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

Pretty damning report for the health of vegetarians. At least Austrian vegetarians.

Vegetarians may have a lower BMI and drink alcohol sparingly, but vegetarian diets are tied to generally poorer health, poorer quality of life and a higher need for health care than their meat-eating counterparts.

A new study from the Medical University of Graz in AustriOverall, vegetarians were found to be in a poorer state of health compared to other dietary groups. Vegetarians reported higher levels of impairment from disorders, chronic diseases, and “suffer significantly more often from anxiety/depression.”

a finds that vegetarians are more physically active, drink less alcohol and smoke less tobacco than those who consume meat in their diets. Vegetarians also have a higher socioeconomic status and a lower body mass index. But the vegetarian diet — characterized by a low consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol that includes increased intake of fruits, vegetables and whole-grain products — carries elevated risks of cancer, allergies and mental health disorders.

Vegetarians were twice as likely to have allergies, a 50 percent increase in heart attacks and a 50 percent increase in incidences of cancer.

The researchers conclude: “Our study has shown that Austrian adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy (in terms of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), have a lower quality of life, and also require more medical treatment.”

Full article: http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/ ... c.facebook

How refreshing to hear "the rest of the story"!

The problem is chicken or egg? Many people go vegetarian in order to deal with chronic health issues.

I guess I need to see if they broke down by reason for going vegetarian. Are they people who became vegetarian while young and healthy? Are they comparing East Indian vegetarians to East Indian non vegetarians or the same class and lifestyle? Did they include vegans?

I'd like to know what they eat, how it's cooked, how they measure nutrients, etc... If you only eat salad, you'll be thin and aesthenic, but not always strong or healthy.

Good point, Blackspinner! Vegetarian and vegan diets are heavily promoted to heart patients.
We may indeed ask, " Does the tail wag the dog?"
An Adventist friend's mother suffered from painful osteoporosis--
even though there is plenty of hype (?) that adequate calcium is available in the right vegan diet.
Obviously some foods/drugs are not allowed.
Dairy, canned sardines or salmon (including the bones)'
and do not forget premarin--a disquieting animal product indeed.

chunkyfrog wrote:How refreshing to hear "the rest of the story"!

This study is hardly the rest of the story. And in no way is it a "damning report" because it is almost devoid of substantive information to justify its conclusion.

It was a cross-sectional survey study (participants were not studied over time) where people self-reported their lifestyle, dietary habits, and symptoms/health issues. 40% of the study participants were under 30 years old.

The authors of the study (not the news story about the study) report:

Participants described their dietary habit, without interviewers giving a clear definition of the various eating categories. Since, overall, only 2.2% of all participants consumed a vegetarian diet, these individuals were analyzed as one dietary habit group.

And of that 2.2%, only 0.2% were pure vegetarians. 0.8% were vegetarians consuming milk and eggs, and 1.2% consumed fish and/or eggs and milk. So what the authors are reporting as "vegetarians" was really a mixed group of eaters, and even then, combined they represented only a tiny percentage of the whole study sample.

And

Another limitation concerns the lack of detailed information regarding nutritional components (e.g. the amount of carbohydrates, cholesterol, or fatty acids consumed).

This is not a minor limitation, it's a major limitation. The lack of any information about the nutritional makeup of the participants' diets (remember, one can be a vegetarian eating junk food and 40% of the study participants were not more than twenty-something years old) make this study near impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from.

The researchers also acknowledge the obvious limitation of this and of all cross-sectional studies, that they can find only associations and not causal relationships.

The study authors' conclusions statement that "Our study has shown that Austrian adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy (in terms of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), have a lower quality of life, and also require more medical treatment." is an enormous leap and really inflates the informational value of the study. And the journalists who titled their piece "Study: Vegetarians Less Healthy, Lower Quality Of Life Than Meat-Eaters" grossly overstated both the results and the implications of this study. Media hype there. It really is not a "damning report" at all.

If we want to know something about how dietary habits affect health and quality of life, we need to look at some good longitudinal studies with real defined variables and objectively measurable outcomes.

This is sort of like this one

http://popperfont.files.wordpress.com/2 ... achute.pdf

Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related
to gravitational challenge: systematic review of
randomised controlled trials

Parachutes are widely used to prevent death and
major injury after gravitational challenge
Parachute use is associated with adverse effects
due to failure of the intervention and iatrogenic
injury
Studies of free fall do not show 100% mortality

No randomised controlled trials of parachute use
have been undertaken
The basis for parachute use is purely observational,
and its apparent efficacy could potentially be
explained by a “healthy cohort” effect
Individuals who insist that all interventions need
to be validated by a randomised controlled trial
need to come down to earth with a bump

Only two options exist. The first is that we accept that,
under exceptional circumstances, common sense
might be applied when considering the potential risks
and benefits of interventions. The second is that we
continue our quest for the holy grail of exclusively
evidence based interventions and preclude parachute
use outside the context of a properly conducted trial.
The dependency we have created in our population
may make recruitment of the unenlightened masses to
such a trial difficult. If so, we feel assured that those
who advocate evidence based medicine and criticise
use of interventions that lack an evidence base will not
hesitate to demonstrate their commitment by volun-
teering for a double blind, randomised, placebo
controlled, crossover trial

On the other hand, vegetarians can get some pretty spectacular dishes.

Check this recipe out.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0LYe_6gkbfQ/U ... 018624.JPG

http://persimmonandpeach.blogspot.com/2 ... uille.html

I've made it twice now and it is incredible and not a single bit of meat in it (at least the way I made it!)

