6 ms·

Vegetarians Less Healthy, Lower Quality Of Life Than Meat-Eaters

9 points by 001sky 13y ago

mikekij 13y ago
It seems like there are a lot of variables that need to be controller for here. For example, do people who adopt a vegetarian diet DEVELOP depression and mental illness? I doubt it. Much more likely that those people who are predisposed to emotional issues for whatever reason gravitate disproportionally to a vegetarian diet. I've been vegetarian for 20 years, but the health aspects of the diet are only about 10% of why I chose to be a vegetarian. I bet that's true for a large number of vegetarians.
- zurn 13y ago
  Yep. People going veg for environmental and/or animal ethics reasons are usually living in a society that's not aligned with their conviction. Principled would be one word for it.
eberfreitas 13y ago
This might be a reaaally noob question but I wonder if any of that is related with the use of pesticides in food?
- pan69 13y ago
  Maybe a noob answer but I don't think so. Most vegans and vegetarians I know are pretty aware of this and only buy organic. Then again, please consider the hormones and other crap supermarket meat is pumped full of..
lutusp 13y ago
I offer the usual warning to those who might think this study represents a real scientific finding -- it studies the health of people who have already chosen to be vegetarians or meat-eaters, it doesn't control for the source or reason for that choice. This means the study suffers from the problems that plague all "retrospective" studies, studies of populations who have already made their choices for unknown reasons. It is this lack of control that calls any meaningful conclusions into question. A prospective study by contrast, obviously totally impractical, would empanel subjects who would be randomly made to eat either vegetables or meat, and the results would be carefully examined. That might be science, this is not.
- tylerritchie 13y ago
  > A prospective study by contrast... That might be science, this is not. Woah there. Science n. the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through _observation_ and experiment. This paper does not cover a double-blind randomized controlled-trial. That does not mean that a retrospective matched sample studies are not science. The conclusions are actually pretty reasonable for this type of study they essentially say "we need to make sure the nutrition of vegetarians is adequate, in Austria," "we also need to study this more, in Austria." The different in abundance for mental illness is pretty striking, and seems worth investigating. Previous studies (e.g. [1]) have also linked low-fat diets to change in mental state, the outstanding control-intervention literature combined with retrospective studies make a compelling argument for further research. All that said, the link-bait HN title is pretty bad. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9505799 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9505799
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Science n. the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through _observation_ and experiment. Wait -- you're going to rely on a dictionary definition of science? Dictionaries don't define words, they can only report how people use words. This is why, as just one example, literally and figuratively mean the same thing -- because that's how people choose to use those words. > This paper does not cover a double-blind randomized controlled-trial. That does not mean that a retrospective matched sample studies are not science. Yes, in point of fact, that is exactly what it means -- it cannot distinguish causes from effects, and it cannot produce reliable conclusions about nature, or lead to testable, falsifiable theories about nature. > The conclusions are actually pretty reasonable for this type of study ... Yes, that is absolutely correct -- they're "pretty reasonable for this type of study". No dispute. In science -- real science, not the dictionary version -- observations must successfully isolate the thing being studied, and this is something that retrospective studies cannot do. The study links vegetarianism to certain health issues, just as puddles are successfully linked to rain. Science is not description, science is explanation -- explanations that are tentative, and that are open to falsification. Without a theory about an observation (an explanation) there can be no science. > Previous studies (e.g. [1]) have also linked ... There's my favorite pop-science buzzword: "linked". When unscientific people hear "linked", they think a cause-effect relationship has been established. But that's not what "linked" means, it's what the public thinks it means. It's the same with literally and figuratively -- they are also regularly confused by an ignorant public. > The different in abundance for mental illness is pretty striking, and seems worth investigating. You're missing the point that mental health issues might be a cause of vegetarianism, not an effect, or both vegetarianism and poor mental health are the result of some tertiary cause this study doesn't address. Until an explanation is offered and then tested, until causes and effects can be unraveled, it's the most sordid kind of data mining, and it's ... not ... science.
leobabauta 13y ago
Only 0.2% of the interviewees were actually vegetarian. It would be hard to generalize based on such a small group.
- leobabauta 13y ago
  There's also a large body of research that contradict the findings of this study, just fyi. Just one example (there are many more): http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/june2013/06102013vegetarian.htm http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/june2013/06102013vegetari...
dang 13y ago
Please don't rewrite article titles like this.
- 001sky 13y ago
  The original (peer reviewed, etc) research was submitted in liu of a journalistic news story for increased submission quality.[1] The conclusion of that research reads: "Overall, our findings reveal that vegetarians report poorer health, follow medical treatment more frequently, have worse preventive health care practices, and have a lower quality of life." Which is unfortunately too long for HN submission, but is the (in fact, verbatim) published summary. A revised headline might read, Without any substantial editorialization or modification of meaning: "Vegetarians report poorer health...and...lower quality of life." Aruably the word "report" is more neutral than "have", but is substantially similar to the submission. All that being said if you guys want to change it...it is absolutely your perogotive. Its just hard to avoid making certain compromises (imperfect title or imperfect article). This is unfortunately one of those corner cases IMHO. It goes without saying that the published academic title ishopelessly vague for anyone not already familiar with the results. To wit: "The Association between Eating Behavior and Various Health Parameters: A Matched Sample Study" Has infinite degrees of freedom. [1] An third party edited and published title highlight what it is 'newsworthy' (ie, this is not self edited). The original research was submitted (ie, mismatched) to increase the quality and availability of the information provided to readers.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    http://jezebel.com/meaty-new-study-plunges-steak-into-vegetarians-are-h-1557211055 http://jezebel.com/meaty-new-study-plunges-steak-into-vegeta... http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-less-healthy-lower-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters/ http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-les...
  - leobabauta 13y ago
    > The original (peer reviewed, etc) research was submitted in liu of a journalistic news story for increased submission quality.[1] The conclusion of that research reads: >"Overall, our findings reveal that vegetarians report poorer health, follow medical treatment more frequently, have worse preventive health care practices, and have a lower quality of life." Actually that's not what the research concludes. You left out "Austrian adults who eat a vegetarian diet". That's different than American vegetarians, who are a much larger group with a different and longer culture of being aware of issues like B12, etc.
gradi3nt 13y ago
I wonder if everyone's quality of life would drop if everyone ate the amount of meat per person consumed in Austria. Could our environment even support it?

