NIH Statement on Vegetarianism

tigersword

The second study directly stated that occasional meat consumers were healthier than complete vegetarians and vegans. From the article:

Comparing these three categories, occasional meat consumers seem to have opted for the healthiest diet, i.e. the observed lowered mortality risk cannot be attributed to complete abstention from meat and fish.

So the second study actually refuted VegesaurusRex's entire argument of a no meat diet being healthier.

I totally disagree with your out of context quote. Why don't you read the conclusion, or would you like me to post it?

Which conclusion, this one?

Results: Standardized mortality ratios for all-cause mortality was significantly below 100: 59 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 54-64], predominantly due to a deficit of deaths from circulatory diseases. Within the cohort, vegetarian compared with nonvegetarian diet had no effect on overall mortality [rate ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36], whereas moderate and high physical activity significantly reduced risk of death (RR, 0.62, 0.64), adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, body mass index, and educational level. Vegetarian diet was however associated with a reduced RR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41-1.18) for ischemic heart disease, which could partly be related to avoidance of meat.

Conclusions: Both vegetarians and nonvegetarian health-conscious persons in this study have reduced mortality compared with the general population. Within the study, low prevalence of smoking and moderate or high level of physical activity but not strictly vegetarian diet was associated with reduced overall mortality. The nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart diseases in vegetarians compared with health-conscious persons could be explained in part by avoidance of meat intake.

Notice the bolded parts, both of which state that the diet choice had no impact on mortality.

Okay, please explain to me what the last line means.

The last line? The one that starts with "nonsignificant?" You are a scientist, you know what nonsignificant means. It means nothing. Also, it means they had a slightly lower rate of dying of heart disease, they died of something else instead. It stated mortality rates were the same, so are you splitting hairs? If one person dies of heart disease, and another person dies of cancer, is one really healthier than the other? No.

tigersword

That's not even the right study. You are insulting other people for their reading comprehension, and yet, you're not even talking about the same study I am.

I quoted the abstract of the study:

Lifestyle Determinants and Mortality in German Vegetarians and Health-Conscious Persons: Results of a 21-Year Follow-up
Jenny Chang-Claude1, Silke Hermann1,3, Ursula Eilber1 and Karen Steindorf2
+ Author Affiliations

1Division of Clinical Epidemiology, 2Unit of Environmental Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany and 3Unilever Health Institute, Vlaardingen, the Netherlands
Requests for reprints:
Jenny Chang-Claude, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Phone: 496-224-422373; Fax: 011-49-6221422203. E-mail: j.chang-claude@dkfz-heidelberg.de
Abstract

Background: The long-term observation of vegetarians in affluent countries can provide insight into the relative effects of a vegetarian diet and lifestyle factors on mortality.

Methods: A cohort study of vegetarians and health-conscious persons in Germany was followed-up prospectively for 21 years, including 1,225 vegetarians and 679 health-conscious nonvegetarians. Standardized mortality ratios compared with the German general population were calculated for all causes and specific causes. Within the cohort, Poisson regression modeling was used to investigate the joint effects of several risk factors on overall and cause-specific mortality.

Results: Standardized mortality ratios for all-cause mortality was significantly below 100: 59 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 54-64], predominantly due to a deficit of deaths from circulatory diseases. Within the cohort, vegetarian compared with nonvegetarian diet had no effect on overall mortality [rate ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36], whereas moderate and high physical activity significantly reduced risk of death (RR, 0.62, 0.64), adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, body mass index, and educational level. Vegetarian diet was however associated with a reduced RR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41-1.18) for ischemic heart disease, which could partly be related to avoidance of meat.

Conclusions: Both vegetarians and nonvegetarian health-conscious persons in this study have reduced mortality compared with the general population. Within the study, low prevalence of smoking and moderate or high level of physical activity but not strictly vegetarian diet was associated with reduced overall mortality. The nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart diseases in vegetarians compared with health-conscious persons could be explained in part by avoidance of meat intake.

You mentioned 2 different studies. I was refuting the "vegetarians are smarter study" you posted here, which was the FIRST link you posted, hence "the first study." Again, reading comprehension.

Drunkadelic

So, um, what does this mean then?

Among those who had taken vegetarianism to its logical conclusion (“gone the whole hog,”, as it were) and become vegan (no animal products), mean IQ scores were lower. On average, vegans had a childhood IQ score that was nearly 10 points lower than other vegetarians: mean (SD) IQ score 95.1 (14.8) in vegans compared with 104.8 (14.1) in other vegetarians (P=0.04)

http://www.bmj.com/content/334/7587/245.full

VegesaurusRex

That's not even the right study. You are insulting other people for their reading comprehension, and yet, you're not even talking about the same study I am.

If you look care to review what I posted, I actually referred to three studies altogether. The one you are talking about also has this paragraph:

According to a study carried out by the Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (German Cancer Research Center), vegetarians have a dramatically lowered mortality risk. 100 deaths to be statistically expected in the age group of study participants are matched by only 59 real deaths in vegetarians. Looking at male participants only, the positive effect - with only 52 actual deaths - is even more pronounced.

tigersword

AGAIN, THAT'S NOT THE STUDY I WAS REFERRING TO.

I was referring to THIS ONE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6180753.stm

Considering you posted these links, shouldn't you be able to recognize the actual quotes from the articles? Or did you not actually read them first?

Or did you really think that the letters "IQ" in the quote I posted was a typo?

VegesaurusRex

So, um, what does this mean then?

Among those who had taken vegetarianism to its logical conclusion (“gone the whole hog,”, as it were) and become vegan (no animal products), mean IQ scores were lower. On average, vegans had a childhood IQ score that was nearly 10 points lower than other vegetarians: mean (SD) IQ score 95.1 (14.8) in vegans compared with 104.8 (14.1) in other vegetarians (P=0.04)

http://www.bmj.com/content/334/7587/245.full

You seem to be very fond of selective posting. What you fail to notice is that vegetarians and vegan both had higher IQs than meat eaters. Here is the actual conclusion:

Conclusion Higher scores for IQ in childhood are associated with an increased likelihood of being a vegetarian as an adult.

Drunkadelic

If you look care to review what I posted, I actually referred to three studies altogether. The one you are talking about also has this paragraph:

According to a study carried out by the Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (German Cancer Research Center), vegetarians have a dramatically lowered mortality risk. 100 deaths to be statistically expected in the age group of study participants are matched by only 59 real deaths in vegetarians. Looking at male participants only, the positive effect - with only 52 actual deaths - is even more pronounced.

OHHHHHH! I didn't realize vegetarianism decreased risk of death!!! Hold the phone: I have to go rid my fridge of death promoting cow meat.

VegesaurusRex

AGAIN, THAT'S NOT THE STUDY I WAS REFERRING TO.

I was referring to THIS ONE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6180753.stm

Considering you posted these links, shouldn't you be able to recognize the actual quotes from the articles? Or did you not actually read them first?

Or did you really think that the letters "IQ" in the quote I posted was a typo?

No, I have not memorized all three studies. It would be useful if you included cites with your quotes.

VegesaurusRex

If you look care to review what I posted, I actually referred to three studies altogether. The one you are talking about also has this paragraph:

According to a study carried out by the Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (German Cancer Research Center), vegetarians have a dramatically lowered mortality risk. 100 deaths to be statistically expected in the age group of study participants are matched by only 59 real deaths in vegetarians. Looking at male participants only, the positive effect - with only 52 actual deaths - is even more pronounced.

OHHHHHH! I didn't realize vegetarianism decreased risk of death!!! Hold the phone: I have to go rid my fridge of death promoting cow meat.

Yup. That is exactly what you should do.

Drunkadelic

So, um, what does this mean then?

Among those who had taken vegetarianism to its logical conclusion (“gone the whole hog,”, as it were) and become vegan (no animal products), mean IQ scores were lower. On average, vegans had a childhood IQ score that was nearly 10 points lower than other vegetarians: mean (SD) IQ score 95.1 (14.8) in vegans compared with 104.8 (14.1) in other vegetarians (P=0.04)

http://www.bmj.com/content/334/7587/245.full

You seem to be very fond of selective posting. What you fail to notice is that vegetarians and vegan both had higher IQs than meat eaters. Here is the actual conclusion:

Conclusion Higher scores for IQ in childhood are associated with an increased likelihood of being a vegetarian as an adult.

