21 ms·

Almost all studies of this kind are extremely confounded because food survey data is close to universally bad. It is especially bad on this topic in the US and

Almost all studies of this kind are extremely confounded because food survey data is close to universally bad. It is especially bad on this topic in the US and UK, because many people's idea of a serving of meat is actually closer to fried breaded bread, with condiment levels of meat on top. It would be crazy to lump those people in with the "steak and eggs for dinner 3 times a week" crowd, but they always are. Results are different, often opposite, in countries that have a better relationship to meat, like the big Austrian food survey study from 2014: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917888/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917888/ > Moreover, our results showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with poorer health (higher incidences of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), a higher need for health care, and poorer quality of life. Other survey data across several countries often replicate the meatless = lower mental health claims, eg: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2020.1741505 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2020.1... (This should come as no surprise to people who have read about B12 and mental health, which is a relationship so extraordinary that I'm surprised its not more front-and-center.) But again, food survey data is generally bad. Some are okay, when they are very focused, like the Swedish studies on dairy product consumption. But most of them are bad, and the more general, the worse they are.

blfr 6y ago
Food surveys and food diaries are hilariously bad[1]. I'm surprised any studies based on them are still getting published. There was literally a reality TV show in England based around how terribly inaccurate food diaries are. It's on YouTube[2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527547/figure/F1/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527547/figure/... [2] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=secret+eaters https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=secret+eaters
- jtdev 6y ago
  Studies like this are published for political reasons, not scientific reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is behind this study.
  - kritiko 6y ago
    The study’s funding is included in the study: Funding This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People - LEAP) [grant number 205212/Z/16/Z]; Cancer Research UK [grant numbers C8211/A19170 and C8211/A29017]; and the UK Medical Research Council [grant number MR/M012190/1]. AP-C is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship [grant number C60192/A28516] and by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the WCRF International grant programme [grant number 2019/1953].
    - scythe 6y ago
      In fairness, he's not far off. The Wellcome Trust was established by a pharmaceutical magnate and is the fourth-richest charitable organization in the world, with an endowment of ~$40bn.
      - kritiko 6y ago
        I think the point was that Bill Gates is believed to be in favor of hyperprocessed meat alternatives & has invested in some. (I don't know the details here - I'm guessing many of his detractors don't know them either.) I'm not sure whether Wellcome has a similar real or perceived conflict of interest. I did think it was interesting that they showed a lower instance of Afib and varicose veins across the meat eaters...
    - themgt 6y ago
      Right so if you look at LEAP[0] they talk about how "global average consumption of meat and dairy is rising, driven by increasing incomes and population growth ... livestock production can have major environmental impacts ... Livestock production is also a major source of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, increases water scarcity in some regions and can exacerbate soil erosion ... LEAP programme aims to understand the health, environmental, social and economic effects of meat and dairy production and consumption to provide evidence and tools for decision makers to promote healthy and sustainable diets" They also have a brief explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGpjeyypKMU&feature=emb_logo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGpjeyypKMU&feature=emb_logo I'm not going to call this a nefarious conspiracy, but in the same way you might wonder about a study funded by Coca Cola, LEAP doesn't sound like they'd want to fund a study concluding "eating beef is much healthier than soy protein" If you combine that with the original criticism about the poor study design, you can come to your own conclusions about whether to reduce your meat consumption. [0] https://www.leap.ox.ac.uk/about https://www.leap.ox.ac.uk/about
- xphilter 6y ago
  That show is incredible. Thanks for sharing. There’s a corollary with Covid in there somewhere: “we’re taking this so seriously” (but then hanging out with friends etc, like that SNL skit).