BlackSpinner wrote:This is sort of like this one

That was great! And no one should miss "The Etiology and Treatment of Childhood," published in the hilarious "Journal of Polymorphous Perversity" many years ago. Don't forget to read the references too, they're great!

http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/at ... ldhood.pdf

Sheffey, why is that? Gimmee MEAT! Slaughter 'em and devour their carcass medium rare (hogs, chicken and hamburger, well done).

As a meat eater, all I can say in response to this report is YES while pumping my fist.

Question: What do carnivores eat?
Answer: Vegetarians.

Vegans make me feel uncomfortable & appear emaciated . Give me a corn fed New York Strip med rare, a (cold) St Paulie Girl please......ALL THINGS IN MODERATION !
Ein Prost !
tim

kaiasgram wrote:

chunkyfrog wrote:The authors of the study (not the news story about the study) report:

Participants described their dietary habit, without interviewers giving a clear definition of the various eating categories. Since, overall, only 2.2% of all participants consumed a vegetarian diet, these individuals were analyzed as one dietary habit group.

And of that 2.2%, only 0.2% were pure vegetarians. 0.8% were vegetarians consuming milk and eggs, and 1.2% consumed fish and/or eggs and milk. So what the authors are reporting as "vegetarians" was really a mixed group of eaters, and even then, combined they represented only a tiny percentage of the whole study sample.

While this is true, it doesn't negate the fact that this is what people do when they "go vegetarian." Junk food is eaten, they cheat with eggs and dairy (it's not meat!), and they generally don't cook. This isn't a problem with just vegetarians. Most "diets" that people go on tend to promote junk food, which is why most diets fail.

Can vegetarianism be healthy if done right? I still say no. Eating a purely vegetarian diet - with real, whole foods and preparing every meal - still doesn't provide all the nutrients that we need. Dead animals are a necessary part of our diet.

Now, the same could be said about omnivorous diets as well - lots of junk food, no one cooks, etc. So, when the next "Eating Meat Will Kill You" study comes out, we should all apply the same common-sense reasoning to it as well.

In a word, BOLLOCKS!

But I"ll go a bit further. I've been vegetarian for several years, nearly entirely vegan for 2 (exceptions for a small amount of dairy or egg in restaurant dishes.) I am hardly unhealthy as a result of it. Just the opposite, which is true of MOST vegetarians and vegans today.

If you eat nothing but Fritos, you're technically vegetarian, and yes, you will be unhealthy. Nobody ever said you didn't have to eat a balanced diet, whether you eat flesh or not.

Simple facts: Eating meat leads to congested arteries and heart attacks. Eating eggs leads to unacceptably higher levels of the wrong kinds of cholesterol. Drinking cow's milk as an adult gives some people indigestion and acid reflux, among health problems. It is also high in sugars, leading to weight and blood glucose problems.

Debunking a few myths:

"Man evolved to be the smartest being on the planet because of a high protein diet." False. If flesh were necessary, the lion would be the most intelligent creature on the planet.

"Where do you get your protein from?" An adult human only needs about 3% of his diet to be protein -- and you can get that from iceberg lettuce. Consider this: There are few more powerful beings than mountain gorillas. They have LONG fangs, massive muscular bodies, a plethora of hair, and eat leaves and the incidental bug that's on those leaves. Elephants? Tough hide, huge mass, lots of power.. another vegetarian, and both quite bright. Vegans do just fine eating black beans, nuts, etc. for protein.

We evolved as hunter-gatherers. Bunk. Consider this: with today's computer-designed bows and perfectly straight arrows, we are still relatively unsuccessful in hunting with that weapon. Early man had arrows which were far less straight, bows far less accurate or powerful. It's far more likely that we started eating carrion. We most certainly are not physically equipped with weapons for flesh. Our nails and "canines" can't even get through a rabbit's thin skin very well. Gatherers? Sure. But the notion of man as a great hunter? Even the picts on cave walls were not an accurate rendition, but brags, most likely of a prowess we did not actually possess.

To eat healthy takes a bit of work and thought. We didn't eat much bread until 100 years or so ago, because milling the flour was a lot of work. A family might have one loaf of bread a week. Same thing with sugar. Sugar cane was unknown to most of the world until fairly recently. We had honey, molasses, and fruit for sweetening. High fructose corn syrup (which is about like running an IV of glucose into your vein) isn't used in Mexico, Africa, and not heavily used in Europe. It's inexpensive in the US, owing to all the corn we grow in the grain belt, which is why it is used. Why is it bad? Even cane sugar takes some time and effort to be broken down. High fructose corn syrup is just about a mainline, and overwhelms our pancreas and other systems.

What does a veg*n eat? EVERYTHING else. What we're leaving off the menu is really very little. We don't eat cow, pig, chicken or fish. Most people in the States don't eat fish much anyway. Lamb and goat are even less common. So most of you have already been eating a lot of vegetarian food already.

Are we healthier? You bet. Ask any legit source. And the animals are most definitely healthier. And the planet as well, because it is a HUGE burden to try to feed 7 billion people meat when it takes 15 pounds of grain and 2500 gallons of fresh water to make a pound of hamburger.

It's really not all that hard to do, either. Let me know if you have any questions. As to all the smartass comments, I'll ask you to ask yourself why you're so bent out of shape, so offended by people NOT eating something, NOT wanting to kill other living, thinking feeling beings unnecessarily. Why does that compassion bother you so much?