I also posted a similar article on my Facebook. That article is located here. I now have two vegetarian friends or pseudo-friends who are, essentially, very unhappy I've posted this. One began attacking comments in the article. She was right; if you read the CBS article, the last sentence is a garbled mash of nonsense. However, I had already looked up the actual study, published here and pointed out that her objections to my link were based solely on the strength of the article and not the study itself, which she could read (and I linked it). She actually got at least her master's, if not her doctorate, in a scientific field and I thought she would be interested to read the study. I called it a "classic case of 'we have found a bunch of correlations but we cannot say a vegetarian diet caused anything we have observed, really.' "
Instead she refused to address any of the scientific shortcomings of the study, despite having what I know to be a much more solid background in statistics than I. I would have been very interested if she could actually make a real argument. Instead, she bowed out.
My other friend is simply asking if the article is a joke and calling it bullshit. She is not offering anything helpful, either.
As this has occurred I have been struck with the thought that this is perhaps a great example of the phenomena where people who already have opinions, are using what they see to back up their judgments. Anti-vacciners actually become more anti-vaccine when presented with facts about vaccines and/or the dangers of not vaccinating. My friends are refusing to look at evidence (now backed up by multiple studies; I have checked the first study's sources) because they are vegetarian and emotionally invested in the topic.
I, on the other hand, love meat, love eating meat, and recently had a bad time dating a vegan (couple of months ago). Maybe I am also just posting this article because it reflects my opinion and makes me happy. Maybe there are real flaws. But no one is bothering to point them out to me.
What do you think, Hubski?
So a few things. 1) The abstract of the study states "...the aim of our study was to analyze differences between different dietary habit groups in terms of health-related variables." That's a very different thing than saying "the aim of our study was to analyze differences between different DIETS in terms of health-related variables." So we're talking about vegetarians... not a vegetarian diet. And we're talking about girls only, for all intents and purposes - 40% under 30, 76% female. If you wanted to take a swing at a meat-free diet, this isn't how you'd do it. If you wanted to conclude that young vegetarian women are less healthy than they think they are, bam. FTA:
2) Moby put a little factoid in the liner notes of one of his albums arguing that one cow consumes as many resources as like five acres of wheat or something like that. Yeah, Moby, but I only have to eat one cow. That's the point. Predators exist because herbavores are excellent concentrators of nutrients and energy. That's why ungulates stand out in the middle of a field chewing all goddamn day but lions only mosey out from under the trees every couple days to work up a sweat and tear up some flesh. Adventurers have relied on hardtack and pemmican for millennia, not fruits and berries. If you had to map the Louisiana Purchase without depending on meat you'd be fucked. 3) There are advantages to a vegetarian lifestyle from a health perspective but you really have to work at it. My wife has vegetarian patients regularly - women who are building babies without eating meat. And unlike non-pregnant vegetarians, these women get regular blood tests and health examinations... which means my wife can quote their own lab results when she says "you're gonna need a lot more protein." It's a slog matching a vegetarian diet to a carnivorous diet nutrient-for-nutrient. Calorie-for-calorie? No sweat. Carbs are everywhere. Protein's a bitch, though. Nuts are no match for fish. Fish is no match for chicken. Chicken is no match for pork. And beef? beef's got some protein. My vegetarian friends tend to be pragmatic vegetarians - when they're overseas, they eat meat because being a vegetarian in Vietnam or Thailand is a laughable pursuit. You just can't find the protein. We've got pointy teeth. We've got a digestive system evolved to process high concentrations of fat and protein. That doesn't mean we have to eat meat, but if we don't, we're at a disadvantage. That disadvantage typically manifests itself as increased cost, increased effort and increased vigilance. Should you lack any of these three you end up with a substandard nutritional balance and a substandard nutritional balance leads to health concerns. This study doesn't say "a vegetarian diet is unhealthy" it says "the people surveyed had poorer health outcomes the less meat they ate." We're also talking exclusively about Austrians. I don't know that much about the Austrian diet, but if it's anything like the Swiss diet, avoiding meat is a stone-cold bitch. Might as well be in Vietnam. Your friends might very well be those uber-healthy vegetarians that have a perfectly balanced diet. If so, good on 'em. Let 'em be offended. They might not be, though. It's been my experience (and, vicariously, my wife's experience, 'cuz she's worked with a lot of vegetarian women and looked at a lot of data) that vegetarians tend to be less healthy than they think they are because they underestimate the amount of energy they're getting from carbs and overestimate the amount of nutrients their diet provides. And that's pretty much what the study says - "you're not as healthy as you think" not "the core philosophy of your diet is flawed."Therefore, public health programs are needed in order to reduce the health risk due to nutritional factors.