Oh dang it - I must have missed that memo! drats.

But back to the study. Here is the last paragraph of the discussion (not conclusion - since this journal article has no conclusion section).

Alternatively it is possible that the link between childhood IQ and vegetarianism in later life is not on a causal chain of mechanisms related to health. People with a higher IQ may well differ from those with less superior brain power in many of their lifestyle decisions: for instance, choice of newspaper, type of books read, preferred form of entertainment. The association between IQ and vegetarianism may be merely an example of many other lifestyle preferences that might be expected to vary with intelligence but which may or may not have implications for health.

tigersword

So, um, what does this mean then?

Among those who had taken vegetarianism to its logical conclusion (“gone the whole hog,”, as it were) and become vegan (no animal products), mean IQ scores were lower. On average, vegans had a childhood IQ score that was nearly 10 points lower than other vegetarians: mean (SD) IQ score 95.1 (14.8) in vegans compared with 104.8 (14.1) in other vegetarians (P=0.04)

http://www.bmj.com/content/334/7587/245.full

You seem to be very fond of selective posting. What you fail to notice is that vegetarians and vegan both had higher IQs than meat eaters. Here is the actual conclusion:

Conclusion Higher scores for IQ in childhood are associated with an increased likelihood of being a vegetarian as an adult.

The issue I take with this study is the statistically tiny sample size of vegetarians, compared to non vegetarians. Even including the people who ate fish and chicken as "vegetarians" you're looking at taking an average of 366 people compared to an average of 7804 people. The numbers are nowhere close to being even. When you have several thousand more people involved, it's very easy to bring an average down. It really seems more coincidental than convincing. I mean, less than 5% of the entire study group were vegetarians. I just can't see drawing any kind of real conclusion from that. I could easily pick 5% of non-vegetarians out of the entire study, and probably have a higher IQ show up, compared to vegetarians. It's just not balanced enough to draw any kind of real conclusion.

VegesaurusRex

So, um, what does this mean then?

Among those who had taken vegetarianism to its logical conclusion (“gone the whole hog,”, as it were) and become vegan (no animal products), mean IQ scores were lower. On average, vegans had a childhood IQ score that was nearly 10 points lower than other vegetarians: mean (SD) IQ score 95.1 (14.8) in vegans compared with 104.8 (14.1) in other vegetarians (P=0.04)

http://www.bmj.com/content/334/7587/245.full

You seem to be very fond of selective posting. What you fail to notice is that vegetarians and vegan both had higher IQs than meat eaters. Here is the actual conclusion:

Conclusion Higher scores for IQ in childhood are associated with an increased likelihood of being a vegetarian as an adult.

The issue I take with this study is the statistically tiny sample size of vegetarians, compared to non vegetarians. Even including the people who ate fish and chicken as "vegetarians" you're looking at taking an average of 366 people compared to an average of 7804 people. The numbers are nowhere close to being even. When you have several thousand more people involved, it's very easy to bring an average down. It really seems more coincidental than convincing. I mean, less than 5% of the entire study group were vegetarians. I just can't see drawing any kind of real conclusion from that. I could easily pick 5% of non-vegetarians out of the entire study, and probably have a higher IQ show up, compared to vegetarians. It's just not balanced enough to draw any kind of real conclusion.

Fair enough. You think the sample is too small because the veggie population is only 5% the size of the non-veggie population. However, statistically, this is valid. National political polls are often done with 1000 or less samples from the entire US population. And in any event, only 2% of the American population is vegetarian, so in fact the vegetarian sample is more representative of the vegetarian population than a random sample would be.