- User23 6y ago
  To further concur, when I was engineering my own body composition improvement plan I quickly learned to completely ignore any study that wasn’t performed in a controlled metabolic ward. Which is, essentially, a voluntary prison. Needless to say participant compensation is considerably more costly than the totally unscientific alternatives so such studies are rare.
  - mleonhard 6y ago
    Can you share some links to studies done in a metabolic ward that contradict survey-based studies?
    - User23 6y ago
      I don't have any links handy, this was years ago and I didn't save them. Scholar search or something similar should find you plenty of hits though for metabolic ward. My interest was primarily in nutrient partitioning and thermic effects of food. I want to clarify that I don't claim that survey-based studies necessarily or even predominantly make incorrect claims, just that I am not satisfied with their basis for making such claims.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  Daily meat consumption is probably something people can gauge with a high degree of accuracy. People in developed countries are probably all-or-nothing unless they are actively trying to reduce their meat consumption while not being vegetarian.
anandrm 6y ago
Its just not about the diet but also lifestyle matters(exercise ,teetotaler,profession) . I am surprised why these studies do not involve that as an index ?
- tgb 6y ago
  This one does: > In Model 1, we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for race, Townsend deprivation index [20], education, employment, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity, and in women, we additionally adjusted for menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive pill use, and parity. In Model 2, we further adjusted for total fruit and vegetable intake, cereal fibre intake score (calculated by multiplying the frequency of consumption of bread and breakfast cereal by the fibre content of these foods [21]), oily fish intake, and non-oily fish intake. For Model 3, we added adjustment for body mass index (BMI).
jtdev 6y ago
Oh hey, look who funds Wellcome: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database#q/k=wellcome https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Gran...
- navbaker 6y ago
  Is there an insight we are supposed to gain from this connection?
  - jtdev 6y ago
    "Epidemiological study supports assertions of those funding the study" Does that not seem problematic to you?
    - adenadel 6y ago
      It might be if the Gates Foundation had funded the study. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-01922-9#Fun https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291...
      - jtdev 6y ago
        Wellcome Trust receives significant funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
    - 542354234235 6y ago
      “Problematic” being the catch all term to throw out rather than make an actual claim. Was the study faulty? Was the funding clandestine or did they attempt to conceal it? Does the Gates foundation support meat reduction for ideological reasons, rather than evidence based ones? Is The Gates foundation an industry that has a vested interest in continuing that industry (like an oil company funding oil benefit studies), and if so, what “industry” is that? What would they stand to lose, or gain, from the outcome of this study? What would they stand to lose or gain from any study, when their goal seems to pretty clearly be based on using the best available evidence to inform their charity programs? Is there anything at all beyond a charity that focuses on evidence based programs funding research to help inform their programs?
thrwyoilarticle 6y ago
In a similar way, if you reduce your meat consumption by 80%, you're 80% of the way to the environmental benefits of a wholly vegan diet. Isn't it easier to convince someone to reduce their meat intake than to eliminate it completely?
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  Probably not. My favorite trivia here is a study which documented that, of people who self-describe as "vegetarian", one third will admit to having eaten meat in the past one (1) week.
  - vlod 6y ago
    That's a broad stroke you're painting! Maybe a lot of people want to try and be a 'vegetarian' (I dunno to sound cool?), try it for 3 months and fail constantly. These aren't vegetarians, just pretentious. I've been a 'veggie' for 25 years and I haven't eaten meat, nor anyone else who I know who are.
  - mleonhard 6y ago
    I eat mostly vegan and I have a bite of meat from my partner's plate about once a week. I want to share in her culinary experiences. A week has 21 meals. If you eat 3 types of food per meal, you will make 63 food choices per week. A person can choose meat for one of those 63 choices (1.6%) and still be a vegetarian. Many folks choose meat for 30% or more of their diet.
    - vlod 6y ago
