To put it in as quick of terms as possible I think the just of it describes a couple year long study by medical professions and 100 000 plus test subjects. They were given animal protein and plant protein now I didn't memorize this for an essay or anything so a few of my points may be off but results showed people on plant based protein had a lower cardiovascular mortality rate then those on animal protein which I think was red meat. Don't quote me though that's why I sent the link but what I liked was the entire study was explained in every detail so any reader can know the majority of what factors were taken into consideration. I also noticed it was published in some sort of medical journal by a long list of authors with various degrees, masters, doctorates etc. All of which would be registered and available for the public to reference for credibility. Lastly I do have adhd, I'm very impulsive and I'm known for being a scatter brain so if your point is to discredit my opinions I hope you don't take them got anything more then they are. Just friendly thoughts opinions and general inquiries. I dont mean to insult any meat loving lifers as I may never become a vegan or vegetarian myself.
Now to take the other side of the debate I would look further into it if possible and see who funded it, where the authors and scientists are employed and even fact check it in the specific medical journal they claim to be published in. I haven't of course because I just wanted to find anything for you that wasn't Peta or anti meat related. I guess also they were just questionnaires and not full medical analysis so some info could be altered there too
Please rest assured my intention is not to discredit your opinion. No offense intended and not an attack. Trynna see it from all sides is all. I recognized the reasons for putting up this particular piece and was interested in how you digested it and how that reflected on my previous posts in this thread and others in the last few days. Of course I'm sure that we can both see my inherent bias, frankly it seems you have more of an open mind about this than I do as I'm definitely pro-protein.
I thought this might be a good oppourtunity to demonstrate how the very same words can elicit different interpretations. This is due partly to authors taking some leaps to conclusions that are not supported by their own data and also our short attention span as readers who may scan quickly and gloss over some of the seemingly smaller but extremely powerful words and points that depending on if noted or not make a material change to the conclusions to be drawn.
Nothing wrong with your summation, that's what you took from it. I will write an alternate viewpoint to illustrate my points above for your consideration at the close. First their is a point I must raise about the validity of such articles.
There are a few things that concern me here (discussed in other threads/posts) but the one that jumps out before any of the others is the method of data collection. Fuller details are to be found in the first 2 paragraphs under the Methods headings so pardon my brevity but I will quote - "Briefly, follow-up questionnaires were administered at baseline enrollment and every 2 years thereafter to collect lifestyle and medical information. Dietary intake was assessed by the food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) every 4 years."
Self reporting is subject to troubles in any case, subjects may be intentionally or unintentionally dishonest for a variety of reasons. Some might not include their nightly bag of doritos and a six pack due to shame or some might over or under emphasize certain things they are proud of like a bacon lover or a (claimed) strict V person who actually breaks protocol once a week.
Adding to that - "In each FFQ, participants were asked how often, on average, they consumed a standardized portion size of each food during the previous year." How accurately do you think that could be done? How well would each of us here do over a year? A seemingly insignificant miss here becomes exponentially (?) magnified over years and millions of data point until it may become very statistically significant.
But let's put that all aside for now, we'll assume it's all perfectly accurate for the sake of this discussion.
Would you be able to consider the following very simple summation as valid as yours? A fair and honest headline in some health related mag or a newspaper?
Association of health risks with regard to animal vs plant protein consumption should not be a concern for people who live a healthy lifestyle.
From the article:
"Conclusions
Although higher intake of animal protein was associated with higher cardiovascular mortality and higher intake of plant protein was associated with lower mortality, these associations were confined to participants with at least 1 lifestyle risk factor. ..."
EDITTED- OOOPS in the summation, missed a few words