Comment on non vegan pizza time
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoThe Nova classification is the most widely used definition.
Comment on non vegan pizza time
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoThe Nova classification is the most widely used definition.
5wim@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
And?
Your wikipedia links don’t make an assertion. The one on UPF does remind you, though, that
The crux of this learning moment for you shouldn’t be about definitions, but the relative “healthiness” of vegan food products.
It’s clear you began with a preference to paint with a broad brush these meat substitute products as “junk food,” and you have the opportunity to recognize they aren’t as obviously unhealthy as you first thought.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
[Every 10 percentage points increase in plant-sourced non-UPF consumption was associated with a 7% lower risk of CVD (95% CI 0.91–0.95) and a 13% lower risk of CVD mortality (0.80–0.94). Conversely, plant-sourced UPF consumption was associated with a 5% increased risk (1.03–1.07) and a 12% higher mortality (1.05–1.20). The contribution of all UPF was linked to higher CVD risk and mortality, and no evidence for an association between contribution of all plant-sourced foods and CVD incidence and mortality was observed.](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(24)00115-7/fulltext)
5wim@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Oh honey, your stealth edit shows that you don’t understand. I’ll explain it to you: the study you keep linking doesn’t differentiate between those foods in that “range of ultra-processed foods (UPF),” so that means data coming from “sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery” is getting all mixed in with the data of the “‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers,” which unfortunately renders the conclusions of the study rather meaningless when we’re talking about the CVD outcomes of just one of the data sets.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
What is a stealth edit?
I fixed some formatting issues. Does that make the study I linked invalid?
5wim@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Low-effort repost of your specious use of a study with nebulous conclusions for this conversation; I’ll quote the user above:
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
So?
Link a study showing that, it should be easy.