      I don't know where you get your definition of a vegetarian. Eating meat 1.6% means your NOT a vegetarian, it just means your 'mostly' vegetarian. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with people eating meat, but most vegetarians I know (myself included), who are in it for moral reasons would take offense at that definition.
- oreille 6y ago
  80% of "sometimes" or "not every day" is still "sometimes" and "not every day". People have no clue about how frequently they eat meat. Since vegan and vegetarian diet are gaining traction, everyone is pretending they're being careful and eating less meat than before, yet the global meat consumption is still increasing.
bboylen 6y ago
Thanks for the info. It is apparent to me from living life that meat is a big part of a healthy diet. But it can be frustrating seeing studies such as this one come out and not knowing what to believe. I recently started dating a vegetarian and am really realizing how much harder it is to eat a healthy vegetarian diet. Since no one actually wants to eat nothing but greens / veggies all day, many of her meals are carb heavy to fill up, with little protein. I'm not saying you can't be a healthy vegetarian - but it's harder. There are no good meal analogues for something like grilled chicken with a sweet potato/veggies on the side.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  Vegetarianism has been a (mandatory!) prestige marker in India for at least several hundred years; a traditional diet of that type will be adequately healthy[1]. What's hard is cutting meat out of a meat-based diet. You can't expect to just intuit how to fill the holes it leaves. [1] As with all traditional practices, partial adoption may result in loss of any amount of the benefit, including amounts greater than 100%.
  - galangalalgol 6y ago
    Also applying diets from one genetic cluster in a different one from another climate is asking for trouble. I can process lactose fine, but many can't. Chickpeas and lentils I do not absorb well.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      It is a risk, but it's still true that the Indian vegetarian diet will cover all major dietary needs. And while that's not the most ringing endorsement, it's more than you can say for cutting meat out of a diet that features a lot of meat.
      - galangalalgol 6y ago
        How much dairy protein is in such a diet? A lot of the curries I enjoy have yogurt and I love the cheese and cream in palak and saag paneer. But those may not be normal dishes?
bena 6y ago
The bit about a vegetarian diet being associated with a higher incidence of cancer is kind of jarring to me. As I've always heard that leaning more towards whole/raw foods and more vegetables were better for avoiding cancer. Now that may be because of your top point, most of the meat consumed in the US is processed in some way. I think the biggest culprit of meat-related cancer (?) is preserved meats. I don't know. I just wanted to admit to being a little shocked at the whole vegetarian/cancer link. You often hear the opposite of that.
- onebot 6y ago
  The reality is that there is a difference between vegan/vegetarian and whole food plant based diets. I am sure if you eat beyond burgers (processed meatless patties) everyday, you aren't doing your health any favors. I mean potato chips are vegan. French fries are vegan, etc. The key is whole foods. Unprocessed foods.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    Fun fact: Oreos are vegan, still magically not good for you.
- nvilcins 6y ago
  Most of the vegetarians/vegans I know have a pretty shitty diet - lots of highly processed grains (bread, pasta, and other fillers), sweets, desserts, sugary drinks (and other "regular" products with added sugars), and otherwise not too diverse of a diet. Don't know if that's a representative sample of vegetarian/vegan population, but it's not unlikely the case. Hence, the link between the veg* diet and cancer is not hard to imagine. The main issue with (a lot of) these research papers, other than having bad data to begin with, is the lack of control for other parameters: what exactly do those surveyed meat-eaters and vegetarians eat, and what their lifestyle choices are (e.g., vegetarians are generally more health-conscious, so they often exercise, don't smoke/drink as much, etc.).
  - kranner 6y ago
    > Don't know if that's a representative sample of vegetarian/vegan population, but it's not unlikely the case. There are a lot of vegetarians in India on traditional diets that don't include highly processed foods with added sugar. I think it's safe to say that most Indians eat vegetarian food most of the time. Meat is just something most people in India can't afford everyday.
fabian2k 6y ago
