3 ms·
The original (peer reviewed, etc) research was submitted in liu of a journalistic news story for increased submission quality.[1] The conclusion of that researc
by 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 agohttp://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.
- 001sky 13y agoThis is a good point, but misleading. The relevant qualifications are obvious (as to the study co-hort). On the substance of your point, however, I appreciate the comments. A discussion of the limitations of the study cohort and methodology is certainly a good discussion topic. I would caution the notion "americans" are superiour at being vegetarian. Other cultures are more natively vegetarian. EG, The Indian Sub-continent and Bhuddists in Nepal, etc. And have genetic and cultural adaptations much longer in gestation as a result. Also, context switching doesn't solve the key issue: non-vegetarians veg-native cultures also self-selct. Ethnic variation is also a vexing problem in this area because of phenotypic variation (race, lactose tolerance etc) linked with health. A study of vegetarian-dominant cultures may show something entirely different. Yet also not be applicable to the US population.
- leobabauta 13y agoI didn't say Americans are superior at being vegetarian. I said they're a much larger group with a longer culture of being aware of issues like B12, etc. That's factual.