The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
as you can see here the mortality of both vegetarians and non-vegetarians in these studies is low compared with the national rates within studies of mortality for major causes of death was not significantly different between vegetarians and non-vegetarians
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
you can look at the uk shoppers study which will illustrate that exact point in that study in the uk vegans versus standard uh the standard mortality ratio the vegans had a better mortality but when they broke it down and they compared vegans to omnivores who were doing healthy behaviors that is working out going in the sun they had the exact same longevity the exact same mortality at least there was no mortality benefit to being a vegan compared to an omnivore that was doing good healthy behaviors
meaning that there was no protective effect of eating more vegetables or excluding meat from the diet when they looked at which groups were doing healthy behaviors the omnivores who had healthy behaviors lived a long amount of time and the vegetarians who had healthy behaviors lived longer than the average person in the uk as well