9 points by 001sky 13y ago

It seems like there are a lot of variables that need to be controller for here. For example, do people who adopt a vegetarian diet DEVELOP depression and mental illness? I doubt it. Much more likely that those people who are predisposed to emotional issues for whatever reason gravitate disproportionally to a vegetarian diet. I've been vegetarian for 20 years, but the health aspects of the diet are only about 10% of why I chose to be a vegetarian. I bet that's true for a large number of vegetarians.

zurn 13y ago
Yep. People going veg for environmental and/or animal ethics reasons are usually living in a society that's not aligned with their conviction. Principled would be one word for it.

eberfreitas 13y ago

This might be a reaaally noob question but I wonder if any of that is related with the use of pesticides in food?

pan69 13y ago
Maybe a noob answer but I don't think so. Most vegans and vegetarians I know are pretty aware of this and only buy organic. Then again, please consider the hormones and other crap supermarket meat is pumped full of..

lutusp 13y ago

I offer the usual warning to those who might think this study represents a real scientific finding -- it studies the health of people who have already chosen to be vegetarians or meat-eaters, it doesn't control for the source or reason for that choice. This means the study suffers from the problems that plague all "retrospective" studies, studies of populations who have already made their choices for unknown reasons. It is this lack of control that calls any meaningful conclusions into question. A prospective study by contrast, obviously totally impractical, would empanel subjects who would be randomly made to eat either vegetables or meat, and the results would be carefully examined. That might be science, this is not.