I think this overstates what this single study can say about the effects of a vegetarian diet. The NHS did create a page about that study due to the media attention it got, and they conclude: > Despite the media headlines, the results from this Austrian cross sectional survey provide no proof that vegetarians are in poorer health than meat eaters. https://web.archive.org/web/20200427104728/https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/vegetarians-have-poorer-quality-of-life-study-claims/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200427104728/https://www.nhs.u...
onebot 6y ago
As with most studies there is some criticism about this and how it "changed" overtime: https://jacknorrisrd.com/austrian-vegetarian-study-making-waves/ https://jacknorrisrd.com/austrian-vegetarian-study-making-wa...
ketamine__ 6y ago
From the Austrian food survey study: > Our results revealed that a vegetarian diet is related to a lower BMI and less frequent alcohol consumption Wouldn't you say lower BMI is healthier?
- thisisnico 6y ago
  I would say that the vegetarian diet says more about the person than the diet itself.
- wincy 6y ago
  The study was in Austria, not Australia.
norswap 6y ago
To be honest, the abstract says: > and most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI) > higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations The numbers in the abstract should control for BMI (but not adiposity, i.e. bodyfat percentage). They're probably also too high. To clarify: I'm 100% in agreement with you. I think meat gets a bad rap for bad reasons (one of them being bad science). I just wanted to point out this study did some effort (even if they could have done more) and that does deserve to be said.
- gnramires 6y ago
  One problem some studies suffer is over-control of confounding variables, which excludes secondary causal relationships. For example, if you control for health of arteries, you will find that (insert bad food here) known culprits for heart disease stop causing heart disease -- which would seem absurd. That's because artery health and heart disease are correlated (in this case causally related), so when you control condition one on the other, any causes vanish (completely or partially). In this case in particular they control for BMI. If eating less meat is helpful in lowering BMI, this effect isn't captured by this result. So you have to watch out for this when taking conclusions from a study or making decisions (if you already have a low BMI then you can trust the conclusions better).
52-6F-62 6y ago
B12-deficient crowd here—not just mental health. The potential impact a lack of B12 can have on you physically is catastrophic. I have to be mindful that I make myself eat a steak once in a while. On a regular day my skin lacks a lot of colour these days. If I forget to eat the right things I start to fog up, emotions waver, mood falters, and can even get clumsy. (Couple this with some latent pancreatic problems and it's worse) The unfortunate thing about it, is it tends to progress even if you're making an effort unless you're making enough of an effort and it can be so creeping and insidious as to leave you unaware until you've done irreparable harm to yourself, either by diet or a physical defect. Horrible stuff, this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559316/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559316/ (read: your body will more or less start falling apart)
- __saykou 6y ago
  If you eat meat from industry chances are that your b12 vitamin comes from supplements. B12 supplement is very very cheap and everyone should supplement.
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    While I agree that taking some B12 supplement is probably a good idea for a lot of people, I don't think statements like that can be made so readily. For one, nutritional studies tend to point to whole foods being the way to go to gain the nutrients required by your body because of the vastly complex interplay of absorption and the related catalysts. And in many cases, it's easy to overdo it on specific vitamins, especially when they're isolated and concentrated. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/supplements/art-20044894 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h..., https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WYNTK-Consumer/ https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WYNTK-Consumer/) Secondly, I'm not sure what your first statement is intended to mean. When I eat meat, it's from usually chickens, turkeys, some fish, crustaceans, and occasionally western pig and cow (and even more occasionally, game animals). As always, it's something each person should go over with their doctor—especially vegans or vegetarians who don't want to begin (or return to) eating meat.
Accacin 6y ago
I'll start by saying that I am vegan, but not ignorant. Thank you for the links to studies. I've never before read about B12 and mental health. I do make sure I supplement but I'm going to read these nonetheless.
- wrongdonf 6y ago
  A huge number of diehard carnivores are decades long vegans. Because vegans are the most health conscious people on the planet. This includes Paul saladino, The Godfather of carnivore.

