Again, it was WhitePolarBear who was the one tht said that being a vegan kills you in the long run. I only invited him to share the research that proves this. If it does not exist, then it is a worthless statement.
There are some vegan tribes if I remember correctly. I am sure that there are some that are in the 90-98% vegan range. An example is the Tarahumera tribe. They eat 94% plant based and they suffer virtually no atherosclerosis:
"Food and Nutrient Intakes of the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico" Maria T. Cerqueira, M.S. R.D. Martha McMurry Fry, M.S. R.D. and William E. Connor, M.D. Peer-Reviewed Scientific and Medical Sports Nutrition Journal: The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 32, April pp. 905-915, 79
The Tarahumara Indians, who are by the way poorly researched, actually do eat some meat and fish. They're not vegan. I am not, nor am I arguing on behalf of, arguments you've seen elsewhere on the internet that man needs 250 grams of protein a day including meat with every meal. Small quantities of meat should be sufficient to complement a predominantly plant-based diet. They eat fish and chicken, which should provide a high density of micronutrients. The ~5% estimate also fails to include the meat and fish that they consume on special occasions, when they sacrifice animals. The same error was once made with the people of Okinawa, who were falsely alleged to be nearly vegan. The original researchers who quantified their diet failed to account for eating during festivals. It was also the case that the people of Okinawa had a low rate of smoking and alcohol consumption.
Further, they are not practicing the western vegan diet, even if their plant-based fraction went to 100%. They eat different plants, and since they eat wild plants they are likely getting a decent source of vitamin B12, or they get B12 from their meat. They're not taking supplements of synthetic cyanobalamin as a replacement for vitamin B12. They also probably don't have the same allergy rate to nuts and seeds as westerners do.
Now, as for the health of the Tarahumara Indians, it's not nearly as good as you make it out to be. Their life expectancy is 45. They have a ~50% infant mortality. That explains the low rate of atherosclerosis, as that's a condition that tends to worsen with age. I might be tempted to tell you that they're unhealthy due to veganism, but they also practice poor hygiene and have high rates of alcoholism. They're just not a good example of good health.
Note that this happens a lot. A lot of communities have been claimed to be extremely healthy due to their diets. For example, the eskimos are claimed to be very healthy (no diabetes, no heart disease, no cancer, no Alzheimer's, just google the incredible miracle) due to the fact that they mostly eat meat -- the exact opposite of claim of the Tarahumara Indians. And just like the Indians, both claims fail. The eskimos do eat some plants. Moreover, they eat different meat and fish than we do, and they're not even that healthy in the first place.
In general, I would caution against claims that this or that third obscure community (Tarahumara Indians, Eskimos, Okinawa, etc) is the healthiest in the world because of their diet. They are usually not the healthiest tribe in the world, their diets are usually mis-represented, and there are usually other factors.
1. Esselstyn CB., Jr. Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease. New York: Avery; 2007.
2. Esselstyn CB, Jr, Ellis SG, Medendorp SV, et al. A strategy to arrest and reverse coronary artery disease: a 5 year longitudinal study of a single physician's practice. J Fam Pract. 1995;41:560–568.
3. Esselstyn CB., Jr Updating a 12 year experience with arrest and reversal therapy for coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol. 1999;84:339–341.
4. Esselstyn CB., Jr Resolving the coronary artery disease epidemic through plant based nutrition. Prev Cardiol. 2001;4:171–177.
What you originally wrote:
it has been scientifically proven to be the only diet that can actually reverse cardiovascular disease.
That implies that all other diets were tested, and they all failed, whereas veganism is shown to succeeds. That's not what you link to. You've linked to four pieces of writings from a single radical, Caldwell Esselstyn, who provides a anecdotes from unrepresentative samples.
Her not only advocates against animal products but also advocates against soybeans, avocados, and nuts. Olive oil is prohibited on his diet. He is against all fats. In fact, the Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes olive oil, nuts, and fish, has a very good track record on heart disease:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-...ting/in-depth/mediterranean-diet/art-20047801
Do you
really think that eliminating all fats is going to solve your health problems?
You know that this has actually been refuted by science right? If you switch to a plant-based diet, your body will convert all of that extra dietary fiber into fatty acids ...
saturated fatty acids.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150929070122.htm
So fat-phobia isn't actually rooted in biology. Your body needs fats and has a backup plan -- it can make fat from fiber. I suspect that this is the reason that vegans benefit from eating more fiber.
Here's a two-year study from the New England Journal of Medicine showing improved lipid profiles, weight loss, etc, from patients on a low-carb diet:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
Here's a discussion of Esslsteyn, a couple others, and Dr. Masley's work. Dr. Masley's also had some success reversing heart disease. His suggested diet includes fish:
https://www.southdenver.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Heart-disease-reversal-diets-no-pics.pdf
Finally, I'll note a major failure of these vegan arguments -- they're always obsessed with heart disease rather than all-cause mortality. Human beings in the west typically die of either heart disease or cancer, and the best way to reduce the rate of one is to increase the rate of other. It would be better to look at total life expectancy, but when you do this you'll find that both diet and lifestyle are associated.