I think from what I have read that this sample is statistically valid.

stephvaile

quote
The issue I take with this study is the statistically tiny sample size of vegetarians, compared to non vegetarians. Even including the people who ate fish and chicken as "vegetarians" you're looking at taking an average of 366 people compared to an average of 7804 people. The numbers are nowhere close to being even. When you have several thousand more people involved, it's very easy to bring an average down. It really seems more coincidental than convincing. I mean, less than 5% of the entire study group were vegetarians. I just can't see drawing any kind of real conclusion from that. I could easily pick 5% of non-vegetarians out of the entire study, and probably have a higher IQ show up, compared to vegetarians. It's just not balanced enough to draw any kind of real conclusion.
Edited by tigersword on Sat 07/07/12 09:04 PM

now i,m sorry but this were i get angry people who eat fish / chicken are not a vegetarian in any term at all (sorry guys just had to say that lol) but it really annoys me people who claim to be veggie and yet eat meat yes fish and chicken are meat

VegesaurusRex

quote
The issue I take with this study is the statistically tiny sample size of vegetarians, compared to non vegetarians. Even including the people who ate fish and chicken as "vegetarians" you're looking at taking an average of 366 people compared to an average of 7804 people. The numbers are nowhere close to being even. When you have several thousand more people involved, it's very easy to bring an average down. It really seems more coincidental than convincing. I mean, less than 5% of the entire study group were vegetarians. I just can't see drawing any kind of real conclusion from that. I could easily pick 5% of non-vegetarians out of the entire study, and probably have a higher IQ show up, compared to vegetarians. It's just not balanced enough to draw any kind of real conclusion.
Edited by tigersword on Sat 07/07/12 09:04 PM

now i,m sorry but this were i get angry people who eat fish / chicken are not a vegetarian in any term at all (sorry guys just had to say that lol) but it really annoys me people who claim to be veggie and yet eat meat yes fish and chicken are meat

I agree with you. They are not vegetarians.

_VoV

quote
The issue I take with this study is the statistically tiny sample size of vegetarians, compared to non vegetarians. Even including the people who ate fish and chicken as "vegetarians" you're looking at taking an average of 366 people compared to an average of 7804 people. The numbers are nowhere close to being even. When you have several thousand more people involved, it's very easy to bring an average down. It really seems more coincidental than convincing. I mean, less than 5% of the entire study group were vegetarians. I just can't see drawing any kind of real conclusion from that. I could easily pick 5% of non-vegetarians out of the entire study, and probably have a higher IQ show up, compared to vegetarians. It's just not balanced enough to draw any kind of real conclusion.
Edited by tigersword on Sat 07/07/12 09:04 PM

now i,m sorry but this were i get angry people who eat fish / chicken are not a vegetarian in any term at all (sorry guys just had to say that lol) but it really annoys me people who claim to be veggie and yet eat meat yes fish and chicken are meat

Someone who still eats chicken or fish isn't vegetarian. Maybe they aren't eating red meat, but they are still eating meat.

tigersword

Which is why I said that study wasn't valid. They intentionally included people who ate fish and chicken as vegetarians.

Steven

I am TEMPORARILY locking this thread while I remove the personal attacks and insults. It will be unlocked again when the violations have been removed.

I strongly urge those who cannot participate in the vegetarian/meat-eater debate without attacking others to simply step away. We are at a zero-tolerance level for guideline violations these days. Users who have received a single warning about the guidelines will be receiving subsequent strikes.

I dare to offer that it is not worth being banned for the forums just so that you could fire back a retort to another user about what he or she eats. Really, not worth it.

Steven
MyFitnessPal Staff

Steven

OK, I've removed (hopefully) all of the sound-and-fury signifying nothing.

Can we please keep this civil? Further warranted reports of crap appearing in this thread will probably result in it being locked permanently.

And PLEASE.. For the love of Pete PLEASE... before anyone starts shouting that the mods lock Veggie threads whenever the vegetarians are "winning," there's no "winning" in a mud-slinging contest. Everyone ends up coated in muck.

We lock the threads when they stop generating useful content and devolve into nastiness. Today, I took the time (over an HOUR) to clear this thread, warn those who needed warning, and open it up again. It would have been a FAR better use of my time to just leave it locked, but we TRY not to roll that way.

Now play nicely, or go outside.

Steven