food sources from animals - land, fish, or fowl. I was simply clarifying that this study does not examine a plant-based diet, though it does support one that is vegetable-rich.

No one is arguing the merit of reducing red meat consumption - only that the article does not explicitly discuss overall meat consumption. You are correct in asserting the article does not state participants replaced red meat with poultry or fish, but the article does not explicitly state that they did not either.

3

Moont1de t1_iy9u740 wrote

> You are correct in asserting the article does not state participants replaced red meat with poultry or fish, but the article does not explicitly state that they did not either.

In the contrast with the traditional Mediterranean diet vs the green Mediterranean diet, it was replaced with vegetables.

0

trantheman713 t1_iy9vvpn wrote

Please provide a quote from the article that asserts there was a replacement involved. This seems to be a misinterpretation and does not defer to the verbiage used in the article.

Edit: Thanks to u/Moont1de for showing me the part where it was replaced for some red meat, which reduces the overall meat consumption. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

0

Moont1de t1_iy9wvoc wrote

sigh

> The green protein shake was partially substituted for dinner, replacing beef/poultry protein sources

2

trantheman713 t1_iy9zpdv wrote

Excellent. Thank you. Just reread the methods and spotted this.

1

Moont1de t1_iya03y9 wrote

Are you going to edit your other comments? This is very buried

0

trantheman713 t1_iya1rs3 wrote

Although some red meat consumption was substituted for the Mankai shake, it still does not make the case for a plant based (vegan) diet, only one rich in polyphenols.

2

Moont1de t1_iya293b wrote

I am referring to your comments where you accuse me of misinterpretation and the comment where you say there was no substitution

0

Moont1de t1_iy92o0b wrote

Then keep reading, they contrast MED (which has poultry and fish and red meat) and green MED (which has poultry and fish and more vegetables). Guess which one performed better

−15

trantheman713 t1_iy94vc8 wrote

If you could point to where it discusses overall protein substitution or meat reduction between the two MED diets, I’d love to concede, but it simply does not. The reduction of red meat consumption and the addition of the plant shake does not equal to reduced poultry and fish consumption.

12

Moont1de t1_iy95h4j wrote

I misexpressed myself so I edited my comment to better reflect what I thought I had said.

The poultry and fish consumption across both MED diets is the same, but the green MED has less red meat and more vegetables.

It would make no sense (and be a terrible control) if they changed other variables beyond the one they are trying to test (red meat vs. vegetables)

3

Discowien t1_iy9jayr wrote

That doesn't make it a plant based diet though, does it?

11

NeilOffTheYoungOnes t1_iya27ti wrote

>Green Mediterranean diet

It depends on how you define plant based. If you define it as a diet mostly focused on plants, then it is plant based. If you define it as a diet with no animal products, then it's not. Seeing as both are common usages of the word, my take away is that plant based is pretty much meaningless.

3

L1ngo t1_iya12nd wrote

It substitutes nothing, because it never included red meat to start with.

−2

Moont1de t1_iya24vg wrote

/r/confidentlyincorrect

The green protein shake was partially substituted for dinner, replacing beef/poultry protein sources

3

Potential_Limit_9123 t1_iy8hj30 wrote

Maybe whatever areas of the Internet you're in. The low carb/keto/carnivore world I inhabit, it's the opposite.

−10

Krogsly t1_iy8k41d wrote

Maybe the causation is more correlated to the foods which both diets aim to eliminate?

9

Kalabula t1_iy8m43o wrote

Ya. I think it’s likely more about what’s NOT being eaten.

8

Moont1de t1_iy8urmy wrote

It's likely just health benefits from weight lost, which usually is a short-term gain.

Plant-based diets are also associated with long-term gains in longevity

4

L7Death t1_iy8uvtv wrote

People aren't all the same. Metabolism differs between genotypes. Some people are terrible at fat absorption, it's kind of a super power according to some lipidologists. They can eat a high fat, low carb diet and have perfectly healthy cholesterol and triglycerides and so on. Others hyper absorb fat. Low fat, high carb diets are probably best in that case.

Then 'normal' people have metabolic flexibility. In healthy people the gut lining expunges excessive fats and they're excreted. In low absorbers the gut lining often doesn't even uptake it, and it's excreted. In high absorbers the gut uptakes fat readily but 'doesn't get the signal' to release fat back into the lumen, so excessive fats move into the lymphatic system or directly into the bloodstream, possibly wreaking havoc.

8

Krogsly t1_iy91vh5 wrote

My intention was to draw attention to the similarities of these diets, rather than focusing on whether or not "plant-based", "keto", or "carnivore" is the superior diet.