| I don't know that much about the Austrian diet, but if it's anything like the Swiss diet, avoiding meat is a stone-cold bitch. As a Swiss vegetarian, I have no idea what you are talking about. They even sell Quorn here (a meat substitute from funghi). Plus, meat is super expensive. I'd say being a vegetarian here is as easy or as hard as in the rest of the western world. Being vegan could be super hard though, you'd have to avoid all the great cheese... As for the study: I think it is interesting, and if it was shown that a vegetarian diet is indeed detrimental to health, I would consider eating meat every now and then. However, as many already mentioned, the paper does not even make this point. It's unfortunate they did not ask the vegetarians why they are vegetarians and at least mention how many of them follow a vegetarian diet for health reasons.
Cool, thank you. I hadn't considered that your wife's perspectives could be helpful here. To be honest, I've been vegetarian at times in the past. I've also had friends that were told by their doctors that they needed to start eating meat because they were anemic, or their protein levels (however that is measured) were too low. I've read a fair amount of literature about vegetarianism, including stuff by crazy ex-vegans who say that everyone who claims to be a vegan really "cheats" and that it doesn't work - that stuff, probably mostly craziness, maybe some small element of truth. It is fucking hard to be vegan. I knew a guy who was vegan from birth, raised by his vegan parents, and I'd still turn around every once in a while and be like "You eat this? But it's totally not vegan..." and blow something out of his acceptable foods...because, fuck, I read a lot. About varied subjects, especially what I'm interested in. I did note that the study was of Austrians - although among the study's sources is a study of Australian women that also finds that vegetarians tend to have higher rates of mental issues. That was one of the more interesting points the study made, and they provide three sources - but I haven't had the time, or really the incliation, to go read three more studies on the topic. I gave it a full enough read and look at the sources to understand that, even if my friends were outraged, and giving what I understood of statistics, the findings of the study were still present. oky has raised some valid points that are all reasonably comprehensible to me and that I appreciate as providing additional insight.
Haha, brings back memories. I was at a late night diner with my ex years ago, and there wasn't much vegetarian on the menu. She ordered a bowl of lemon rice soup. Thoughtfully to my mind, I piped up that it was made with chicken broth. She looked at me with the "I'm hungry" death eyes, and said, "Why would you say that? You know I'm hungry!" And spent the rest of the night being a bitch to me.I've read a fair amount of literature about vegetarianism, including stuff by crazy ex-vegans who say that everyone who claims to be a vegan really "cheats" and that it doesn't work - that stuff, probably mostly craziness...
I'd wonder about causation. Does a vegetarian diet drive you crazy - or are crazy people more likely to eat vegetarian? Ritual restriction plays a big part in lots of mental illness so it's a tough one to separate. The study itself draws some pretty pure points - of the people they surveyed, the vegetarians were less healthy. Extending that out into some bombastic Daily Mail shitshow is inappropriate but drearily predictable. More often than not, you can improve your health by eating less meat. Improving your health by eating no meat is trickier. I generally eat beef only once or twice a week and try to go for a meat-free day once a week or so. I'd eat a lot more fish if I didn't live in Los Angeles, which has exactly zero understanding of fish. As in most things, pragmatism is your best approach, I think.I did note that the study was of Austrians - although among the study's sources is a study of Australian women that also finds that vegetarians tend to have higher rates of mental issues.
So, not the Australian study, but there was a study of German participants, and they found actually that participants were likely to have mental instability before adopting a vegetarian diet. I like the Michael Pollan approach. Meat as a side dish, not a main; less meat, but not no meat.
