Eating vegetables does not protect against cardiovascular disease, finds large-scale study

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
“A sufficient intake of vegetables is important for maintaining a balanced diet and avoiding a wide range of diseases. But might a diet rich in vegetables also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)? Unfortunately, researchers from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the University of Bristol found no evidence for this.”
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
597
Location
Near the Promised Land
“A sufficient intake of vegetables is important for maintaining a balanced diet and avoiding a wide range of diseases.

According to who? What? "Sufficient" for who? What's "balanced diet?" Seems like it's just keeping to the whole, "vegetables are good because they're vegetables," narrative/push -- while ironically mentioning right after that eating vegetables doesn't help your heart health, which says a lot about overall health for the most part anyways.

No surprise in general though that just eating vegetables is not like some armor-up, RPG stat that protects you from disease of any kind really. Some people seem to really like vegetables, but I have my pretty strong doubts that just eating a "balanced diet w/vegetables" is supposed to be some no-nonsense, "common sense" way "to be healthy."
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Another study that is laughably trolling in its nature. It's like saying vegetable oils are unhealthy with a broad stroke, not bothering to differentiate saturated fats like coconut oil from polyunsaturated fats like soya oil and corn oil.

In the same way, the study just puts together calcium and magnesium rich leaves with the other vegetables that have a pittance of calcium and magnesium.

It's just another establishment trick to get people to justify hating eating all vegetables so as to drive them into medical hell.

If you're calcium- deficient because you eliminated one key component of a calcium-rich diet, and you don't drink 2 liters of milk everyday or a lot of cheese, how is it possible you won't develop internal calcification in your organs?

Such a waste of time finding evidence based on defining study parameters so wrongly. And this is part of the "evidence-based" science the dogmatists in our universities bandy about?

How can you have good cardiovascular health when the heart can't pump efficiently for being deficient in calcium? How can the circulatory system be working well when the blood vessels are calcified and blocking the absorption of nutrients from the blood as well as offload the waste byproducts and metabolites of metabolism?
 
Last edited:

ChemHead

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
194
“A sufficient intake of vegetables is important for maintaining a balanced diet and avoiding a wide range of diseases. But might a diet rich in vegetables also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)? Unfortunately, researchers from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the University of Bristol found no evidence for this.”

Whoever wrote this article is a moron of the highest degree. It took 30 seconds to go directly to the source clinical study and read the shortened conclusions.

"Conclusions: Higher intakes of raw, but not cooked, vegetables were associated with lower CVD risk. Residual confounding is likely to account for much, if not all, of the observed associations. This study suggests the need to reappraise the evidence on the burden of CVD disease attributable to low vegetable intake in the high-income populations."


Flawed study in many regards. Take 500,000 people in England, Wales, and Scotland and tell them to eat vegetables and record in a log?? So, the ones that actually follow through and keep good records are still essentially eating their same (likely) ***t diet, but they include some vegetables. No markers of cardiovascular disease are really measured... They just include people with no prior cardiovascular events or disease and then count the number of adverse cardiovascular events that occurred during the 4 year period... Lmao. It would have been better to find cardiovascular disease patients and then substitute a portion of their current diet and measure changes in markers of cardiovascular disease. Of course, however, nothing remotely logical is done.

As flawed ask this study was, in the end, it didn't even matter. There was still an association between raw vegetable intake and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.

And for the cherry on top, this study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, proudly owned by none other than GlaxoSmithKline. So, don't eat vegetables, folks. GlaxoSmithKline says you don't need to change your lazy, ***t eating habits lol.
 

Sitaruîm

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
480
Whoever wrote this article is a moron of the highest degree. It took 30 seconds to go directly to the source clinical study and read the shortened conclusions.

"Conclusions: Higher intakes of raw, but not cooked, vegetables were associated with lower CVD risk. Residual confounding is likely to account for much, if not all, of the observed associations. This study suggests the need to reappraise the evidence on the burden of CVD disease attributable to low vegetable intake in the high-income populations."


Flawed study in many regards. Take 500,000 people in England, Wales, and Scotland and tell them to eat vegetables and record in a log?? So, the ones that actually follow through and keep good records are still essentially eating their same (likely) ***t diet, but they include some vegetables. No markers of cardiovascular disease are really measured... They just include people with no prior cardiovascular events or disease and then count the number of adverse cardiovascular events that occurred during the 4 year period... Lmao. It would have been better to find cardiovascular disease patients and then substitute a portion of their current diet and measure changes in markers of cardiovascular disease. Of course, however, nothing remotely logical is done.

As flawed ask this study was, in the end, it didn't even matter. There was still an association between raw vegetable intake and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.

And for the cherry on top, this study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, proudly owned by none other than GlaxoSmithKline. So, don't eat vegetables, folks. GlaxoSmithKline says you don't need to change your lazy, ***t eating habits lol.
Interesting, will research GlaxoSmithKline
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom