0611C2
Vegetarians are less healthy than meat-eaters, a controversial study has concluded, despite drinking less, smoking less and being more physically active than their carnivorous counterparts. As expected, people are in an uproar about the results.
0611C5
The study, conducted at Medical University of Graz in Austria found that the vegetarian diet carries elevated risks of cancer, allergies and mental health problems such as depression and anxiety.
Based on comprehensive data from the Austrian Health Survey, researchers examined the dietary habits and lifestyle differences between meat-eaters and vegetarians.
The more than 1300 subjects were cross-referenced according to their age, sex, and socioeconomic status to minimize external variables.
Overall, the comprehensive study found that while vegetarians drank less alcohol, ate fewer calories, and had lower body mass indexes they were still suffered from poorer overall physical and mental health across all ages.
Vegetarians were also found to have poorer overall health practices, such as missing more doctors appointments, skipping preventative check-ups, and avoiding recommended vaccines for themselves and their children, according to the study.
It concluded: “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.”
Epidemiologist and study coordinator Nathalie Burkert said: “We did find that vegetarians suffer more from certain conditions like asthma, cancer and mental illnesses than people that eat meat as well, but we cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect.
“There needs to be further study done before this question can be answered.”
Sounds like the answer is simple… BACON!
http://tribunist.com/news/vegetarians-have-a-lower-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters-researchers-say/
>>49528
Get fucked, vegfags
>I eat healthier so therefore I don't need to exercise or go to the doctor as often
>Dies
The study is worded in a way that suggests it's based on pseudoscientific logic rather than conventional reasoning:
>Overall, the comprehensive study found that while vegetarians drank less alcohol, ate fewer calories, and had lower body mass indexes they were still suffered from poorer overall physical and mental health across all ages.
>Vegetarians were also found to have poorer overall health practices, such as missing more doctors appointments, skipping preventative check-ups, and avoiding recommended vaccines for themselves and their children, according to the study.
In other words, the subjects had poor health practices to begin with. Being a vegetarian isn't necessarily a correlating factor, so much as the subjects' own refusal to get regular checkups and be proactive about their health and the health of those around them. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation The conclusion could have been based on literally *any* other factor that the subjects happened to have in common.
It wouldn't be any surprise if people attracted to concepts like "alternative medicine" had some overlap with vegetarians. Of course such individuals would be more likely to ignore early warning signs of cancer, and instead insist on faith-based medicine, or some similar nonsense. Modern medicine doesn't do us any good if we choose not to take advantage of it.
study is here for those who want it
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088278
>>49533
according to the link I put here, the subjects were categorized by socioeconomic status/sex/age
in the statistical analysis section, I quote
>To address the bias of lifestyle factors impacting health, analyses of variance were calculated, controlling for the aforementioned lifestyle variables (BMI, physical activity, smoking behavior, and alcohol consumption).
Controlling for this kind of variable is expected in these studies.
I think the results are interesting and not so surprising. I'd love see them reproduced or challenged by other studies.
>>49528
Imagine if they did this study in the USA though.
>>49528
how is this news? It;s always been like this.
We have flat and serrated teeth for a reason
athletes tend to be very unhealthy as well and almost always die younger than non active people.
Interesting chart. Makes me wonder if the study is confusing the cause and the effect. At least to my understanding, in most cases asthma and allergies begin in early childhood whereas unless you're raised by vegetarian parents(which would have been pretty damn rare in Europe when the participants were children), you only become vegetarian as a teenager at the earliest.
>2006/2007
>news
>>49533
An abstract of the study is here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917888/
If you read the research paper, you will find that the sample size of vegetarians was very small and further complicated by a conflicting definitions of "vegetarian". The match of elevated incidence of the health concerns that OP mentions appear in the report. However, OP did not mention health benefits that match vegetarianism.
The purpose of the research was to note trends in health concerns for public planning—not to promote a change in eating habits.
Disclosure: I am a vegetarian, but not for health reasons.
>>49599
Hmmm. I've met a few athletes that stayed healthy and a few that lapsed into an un-athletic lifestyle with the expected health problems. I noticed that both groups have a similar tolerance or drive to go beyond physical pain. I have wondered if pushing the limits and dismissing warning signals might be responsible for calamitous early death?
>>49528
Nothing surprising really here. I mean all of you guys can tell a vegetarian when you see them. They usually look scrawny and u healthy as fuck
>>49528
>studies from Austria
>some third world shit hole
Why do scientists waste time studying shitholes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that you'll die in some poor irrelevent shitholex
>>49528
Maybe they tested hippies
Interesting results but they look far from conclusive. Would be interested in further examinations.
>>49955
>scientist lives on planet
>studies planet
>why are you studying that shitty planet
>>49528
>elevated risks of mental health problems
>still suffered from poorer overall mental health across all ages.
>“Our study has shown that Austrian adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy (in terms of mental health disorders)”
>Epidemiologist and study coordinator Nathalie Burkert said: “We did find that vegetarians suffer more from mental illnesses
Well duh, mental problems are why these retards became vegetarians in the first place.
Fucking Bullshit. We do not need meat. I eat meat as much as I try not to. The ways in which we kill animals are so Fucking inhumane and causing more serious diseases than cancer. There are many natural ways to heal yourself. The Healthcare system and the meat industry are all for money. You need to consume more than just veggies to be a vegetaria. Haha vegfags? You are the epitome of my 'depression' that can be cured with mind altering docile drugs. Do your own god damn research. Let's take down the franchises we don't need. Or will you continue to feed the parasites? Let's start a revolution. I'm so Fucking ready. We have the power.
>>50387
they weren't kidding when they said vegetarians have more mental health problems
>>50390
You aren't worth half the words you typed. Most people have mental health issues and don't know how to overcome them without prescriptions. Move along worthless docile zombie. Go eat the carcass of life. Drink from the teat of a half dead cow, calcifying your half dismembered brain.
>>50390
Probably going mental from the diseases of this world. The over consumption of meat we could raise and slaughter ourselves. From the close minded tumors of blind trends. Meat isn't bad. It's how we go about it that we need to stop. It's inhumane and unsanitary. There will be a price to pay. And no one will have enough money for it.
This article's strength of evidence close to zero.
Secondary analysis of a big prospective cohort study (over 10years and 450k people included) found a 20% reduction of mortality in vegetarian diets.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/131/Suppl_1/A16.short
You're just delusional if you think eating bacon is healthier than eating vegetables.
>>49955
Austria is better than the US m8, first world, have guns, don't get shot.
That being said, of fucking course its healthier to have a well rounded diet, people have eaten meat for fucking centuries and now you have hippies going OUT OF THEIR WAY to not eat it (of course some people have health related reasons to not eat meat but that's besides the point)
>>50409
Bacon has its benefits it just that people often eat too much. I think the major problem is that at least in the US a lot of people eat low quality meats, there is no way abstaining from it completely is healthier though, no way, humans are made to eat meat, made to.
>>50410
>>50411
It is a certitude that the average american diet is unhealthy, there is no serious controversy about it.
>no way abstaining from it completely is healthier though, no way, humans are made to eat meat, made to.
But I just point you a study proving the exact opposite. This is not the only cohort studying diet and morbidity, and most of them lean toward no-meat diets.
I really don't know why people would assume that man needs to eat flesh in the first place. It makes sense that man had to eat meat in an environment where food resources were scarce. Agriculture is only very recent in human history, and hunting was an easy way to get a bunch of calories.
But why would that imply that we require meat in an environment providing for our nutritional needs where meat-exclusion is sustainable?
>>50415
Your study isn't even strictly vegetarian m8, its literally saying you should eat your veggies and not abuse meat, but that there is no further advantage to be gained from a strong adherence to just eating veggies
>>49676
Oh good, seeing as you are invested in your lifestyle, and that it's important to you, i can go ahead and discount your opinion
>>49676
I wouldn't say 330 people is very small. That's gigantic.
As for the rest, it's all in the paper as you said.
>>50418
>implying the same logic doesn't apply to you
>>50453
I choose my diet for health
>>49614
2014
Buttstill 2 years old
You really should mention that this is only in Austria, as the title implies this applies to all veggies.
>>50521
Are you saying that Austrian vegetarians are different to red blooded American vegetarians?
>>50551
not the anon your are responding to.
There certainly may be differences in lifestyle, differences in vegetarian diets across cultures, differences in knowledge on how to make up for the lack of protein, restaurant options, and so on.
There could certainly be cultural differences that create differences in effects of "being vegan." Just the same as there could be differences between vegans in Portland and vegans in Kansas City. How big are these differences? Well shit, apply for an NIH grant and replicate the study in a different place and find out for us.
>>50555
Or maybe they thought of that already
>Analyses of variance were conducted controlling for lifestyle factors in the following domains: health (self-assessed health, impairment, number of chronic conditions, vascular risk), health care (medical treatment, vaccinations, preventive check-ups), and quality of life. In addition, differences concerning the presence of 18 chronic conditions were analyzed by means of Chi-square tests.
This though
http://www.godfist.com/vegansidekick//guide/
>>50569
No one is saying it is a bad study, however, it is a study on a population in Austria not a study on Americans, Spanish, Danish, or Russian. The sample is not representational of vegans as a whole, it is representational of Austrian vegans and only vegans in Austria. However, it provides a good jumping off point to create a study on American vegans. American vegans could be equal, worse, or better than their Austrian counterparts, we don't know until we do a study on the Americans.
For a sample to be representational of a population everyone in that population needs an equal chance of being selected into the sample (i.e. it is random) and of course sample size matters as well. Americans had no chance of being in this sample, so it would be incorrect to say it is representational of American vegans.
The researchers controlled for a lot of factors within the nation but even ignoring the above statement about sampling, it doesn't look like they controlled for anything related to cross-cultural differences.
>>50583
>It's a reasonable sized sample from people in a first world nation, it is representative of such subjects, if you want to say that the average American is better educated, more health conscious, or even as literate, then you would be sorely mistaken.
Don't you see what you're doing? You're deciding the study isn't valid because it doesn't line up with the way you view the world. Normally when presented with evidence that contradicts one's understanding of the world, one would change the way they think the world works.
Tbh you see this all the time, when something becomes a part of who someone is as a person they will jump through a hell of a lot of mental hoops to justify it. Vegans and vegetarians are no different in this regard.
>>50387
Salty vegfag spotted.
I wonder if they took into account 90% of the vegetarians had AIDS?
>>50409
actually you're delusional.
You have been presented unbiased facts and you refuse to believe them because the facts didn't fit your falsely affirmed assumptions.
Fat, cholesterol, saturated fats are good and are much healthier than your high carb diet.
>>49528
Can confirm. I've been a vegetarian for 10 years and I've been miserable for most of it.
Well from my understanding if you eat meat you actually have a much higher risk of getting cancer and also have a higher chance of getting sick. Meat has a lot of cholesterol which gets in your body when you eat it. The problem is that your body can't use all of it. The cholesterol then stores it self in your arteries and when you eat too much meat there is a higher chance that it will clog your arteries. Some of the cholesterol will be stored in other parts of your body but it takes years for the body to convert it and get it out.
>>50736
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw
You'll probably turn off your brain because of the source but this segment was made especially for you.
>unbiased facts
lol scientific journalism is universally crap. Stop uncritically believing in things just because some journalist spun a story the way you wanted to hear it.
>>50415
Did you even read your own study? Doesn't sound like it. The study you linked doesn't support your claim.
We don't have to drive cars or read either, nor did we have to figure out how to steep tea and brew beer. But we did.
We made agriculture and altered our life as we know it. Can't go back now.
Just because something just werks doesn't mean it works the best. The longest lived concentration of people in the world in Okinawa do not exclude meat or carbs or gluten from their diets. Neither does my 93 year old grandmother, whose only health issue is eye related. >>51544
>accusses someone of something then does the very same thing.
Hilarious.
>>50736
This guy is right. Keto diet is best diet.
Vegetarians are chill
>>51576
That is due to how little energy they have, their bodies are slowly shutting down.
just fuck my alternative lifestyle up fam
>>51544
you might like http://www.jir.com/ - The Journal of Irreproducible Results
>>50617
You seem to be so invested in proving something that you are unable to take an objective look at how sampling works and when someone can say a sample is representational of a population. Here is a solid and easy explanation of various sampling methods. (Skip to probability sampling.)
http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/rlatham/Coursework/5377(Quant))/Sampling_Methodology_Paper.pdf
1) The first line in the post you are responding to states that it is not a bad study. No one said the study isn't valid. Instead, it has been stated multiple times that the study is a study of Austrian vegans and the Austrian sample is representative of an Austrian population and no other population. For the study to be representational of all first world citizens the sample would need more than one first world nation. In fact, everyone from the first world would need an equal chance of being selected for the sample. Do you think if we did a study of Finnish meat-eaters it would be representational of American meat-eaters? (The correct answer is no. Finnish meat eaters are not representational of American meat eaters.)
2) As stated above in the previous post this study provides a strong foundation for a study on American vegans. Who could very well have similar results or they could have very different results. However, due to cultural differences (which relate to diet, choice in foods, local eateries, etc.) we do not know how different or similar the two groups are? What you could do is go find us a journal article on Americans and report back.
3) Your assumptions are pretty wild anon. I don't really care if people choose to eat meat or not. I choose to eat meat, but even if I did not. There is NOTHING in any of the previous posts that present bias in any direction. In fact, the post you are responding to says, American vegans could be worse, better, or the same, which is about as neutral as it can get.
