4 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 resea
by 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.