blfr 6y ago

Food surveys and food diaries are hilariously bad[1]. I'm surprised any studies based on them are still getting published. There was literally a reality TV show in England based around how terribly inaccurate food diaries are. It's on YouTube[2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527547/figure/F1/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527547/figure/... [2] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=secret+eaters https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=secret+eaters

jtdev 6y ago
Studies like this are published for political reasons, not scientific reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is behind this study.
- kritiko 6y ago
  The study’s funding is included in the study: Funding This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People - LEAP) [grant number 205212/Z/16/Z]; Cancer Research UK [grant numbers C8211/A19170 and C8211/A29017]; and the UK Medical Research Council [grant number MR/M012190/1]. AP-C is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship [grant number C60192/A28516] and by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the WCRF International grant programme [grant number 2019/1953].
  - scythe 6y ago
    In fairness, he's not far off. The Wellcome Trust was established by a pharmaceutical magnate and is the fourth-richest charitable organization in the world, with an endowment of ~$40bn.
    - kritiko 6y ago
      I think the point was that Bill Gates is believed to be in favor of hyperprocessed meat alternatives & has invested in some. (I don't know the details here - I'm guessing many of his detractors don't know them either.) I'm not sure whether Wellcome has a similar real or perceived conflict of interest. I did think it was interesting that they showed a lower instance of Afib and varicose veins across the meat eaters...
  - themgt 6y ago
    Right so if you look at LEAP[0] they talk about how "global average consumption of meat and dairy is rising, driven by increasing incomes and population growth ... livestock production can have major environmental impacts ... Livestock production is also a major source of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, increases water scarcity in some regions and can exacerbate soil erosion ... LEAP programme aims to understand the health, environmental, social and economic effects of meat and dairy production and consumption to provide evidence and tools for decision makers to promote healthy and sustainable diets" They also have a brief explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGpjeyypKMU&feature=emb_logo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGpjeyypKMU&feature=emb_logo I'm not going to call this a nefarious conspiracy, but in the same way you might wonder about a study funded by Coca Cola, LEAP doesn't sound like they'd want to fund a study concluding "eating beef is much healthier than soy protein" If you combine that with the original criticism about the poor study design, you can come to your own conclusions about whether to reduce your meat consumption. [0] https://www.leap.ox.ac.uk/about https://www.leap.ox.ac.uk/about
xphilter 6y ago
That show is incredible. Thanks for sharing. There’s a corollary with Covid in there somewhere: “we’re taking this so seriously” (but then hanging out with friends etc, like that SNL skit).
User23 6y ago
To further concur, when I was engineering my own body composition improvement plan I quickly learned to completely ignore any study that wasn’t performed in a controlled metabolic ward. Which is, essentially, a voluntary prison. Needless to say participant compensation is considerably more costly than the totally unscientific alternatives so such studies are rare.
- mleonhard 6y ago
  Can you share some links to studies done in a metabolic ward that contradict survey-based studies?
  - User23 6y ago
    I don't have any links handy, this was years ago and I didn't save them. Scholar search or something similar should find you plenty of hits though for metabolic ward. My interest was primarily in nutrient partitioning and thermic effects of food. I want to clarify that I don't claim that survey-based studies necessarily or even predominantly make incorrect claims, just that I am not satisfied with their basis for making such claims.
mywittyname 6y ago
Daily meat consumption is probably something people can gauge with a high degree of accuracy. People in developed countries are probably all-or-nothing unless they are actively trying to reduce their meat consumption while not being vegetarian.

anandrm 6y ago

Its just not about the diet but also lifestyle matters(exercise ,teetotaler,profession) . I am surprised why these studies do not involve that as an index ?

tgb 6y ago
This one does: > In Model 1, we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for race, Townsend deprivation index [20], education, employment, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity, and in women, we additionally adjusted for menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive pill use, and parity. In Model 2, we further adjusted for total fruit and vegetable intake, cereal fibre intake score (calculated by multiplying the frequency of consumption of bread and breakfast cereal by the fibre content of these foods [21]), oily fish intake, and non-oily fish intake. For Model 3, we added adjustment for body mass index (BMI).

jtdev 6y ago

Oh hey, look who funds Wellcome: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database#q/k=wellcome https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Gran...

navbaker 6y ago
Is there an insight we are supposed to gain from this connection?
- jtdev 6y ago
  "Epidemiological study supports assertions of those funding the study" Does that not seem problematic to you?
  - adenadel 6y ago
    It might be if the Gates Foundation had funded the study. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-01922-9#Fun https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291...
    - jtdev 6y ago
      Wellcome Trust receives significant funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
  - 542354234235 6y ago
    “Problematic” being the catch all term to throw out rather than make an actual claim. Was the study faulty? Was the funding clandestine or did they attempt to conceal it? Does the Gates foundation support meat reduction for ideological reasons, rather than evidence based ones? Is The Gates foundation an industry that has a vested interest in continuing that industry (like an oil company funding oil benefit studies), and if so, what “industry” is that? What would they stand to lose, or gain, from the outcome of this study? What would they stand to lose or gain from any study, when their goal seems to pretty clearly be based on using the best available evidence to inform their charity programs? Is there anything at all beyond a charity that focuses on evidence based programs funding research to help inform their programs?

thrwyoilarticle 6y ago

In a similar way, if you reduce your meat consumption by 80%, you're 80% of the way to the environmental benefits of a wholly vegan diet. Isn't it easier to convince someone to reduce their meat intake than to eliminate it completely?

