from the world's big
Vegetarian diet is associated with poorer health, Austrian researchers say
Could vegetarianism actually lead to a lower quality of life?
Every month an onslaught of new nutrition news dominates the health blogosphere. Fish will kill you. Fish are heart-healthy. Coconut oil is like manna from heaven. Coconut oil will definitely give you a heart attack. Red meat is the devil, unless it's raw, in which case you can survive solely from it. Kelp. And so on.
Part of the challenge of reading the studies this news is based on — and, often, not based on at all — is recognizing that small sample groups do not always make for solid science. This is especially true with our diets, as environment, activity level, and genetics all play a role in how we interact with our food choices. Some people simply process certain foods better than others. There is no singular ideal diet.
Michael Pollan's famous advice — “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." — has become an oft-repeated mantra of the modern era. The first part is a reminder to eat actual food, not the processed chemistry dominating supermarket shelves. The second is personal responsibility: eat until you're full, not until your plate is clean. Don't snack so much. Recognize the link between emotional problems and binge eating, and address them simultaneously.
Now what does “mostly plants" actually entail?
A team of Austrian researchers based at the Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Medical University Graz, wanted to find out. Their meta-analysis of over 15,000 Austrians, age 15 and older, revealed important insights into what all-plant, mostly plant, and occasional-plant diets mean for our health.
Of those 15,000+ Austrian citizens, the team analyzed the data of 1,320 individuals: 330 vegetarians, 330 carnivores who eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, 330 carnivores who do not eat much meat and an equal number who eat a lot of meat. They took age, sex, and socioeconomic factors into consideration when matching groups. In the end 76.4 percent of this group were female, with 40 percent being under age 30. Another 35 percent fell between the ages of 30 and 50.
Interestingly, while there were positive benefits associated with vegetarianism, the group concludes the following:
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… Our results have shown that vegetarians report chronic conditions and poorer subjective health more frequently.
They also discovered “significantly higher" incidences of cancer in vegetarians, as well as increased rates of anxiety disorder and depression, although they note that this is inconsistent with other research. They did point out another study which shows an increased risk of mental disorders in vegetarians. In general, vegetarians suffer from more chronic conditions and take more medication than even occasional meat eaters.
It's not all bad news. Vegetarians have a lower body-mass index and suffer less from cholesterol problems, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and type 2 diabetes. Vegetarians enjoy a higher socioeconomic status, though correlation might not equal causation: a lot of lower income workers might not be able to afford high-quality plant products. Vegetarians also treat their bodies better: they exercise more and smoke and drink alcohol less.
The correlation between BMI and meat is clear in this study. Carnivores who eat a lot of meat have the highest BMI while pure vegetarians have the lowest. Again, correlation and causation are not clear, as meat eaters also show a much higher rate of alcohol consumption, which is one of the quickest and surest ways to pack on pounds.
Interestingly, vegetarians are vaccinated and visit the doctor less often than the other groups, which could play into the chronic conditions data. Given the questionable marketing tactics by “health food" brands that claim that “food is medicine" and call their products “superfoods," it's no surprise that some vegetarians believe their diet to be a panacea. Factor in that this group vaccinates less often and it's easy to understand how one conspiracy rolls into the next, a pattern that could prove detrimental to their health.
The team's conclusion is stark:
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.
So the “mostly" part of Pollan's creed appears valid. Diet is a balancing act only in an era of excess. Protein and fat was, for most of our evolutionary history, scarce and harder to secure. We had to eat "mostly" plants. Choosing to overload on meat today, while ignoring plant carbohydrates (and the fiber that goes along with it) appears to be just as dangerous as avoiding meat altogether. During a time when so much is available, the inherent — and necessary, given they didn't have a choice — wisdom of our ancestors stands up. We do have a choice today, and must always remember that when deciding what we put into our mouths.
Derek Beres is the author of Whole Motion: Training Your Brain and Body For Optimal Health. Based in Los Angeles, he is working on a new book about spiritual consumerism. Stay in touch on Facebook and Twitter.
Join multiple Tony and Emmy Award-winning actress Judith Light live on Big Think at 2 pm ET on Monday.
Construction of the $500 billion dollar tech city-state of the future is moving ahead.
- The futuristic megacity Neom is being built in Saudi Arabia.
- The city will be fully automated, leading in health, education and quality of life.
- It will feature an artificial moon, cloud seeding, robotic gladiators and flying taxis.
The Red Sea area where Neom will be built:
Saudi Arabia Plans Futuristic City, "Neom" (Full Promotional Video)<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c646d528d230c1bf66c75422bc4ccf6f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N53DzL3_BHA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Frequent shopping for single items adds to our carbon footprint.
- A new study shows e-commerce sites like Amazon leave larger greenhouse gas footprints than retail stores.
- Ordering online from retail stores has an even smaller footprint than going to the store yourself.
- Greening efforts by major e-commerce sites won't curb wasteful consumer habits. Consolidating online orders can make a difference.
A pile of recycled cardboard sits on the ground at Recology's Recycle Central on January 4, 2018 in San Francisco, California.
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images<p>A large part of the reason is speed. In a competitive market, pure players use the equation, <em>speed + convenience</em>, to drive adoption. This is especially relevant to the "last mile" GHG footprint: the distance between the distribution center and the consumer.</p><p>Interestingly, the smallest GHG footprint occurs when you order directly from a physical store—even smaller than going there yourself. Pure players, such as Amazon, are the greatest offenders. Variables like geographic location matter; the team looked at shopping in the UK, the US, China, and the Netherlands. </p><p>Sadegh Shahmohammadi, a PhD student at the Netherlands' Radboud University and corresponding author of the paper, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/tech/greenhouse-gas-emissions-retail/index.html" target="_blank">says</a> the above "pattern holds true in countries where people mostly drive. It really depends on the country and consumer behavior there."</p><p>The researchers write that this year-and-a-half long study pushes back on previous research that claims online shopping to be better in terms of GHG footprints.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"They have, however, compared the GHG emissions per shopping event and did not consider the link between the retail channels and the basket size, which leads to a different conclusion than that of the current study."</p><p>Online retail is where convenience trumps environment: people tend to order one item at a time when shopping on pure player sites, whereas they stock up on multiple items when visiting a store. Consumers will sometimes order a number of separate items over the course of a week rather than making one trip to purchase everything they need. </p><p>While greening efforts by online retailers are important, until a shift in consumer attitude changes, the current carbon footprint will be a hard obstacle to overcome. Amazon is trying to have it both ways—carbon-free and convenience addicted—and the math isn't adding up. If you need to order things, do it online, but try to consolidate your purchases as much as possible.</p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
Chronic irregular sleep in children was associated with psychotic experiences in adolescence, according to a recent study out of the University of Birmingham's School of Psychology.