I'm not familiar with these studies, but I suspect you are misinformed. I'm happy to read them if you have links.

The largest, longest, best designed research shows vegans living longer and heavy meat eaters having high levels of atherosclerosis.

It is not an argument, I'm not logically deducing anything. It is the results of the biggest and best studies.

Even the nutritional researchers tend to live to 100 or more, probably because they follow the results of what they study. Ancel Keys lived to 100, Dame Harriette Chick to 102, Dr John Sharffenberg is 99 or 100 now, whereas Atkins died in his 70s, Pennington (who Atkins based his diet on) died at 56, Charles Poliquin died at 57, etc. There are lots of long-lived vegetarians, seventh day adventists, Okinawans, nutrition researchers, etc. The studies on longevity show what they eat, and it's usually close to vegan. But the best predictor is actually conscionciousness, then income level (diet seems to follow from both of those -- conscientious enough to actually rigorously do the right diet, and rich enough to afford all those fresh fruits and vegetables).

How dare you! 😆

Imagine non-ironically claiming you mistrust the mainstream but not about the food pyramid.

Nutrition should not be guided by religion. This is very correct. I doubt studies that come out of Loma-Linda University for that very reason, even though they have been vetted by the industry.

Eating like your ancestors is a good starting point. That will optimize your chances of reproduction. Evolution doesn't select for longevity which is a very different endpoint.

I've seen enough of Dr Ken D Berry, Family Physician. He is not a nutrition researcher, he is a YouTuber. He is good at speaking and convincing people of things. He doesn't know what he's talking about and is far too sure of it. He rejects epidemiology for good sounding reasons, but doesn't explain the much worse problems of the studies he chooses to accept. The idea that meat must be good because we evolved eating meat (our ancestral food) sounds almost unassailably correct... but there are ways to assail that theory. Evolution selects for reproduction not longevity. And also our ancestors might have eaten huge amounts of vegetables and fruits that didn't fossilize, we don't know they ate a lot of meat. And also higher meat diets might be perfectly healty as long as you are skin and bones and near starving like an Amazon hunter or an African tribal person. Do you see how eating a lot of meat isn't obviously healthy, how that theory could be wrong? But the biggest reason to disbelieve it is the mountains of research on humans done over the last 80 years that show it's not true.

word

One of the reasons they don't give people CAC tests generally unless their risk is super high, at least in most countries, is because they might get a score of zero and then think they are safe and go on ignoring their doctor's advice. Studies showed that if you are low risk for other reasons, CAC 0 subjects have low chance of events. If you are high risk by other measures, CAC 0 subjects still have a high risk of cardiac events in the near term. So the whole CAC scoring thing is discredited as not adding any additional value beyond the other biomarkers. Bayes Theorem applies here. If pretest risk was high, a score of 0 does not mean you have low chance of a heart event - it simply doesn't supercede the priors. Anyhow that's what this study says: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.767665

Also, lots of research that ApoB levels are strongly positively associated with atherosclerosis progression. A lot of keto people (not all of them) have high LDLs which are representative (but not a perfect measure) of ApoB (which they unfortunately rarely test directly). Huge amounts of study and research went into determining this, that it was ApoB coorelated, not triglyceride or blood sugar coorelated (for example). They might be wrong, but to overturn that would need a lot of evidence of something else.