Epidemiological studies must always be approached with extreme caution. They are extremely difficult to design. Controls are always a result of compromise, and proper interpretation requires a comprehensive understanding of the design, and its limitations. kleinbl00 makes a good point that the study addresses the people with these diets, and not the diets themselves. Of course, the intention is that effects of the diets are detected in the statistics, but at best they cannot take us to the realm of causation. They can only hint to it to a degree, limited by the context of the design and the analysis. On a personal note, I have to say that when I have gone for extended periods without meat, I get a mild, yet genuine sense of euphoria when I do eat some. I expect that this is not the case for most people, however, whether due to my own dietary history, or my genetics, or both, I feel better when I have access to a moderate amount of meat. Although the study matched for social economic status, it would be interesting to see if the results were similar for each of the three SES as they defined them.Potential limitations of our results are due to the fact that the survey was based on cross-sectional data. Therefore, no statements can be made whether the poorer health in vegetarians in our study is caused by their dietary habit or if they consume this form of diet due to their poorer health status. We cannot state whether a causal relationship exists, but describe ascertained associations.
"Believing is seeing." But really, this study appears not to even try to make a claim about cause and effect. It certainly is an interesting correlation, and either way could have an interesting causal relationship. I can say anecdotally that many of my friends and family (but by no means all) who are vegetarians are naturally given to depression of bipolarism. I think that there's something about that state that makes one more sensitive to animals. But on the other side, there are certainly a lot of nutrients in animals that aren't present in high concentrations in plants. I'm a huge advocate of eating fat, for example. I think fat suffered a terrible PR stretch in the 70s and 80s from which it has never recovered. There have been a few epidemiological studies that have come out recently in favor of fat, and I suppose this one may support that growing body of evidence, as well. Fuck skim milk. Would anyone ever eat a "skim avocado"? Terrible idea.
|this study appears not to even try to make a claim about cause and effect But isn't that a good choice, considering the limitations of the study? It would be very difficult to prove that a diet caused any of these effects. Things like mental health have so many potential contributing factors, from genetics, to home environment, etc, that it would be very difficult to sift through and pinpoint one single cause or even one factor that provably increased the chance of mental instability. At least, this is according to what I know of Science. It's an interesting result, however, which is why it's (slightly) news-worthy. I find it interesting also that my vegetarian friends are so offended by it; while I reposted it because I found it interesting, I certainly wasn't trying to pinpoint those individuals and say that they have lower qualities of life. I mean, studies also show that cigarette smokers are more inclined to have depression, especially if they are women, and studies show that if you have tattoos you are more likely to have major depressive episodes in your life (or at least I've heard about studies of both) - but if a friend posted a link, I wouldn't get offended by it: I would accept it. I have heard of this. (Maybe that predispositions me to be accepting of it.) I don't feel it's a personal attack. Maybe for these friends the results hit too close to home. It's not like either the study or any of the articles say "Stop being vegetarian and you will be happier/your quality of life will improve!"
Yes. We should never make claims of fact that we don't know to be true. The authors of the study know this, and I'm sure they've been careful to say, "here are the data", not let's figure out why this is the case. The media are typically the ones who get in the way. Yes, but they are probably already sensitive, because people probably tell them from time to time that their life choice is stupid. They likely see it as an attack on their lifestyle, and can't see it as just an interesting dataset. It's like if you're a Christian, and I tell you of a new study that says that Jesus probably wasn't a historical figure. You might get bent out of shape about it, even though there might be other good reasons why being a Christian works for you. Not a perfect analogy, but I think there are some parallels.But isn't that a good choice, considering the limitations of the study?
I find it interesting also that my vegetarian friends are so offended by it; while I reposted it because I found it interesting, I certainly wasn't trying to pinpoint those individuals and say that they have lower qualities of life.
As this has occurred I have been struck with the thought that this is perhaps a great example of the phenomena where people who already have opinions, are using what they see to back up their judgments.
I believe this is referred to as confirmation bias, right ?
I am an omnivore but come from a family of vegetarians, vegans, hypochondriacs, depressives, folks with OCD, Bipolor people, a brother that is most likely gots the borderline personality. Of course none of these traits are uncommon in my home country of Ahedonia. I say if there is causality it goes Crazy -> Vegetarian
The funny part is that being a vegetarian is possibly more healthy but being crazy sure isn't.