thaumasiotes 6y ago
Probably not. My favorite trivia here is a study which documented that, of people who self-describe as "vegetarian", one third will admit to having eaten meat in the past one (1) week.
- vlod 6y ago
  That's a broad stroke you're painting! Maybe a lot of people want to try and be a 'vegetarian' (I dunno to sound cool?), try it for 3 months and fail constantly. These aren't vegetarians, just pretentious. I've been a 'veggie' for 25 years and I haven't eaten meat, nor anyone else who I know who are.
- mleonhard 6y ago
  I eat mostly vegan and I have a bite of meat from my partner's plate about once a week. I want to share in her culinary experiences. A week has 21 meals. If you eat 3 types of food per meal, you will make 63 food choices per week. A person can choose meat for one of those 63 choices (1.6%) and still be a vegetarian. Many folks choose meat for 30% or more of their diet.
  - vlod 6y ago
    I don't know where you get your definition of a vegetarian. Eating meat 1.6% means your NOT a vegetarian, it just means your 'mostly' vegetarian. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with people eating meat, but most vegetarians I know (myself included), who are in it for moral reasons would take offense at that definition.
oreille 6y ago
80% of "sometimes" or "not every day" is still "sometimes" and "not every day". People have no clue about how frequently they eat meat. Since vegan and vegetarian diet are gaining traction, everyone is pretending they're being careful and eating less meat than before, yet the global meat consumption is still increasing.

bboylen 6y ago

Thanks for the info. It is apparent to me from living life that meat is a big part of a healthy diet. But it can be frustrating seeing studies such as this one come out and not knowing what to believe. I recently started dating a vegetarian and am really realizing how much harder it is to eat a healthy vegetarian diet. Since no one actually wants to eat nothing but greens / veggies all day, many of her meals are carb heavy to fill up, with little protein. I'm not saying you can't be a healthy vegetarian - but it's harder. There are no good meal analogues for something like grilled chicken with a sweet potato/veggies on the side.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
Vegetarianism has been a (mandatory!) prestige marker in India for at least several hundred years; a traditional diet of that type will be adequately healthy[1]. What's hard is cutting meat out of a meat-based diet. You can't expect to just intuit how to fill the holes it leaves. [1] As with all traditional practices, partial adoption may result in loss of any amount of the benefit, including amounts greater than 100%.
- galangalalgol 6y ago
  Also applying diets from one genetic cluster in a different one from another climate is asking for trouble. I can process lactose fine, but many can't. Chickpeas and lentils I do not absorb well.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    It is a risk, but it's still true that the Indian vegetarian diet will cover all major dietary needs. And while that's not the most ringing endorsement, it's more than you can say for cutting meat out of a diet that features a lot of meat.
    - galangalalgol 6y ago
      How much dairy protein is in such a diet? A lot of the curries I enjoy have yogurt and I love the cheese and cream in palak and saag paneer. But those may not be normal dishes?

bena 6y ago

The bit about a vegetarian diet being associated with a higher incidence of cancer is kind of jarring to me. As I've always heard that leaning more towards whole/raw foods and more vegetables were better for avoiding cancer. Now that may be because of your top point, most of the meat consumed in the US is processed in some way. I think the biggest culprit of meat-related cancer (?) is preserved meats. I don't know. I just wanted to admit to being a little shocked at the whole vegetarian/cancer link. You often hear the opposite of that.

onebot 6y ago
The reality is that there is a difference between vegan/vegetarian and whole food plant based diets. I am sure if you eat beyond burgers (processed meatless patties) everyday, you aren't doing your health any favors. I mean potato chips are vegan. French fries are vegan, etc. The key is whole foods. Unprocessed foods.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  Fun fact: Oreos are vegan, still magically not good for you.
nvilcins 6y ago
Most of the vegetarians/vegans I know have a pretty shitty diet - lots of highly processed grains (bread, pasta, and other fillers), sweets, desserts, sugary drinks (and other "regular" products with added sugars), and otherwise not too diverse of a diet. Don't know if that's a representative sample of vegetarian/vegan population, but it's not unlikely the case. Hence, the link between the veg* diet and cancer is not hard to imagine. The main issue with (a lot of) these research papers, other than having bad data to begin with, is the lack of control for other parameters: what exactly do those surveyed meat-eaters and vegetarians eat, and what their lifestyle choices are (e.g., vegetarians are generally more health-conscious, so they often exercise, don't smoke/drink as much, etc.).
- kranner 6y ago
  > Don't know if that's a representative sample of vegetarian/vegan population, but it's not unlikely the case. There are a lot of vegetarians in India on traditional diets that don't include highly processed foods with added sugar. I think it's safe to say that most Indians eat vegetarian food most of the time. Meat is just something most people in India can't afford everyday.