Read the brief summary of sampling focus on the probability section.
>>51811
It's not a big assumption that people in Austria and USA are similar, it really isn't
I chose to be a vegetarian because of my poor health, I guess that means not eating meat caused my problems
>>51924
Talk to a doctor instead of relying on the internet for medical tips.
>>51579
>meat gives you energy
lol
>>51860
>hasn't taken science since highschool
>>51860
science isnt your strong point. despite anon giving you a solid answer and a solid link to help you understand sampling you still dont get it.
>>51935
>>51939
Solid bait lad, but what's important is that this is actually a within group comparison, which makes your uninformed bleating about how different Austria could be quite irrelevant
I suppose this is my fault for not being more clear in my previous post, so I'll spell it out for you
I see no compelling reason why this wouldn't be the same for Americans, because any difference between Austrian vegetarians and American vegetarians will exist for normal Austrians and normal Americans too
>>51945
"Moreover, the study was based in Austria, and the Austrian diet and lifestyle significantly differs from the American diet and lifestyle." - Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rosspomeroy/2014/04/08/study-links-vegetarian-diet-to-poorer-health-lower-quality-of-life-but-be-skeptical/#7051cd983e1a
>no compelling reasons
>this is like saying there are no compelling reason to believe a poll in Mississippi would have different results than Maine.
>not understanding how sampling works. read the fuck link.
except differences in obesity, differences in life expectancy, differences in diet, differences in culture, differences in infant mortality rates, differences, differences in health care systems, differences, in culture, in lifestyle, in all sorts of things. To believe that Austrians can represent any population other than Austrians is fucking retarded.
>>51947
>still not understanding the difference between a within group and an among group comparison
If that's your own coursework that you linked you should probably study more statistics before you try to lecture someone about it
I'll try being even more clear for you, but this is the last time
Any difference in obesity, life expectancy, diet, culture, infant mortality rates, health care systems, culture again (lel), lifestyle, and as you say, all sorts of things, that exists between American vegetarians and Austrian vegetarians, will exist the same between regular Americans and regular Austrians
>>51951
>doesn't take the word of the conservative leaning and reputable news source Forbes
>doesn't take the word of an academic paper with citations in it on how citations work
>tries insult anon and accuse him of writing the paper as a misguided hope to discredit it. (who the fuck would be dumb enough put any identifying information on 4chan? no one).
Anon you are hopeless. You should be embarrassed.
>Any difference that exists between American vegetarians and Austrian vegetarians, will exist the same between regular Americans and regular Austrians.
Did that make sense to you when you wrote it? Cause it makes zero sense.
"The study includes only an Austrian sample who may have different dietary, health and lifestyle habits from other countries."
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/04April/Pages/Vegetarians-have-poorer-quality-of-life-study-claims.aspx
"The researchers conclude: “Our study has shown that Austrian adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy" - (notice how they don't try and say anything about any other country).
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-less-healthy-lower-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters/
Anon you are simply wrong and you don't understand the simple concept of representation. A sample of Austrians ONLY represents an Austrian population. It may offer hypotheses about other nations but it cannot represent a population that was not in the sample. That isn't how statistics work. A sample of New Yorkers does not and cannot represent a Alabama population. I'm not sure why this is hard for you to comprehend.
>>52023
Not sure what work you did. All the posts have the same argument over and over again with >>51951 who is a complete dunce.
>Sample only represents Austrians. That is how samples and populations work.
>However, the study it creates an interesting foundation for a study on other vegans that may be healthier, less healthy, or the same.
We won't know how similar or different vegan populations are in other areas until other studies are done. This is research methods 101.
>>52038
t. first year university student
>>52070
Considering he can make a point and use evidence to support it he is years ahead of you. You could probably use a couple more years of high school so you could eventually speak with the adults.
>>52093
Considering he can't into a simple concept like between groups vs among groups comparisons I think I'm pretty much in the clear
Literally 100 level statistics
Anyway he conceded the point so there's nothing grained by trying to help him any more
>>52129
Whoops, I mean within vs among
>>52129
Three points were established from your bait posts.
1) You do not understand sampling or what representation means.
2) No evidence, academic links, reasoning, words from the authors themselves or a Forbes (a solid conservative news source) will get you to understand that you are wrong and do not understand representation.
3) The only thing I am willing to concede is that your bait posts did a great job of getting me to respond. 11/10 anon. You did a great job of walking the line between being the arrogant retard and the obvious troll.
>>52149
You seem upset
>>52155
how upset can someone be if they are congratulating the troll that baited them into responding multiple times and not falling into the standard low level insults /news/ and /pol/ are known for?