tylerritchie 13y ago
> A prospective study by contrast... That might be science, this is not. Woah there. Science n. the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through _observation_ and experiment. This paper does not cover a double-blind randomized controlled-trial. That does not mean that a retrospective matched sample studies are not science. The conclusions are actually pretty reasonable for this type of study they essentially say "we need to make sure the nutrition of vegetarians is adequate, in Austria," "we also need to study this more, in Austria." The different in abundance for mental illness is pretty striking, and seems worth investigating. Previous studies (e.g. [1]) have also linked low-fat diets to change in mental state, the outstanding control-intervention literature combined with retrospective studies make a compelling argument for further research. All that said, the link-bait HN title is pretty bad. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9505799 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9505799
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Science n. the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through _observation_ and experiment. Wait -- you're going to rely on a dictionary definition of science? Dictionaries don't define words, they can only report how people use words. This is why, as just one example, literally and figuratively mean the same thing -- because that's how people choose to use those words. > This paper does not cover a double-blind randomized controlled-trial. That does not mean that a retrospective matched sample studies are not science. Yes, in point of fact, that is exactly what it means -- it cannot distinguish causes from effects, and it cannot produce reliable conclusions about nature, or lead to testable, falsifiable theories about nature. > The conclusions are actually pretty reasonable for this type of study ... Yes, that is absolutely correct -- they're "pretty reasonable for this type of study". No dispute. In science -- real science, not the dictionary version -- observations must successfully isolate the thing being studied, and this is something that retrospective studies cannot do. The study links vegetarianism to certain health issues, just as puddles are successfully linked to rain. Science is not description, science is explanation -- explanations that are tentative, and that are open to falsification. Without a theory about an observation (an explanation) there can be no science. > Previous studies (e.g. [1]) have also linked ... There's my favorite pop-science buzzword: "linked". When unscientific people hear "linked", they think a cause-effect relationship has been established. But that's not what "linked" means, it's what the public thinks it means. It's the same with literally and figuratively -- they are also regularly confused by an ignorant public. > The different in abundance for mental illness is pretty striking, and seems worth investigating. You're missing the point that mental health issues might be a cause of vegetarianism, not an effect, or both vegetarianism and poor mental health are the result of some tertiary cause this study doesn't address. Until an explanation is offered and then tested, until causes and effects can be unraveled, it's the most sordid kind of data mining, and it's ... not ... science.

leobabauta 13y ago

Only 0.2% of the interviewees were actually vegetarian. It would be hard to generalize based on such a small group.

leobabauta 13y ago
There's also a large body of research that contradict the findings of this study, just fyi. Just one example (there are many more): http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/june2013/06102013vegetarian.htm http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/june2013/06102013vegetari...

dang 13y ago

Please don't rewrite article titles like this.

001sky 13y ago
The original (peer reviewed, etc) research was submitted in liu of a journalistic news story for increased submission quality.[1] The conclusion of that research reads: "Overall, our findings reveal that vegetarians report poorer health, follow medical treatment more frequently, have worse preventive health care practices, and have a lower quality of life." Which is unfortunately too long for HN submission, but is the (in fact, verbatim) published summary. A revised headline might read, Without any substantial editorialization or modification of meaning: "Vegetarians report poorer health...and...lower quality of life." Aruably the word "report" is more neutral than "have", but is substantially similar to the submission. All that being said if you guys want to change it...it is absolutely your perogotive. Its just hard to avoid making certain compromises (imperfect title or imperfect article). This is unfortunately one of those corner cases IMHO. It goes without saying that the published academic title ishopelessly vague for anyone not already familiar with the results. To wit: "The Association between Eating Behavior and Various Health Parameters: A Matched Sample Study" Has infinite degrees of freedom. [1] An third party edited and published title highlight what it is 'newsworthy' (ie, this is not self edited). The original research was submitted (ie, mismatched) to increase the quality and availability of the information provided to readers.
- 001sky 13y ago
  http://jezebel.com/meaty-new-study-plunges-steak-into-vegetarians-are-h-1557211055 http://jezebel.com/meaty-new-study-plunges-steak-into-vegeta... http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-less-healthy-lower-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters/ http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-les...
- leobabauta 13y ago
  > The original (peer reviewed, etc) research was submitted in liu of a journalistic news story for increased submission quality.[1] The conclusion of that research reads: >"Overall, our findings reveal that vegetarians report poorer health, follow medical treatment more frequently, have worse preventive health care practices, and have a lower quality of life." Actually that's not what the research concludes. You left out "Austrian adults who eat a vegetarian diet". That's different than American vegetarians, who are a much larger group with a different and longer culture of being aware of issues like B12, etc.

gradi3nt 13y ago

I wonder if everyone's quality of life would drop if everyone ate the amount of meat per person consumed in Austria. Could our environment even support it?