−1

Moont1de t1_iy8rcay wrote

I can see a short-term benefit to low carb and keto since they are diets that naturally reduce appetite and thus lead to weight loss (which, on an axis and up to a certain degree, is correlated with health benefits).

I'm yet to see a short or long term benefit to a carnivore diet

9

Bullet_2300 t1_iy9fozm wrote

> I'm yet to see a short or long term benefit to a carnivore diet

That's because you never looked, and probably never will.

A major criticism against outspoken vegans is that these are not people who considered all the data with an open mind, and then decided veganism is the best diet for them. They are people who got into veganism for moral reasons and then proceeded to only look for data that aligns with said moral inclination.

−5

Moont1de t1_iy9g1er wrote

> That's because you never looked, and probably never will.

I review biomedical literature daily for my job.

> A major criticism against outspoken vegans is that these are not people who considered at all the data with an open mind

Fascinating, but off-topic. I'm not vegan.

> They are people who got into veganism for moral reasons and then proceeded to only look for data that aligns with said moral inclination.

Rich coming from someone who just made two awfully wrong assumptions in a single paragraph.

8

Bullet_2300 t1_iy9uyfp wrote

>I review biomedical literature daily for my job.

>two awfully wrong assumptions

My stated claim is that you haven't looked into the matter, not that you are vegan, and not that you don't have a related job. I dislike that you nitpick at these points without addressing the actual claim.

The reason I doubt you've looked into the matter is because the elimination of processed foods is responsible for many of the health benefits we see from alternate diets. This would include any carnivore diets that also eliminate processed foods, as is evidenced by a plethora of studies showing so called "short or long term" benefits you've "yet to see."

−2

Moont1de t1_iy9wh1x wrote

> I dislike that you nitpick at these points without addressing the actual claim.

What claim? Even if we pretend that you did not imply that I am vegan and rather just went on an entirely unrelated tangent about veganism for no reason at all, your comment is void of any point that is not an easily disproven assumption.

> The reason I doubt you've looked into the matter is because the elimination of processed foods is responsible for many of the health benefits we see from alternate diets.

This is a sophomoric understanding of the state of the art of the bromatology and nutrition scholarly fields, hypothesis design in modern studies accounts for this variable and does not simply compare diets with processed products vs. without.

> This would include any carnivore diets that also eliminate processed foods

There is evidence that eliminating processed foods (if you define processed foods in the very specific framework of ultra-processed foods) leads to short-term benefits such as weight loss and improved cardiovascular health, and long-term reductions in overall mortality. When you account for that variable, I have not seen a single study whatsoever that shows short or long-term benefits to carnivore diets.

I have seen such results for plant-based or low-meat diets.

4

Bullet_2300 t1_iybbufl wrote

>What claim? Even if we pretend ....your comment is void of any point that is not an easily disproven assumption.

What's funny is I initially misread the triple negative to mean that you purposely ignored my accusation because neither you nor I could feasibly prove via a reddit thread what dietary studies you've read in the past — i.e. whether you've looked into carnivore diets is not easily proven or disproven, and therefore a pointless avenue of argument. I was prepared to shrug, agree, and move on.

Then I realized you meant "What point? Even if there is a point it's easily disproven anyway" while neglecting to include any such proof.

>When you account for that variable, I have not seen a single study whatsoever that shows short or long-term benefits to carnivore diets.

>I have seen such results for plant-based or low-meat diets.

For sake of argument, if I gave you full confidence, then my question is to clarify what point of reference these diets are being compared to when determining short and long term health benefits.

I have the same issue with the initial post:

>I can see a short-term benefit to low carb and keto since they are diets that naturally reduce appetite and thus lead to weight loss...I'm yet to see a short or long term benefit to a carnivore diet

−1

Darwins_Dog t1_iybdl7d wrote

Just accept the L dude. You made bad assumptions and got called out on it.

2

Bullet_2300 t1_iyc0ben wrote

If this user has a reasonable answer for what looks like a glaring inconsistency in their claims; I was intending on politely bowing out.

This guy argues in a similar style as vegans and just extremists in general: avoiding simple refutations, identity shenanigans like claiming not to be vegan (sometimes with multi-accounts), and writing in as gaudy a manner as possible to emphasize intellectual superiority. There's also the biggest indicator, which is being willing to write walls of text but becoming coincidentally silent or evasive when you ask evidence based questions, such as a simple clarifying question regarding the methodology of the studies they cite.

Or even the simple question of whether they specifically researched the topic they're arguing about.

Edit: All that amateur writing analysis gets blown away by evidence, however. Psychopaths like that are rare anyway.

1

Darwins_Dog t1_iycpy12 wrote

Also, you never actually even said you have evidence to the contrary (let alone provide any). Just straight in with the personal attacks. You had the chance to win the argument with one link, but here we are instead.

1