fabian2k 6y ago

I think this overstates what this single study can say about the effects of a vegetarian diet. The NHS did create a page about that study due to the media attention it got, and they conclude: > Despite the media headlines, the results from this Austrian cross sectional survey provide no proof that vegetarians are in poorer health than meat eaters. https://web.archive.org/web/20200427104728/https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/vegetarians-have-poorer-quality-of-life-study-claims/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200427104728/https://www.nhs.u...

onebot 6y ago

As with most studies there is some criticism about this and how it "changed" overtime: https://jacknorrisrd.com/austrian-vegetarian-study-making-waves/ https://jacknorrisrd.com/austrian-vegetarian-study-making-wa...

ketamine__ 6y ago

From the Austrian food survey study: > Our results revealed that a vegetarian diet is related to a lower BMI and less frequent alcohol consumption Wouldn't you say lower BMI is healthier?

thisisnico 6y ago
I would say that the vegetarian diet says more about the person than the diet itself.
wincy 6y ago
The study was in Austria, not Australia.

norswap 6y ago

To be honest, the abstract says: > and most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI) > higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations The numbers in the abstract should control for BMI (but not adiposity, i.e. bodyfat percentage). They're probably also too high. To clarify: I'm 100% in agreement with you. I think meat gets a bad rap for bad reasons (one of them being bad science). I just wanted to point out this study did some effort (even if they could have done more) and that does deserve to be said.

gnramires 6y ago
One problem some studies suffer is over-control of confounding variables, which excludes secondary causal relationships. For example, if you control for health of arteries, you will find that (insert bad food here) known culprits for heart disease stop causing heart disease -- which would seem absurd. That's because artery health and heart disease are correlated (in this case causally related), so when you control condition one on the other, any causes vanish (completely or partially). In this case in particular they control for BMI. If eating less meat is helpful in lowering BMI, this effect isn't captured by this result. So you have to watch out for this when taking conclusions from a study or making decisions (if you already have a low BMI then you can trust the conclusions better).

52-6F-62 6y ago

B12-deficient crowd here—not just mental health. The potential impact a lack of B12 can have on you physically is catastrophic. I have to be mindful that I make myself eat a steak once in a while. On a regular day my skin lacks a lot of colour these days. If I forget to eat the right things I start to fog up, emotions waver, mood falters, and can even get clumsy. (Couple this with some latent pancreatic problems and it's worse) The unfortunate thing about it, is it tends to progress even if you're making an effort unless you're making enough of an effort and it can be so creeping and insidious as to leave you unaware until you've done irreparable harm to yourself, either by diet or a physical defect. Horrible stuff, this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559316/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559316/ (read: your body will more or less start falling apart)

__saykou 6y ago
If you eat meat from industry chances are that your b12 vitamin comes from supplements. B12 supplement is very very cheap and everyone should supplement.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  While I agree that taking some B12 supplement is probably a good idea for a lot of people, I don't think statements like that can be made so readily. For one, nutritional studies tend to point to whole foods being the way to go to gain the nutrients required by your body because of the vastly complex interplay of absorption and the related catalysts. And in many cases, it's easy to overdo it on specific vitamins, especially when they're isolated and concentrated. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/supplements/art-20044894 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h..., https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WYNTK-Consumer/ https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WYNTK-Consumer/) Secondly, I'm not sure what your first statement is intended to mean. When I eat meat, it's from usually chickens, turkeys, some fish, crustaceans, and occasionally western pig and cow (and even more occasionally, game animals). As always, it's something each person should go over with their doctor—especially vegans or vegetarians who don't want to begin (or return to) eating meat.

Accacin 6y ago

I'll start by saying that I am vegan, but not ignorant. Thank you for the links to studies. I've never before read about B12 and mental health. I do make sure I supplement but I'm going to read these nonetheless.

wrongdonf 6y ago
A huge number of diehard carnivores are decades long vegans. Because vegans are the most health conscious people on the planet. This includes Paul saladino, The Godfather of carnivore.