Mom Was Right! Eat Your Vegies

[Jim Koepke]

I appears eating your vegetables is good for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...ou-than-fruit/

Even better than fruit?

I bet all our mothers are smiling right now, wherever they may be...

jtk

[John Pratt]

Apparently so was dad.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...-of-ill-health

[Jim Koepke]

Apparently so was dad.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...-of-ill-health

Interesting when one considers the veracity of Breitbart is often disputed by fact checkers.

If you google > vegetarians... < the auto fill feature #1 search is:

Picture 1.png

The story in my original post as I recall does not promote not eating meat. Instead it shows the results of a study of people regularly eating different numbers of servings of vegetables during the course of a day.

Besides many studies refute the study sited in Brietbart, at one time I was a vegetarian and those were the healthiest days of my life. The doctor who convinced me vegetarianism was not a good way to live died within six months of a heart attack. Yes, that is anecdotal, but I have not forgot it and I do tend to eat vegetables more than my wife. My health is better than my wife's health. Yes, that is also anecdotal.

jtk

[John Pratt]

My post was in no way an attempt to refute that people should eat vegatables. It was merely another article refering to a food source. I probably eat more vegatables than the average american and my kids eat all vegatables. There is only one vegatable I don't eat because I just can't stomach it. I am not going to name it here, because everytime I mention it, someone will say you just haven't had ______ or Grandma's recipe ________, because then you would like it. Trust me I have tried it every way possible and YUK.

As to the article on brietbart, how is it anyless reputable than the WP. And Google? if it came up in the search function it must be true......

I say, to each their own. I will stick to being an Omnivore and enjoy it all. If I could live to 100 but I'm only allowed to eat brussel sprouts, what is the point if I can't enjoy life and the wonders of different foods.

[Phil Thien]

I like vegetables but let me play devil's advocate: How many of you guys know people eating seven servings of fruits and vegetables every day? I know some real health nuts but I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that has eaten like that for any significant portion of their life.

[Jim Koepke]

As to the article on brietbart, how is it anyless reputable than the WP.

Brietbart is known to weave a story out of nothing and claim it is fact. I can let an error or mistake slide, especially as in the case of most reputable news agencies they issue a retraction or clarification. When a source is caught too many times "creating their own special facts" I will tend to first look skyward before believing them if they tell me the sky is blue.

And Google? if it came up in the search function it must be true......

By any chance would you be interested in buying a bridge?

jtk

[David Weaver]

Brietbart is known to weave a story out of nothing and claim it is fact.

I don't read any news source exclusively, but I can't see how breitbart is any different than any other source. Whether it's misleading titles, inferring things from "studies" or intentionally ignoring certain stories, there's no reason to discount any reasonable source and no reason to rely on one, either.

But..any news story quoting a study is usually not going to be very worthwhile. There will be another counter study a year later, and the same news source will use that one to sell ad space, too.

I don't have trouble believing:
1) vegetables are better for people in general than fruit - fruits have far more empty sugar calories
2) you can take a group of people from a study and look backwards and find non-causative correlations and spin all kinds of "facts" from them
3) that you could find another data set and make a similar study and show that ther are a number of other things those fruit and veggie eaters do that have a lot more to do with reduced disease. Might even be able to segregate the data so that only people with like BMI are compared, and then prove that there is no significant difference in disease incidence for each tranche of BMI.


"The researchers also noted that fruit and vegetable consumption is inversely related to household income."

In general, life expectancy is correlated with income level and level of education. I'd be surprised if they got their adjustments for factors totally correct - it's just a guess unless they actually do a multi decade controlled group study.

[ken masoumi]

How about eating meat ,fruits /vegetables all in moderation,what a concept.

[Jim Koepke]

I don't read any news source exclusively, but I can't see how breitbart is any different than any other source. Whether it's misleading titles, inferring things from "studies" or intentionally ignoring certain stories, there's no reason to discount any reasonable source and no reason to rely on one, either.

With hopes of not setting off the moderators... Many sources report events (news) to the best of their ability. Sometimes they do make errors. Some report and apologize for their mistakes.

Some sources who claim to be reporting the news have a tendency to include their own bias while remaining close to the facts.

Then there are those who try to advance opinion as news or actually fabricate stories and present them as fact. Breitbart has all too often been caught in the fabrication category for me to even bother with them. Especially if they are an exclusive source for a story.

As Ken said, "all in moderation" is likely a dietary plan that may generally be best for most people.

jtk

[John Pratt]

Comment removed, no comment.

[Mike Chance in Iowa]

LOL Well I can say my mom was wrong! You remember those days ... "You aren't leaving the table until your plate is clean!" when I refused to eat two green veggies. I was told I was being "picky" and was "faking it" when I would say my tummy hurt after eating them and was forced to eat them anyway. As soon as I moved out on my own, I never ate them again .... On a whim in my mid-30's, I had allergy testing done to see what airborne allergies I had. No airborne allergies, but I am highly allergic to those two green veggies I was forced to eat as a kid! I made sure to tell mom she was wrong! :-)

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Disclaimer: I am a vegetarian and have been for a long time. I don't think I'm particularly more or less healthy or unhealthy because of it. I don't care at all what you eat, whether or not I'm there with you eating, and don't care much about what you think about what I eat. I don't think John Pratt was casting aspersions about anyone or anything, and don't really care if he does. This is just commentary on the idea of studies and the reporting on such that sort of rambled out of my brain.


My personal feelings about Breitbart aside, (not a source I would regularly turn to, YMMV) in this case, a quick Google search turns up the study in question and links to several other news site that could be considered more "mainstream" reporting on the article. One thing I will give Breitbart credit for here is directly linking the study in question, something that doesn't always happen in news media. Further credit goes towards the study's authors for publishing the study in a freely available form, so that we can see more than just a paragraph abstract.

In general, I'm a little hesitant to rely solely on some media sources to summarize the content of scientific studies if it's a particularly short piece in the media report, unless the media source doing the summarizing has some relation to the field of the study. Doubly so for studies in the social sciences. At the very least, I like see what other various organizations have to say, perhaps figure out exactly who conducted the study and how, etc. (Anything that's conducted by nebulous outside firms, and isn't published in a legitimate scientific journal may very well be worth investigating the source of.)

Certainly I avoid taking too much info from studies conducted by firms I've never heard of being used as ammunition in the opinion pages, vs. a study by a larger organization being discussed in a longer-form journalism piece. Another thing you'll find is that a study that simply looks at broad trends and makes note of statistical trends or interesting findings that should be researched further, without drawing a specific conclusion, is often touted with some attention grabbing headlines.

I've only briefly looked at the study conducted by Graz, but a couple of things spring to mind; it appears the study started with polling of 15474 Austrian individuals, and then comparisons were made between groups of folks matched such that the only appreciable difference was dietary. These groups where of 330 people each, 4 groups, a total of 1320 people. Without going much further into the research at this time, a study of 1320 Austrians, even a well done one, is still a bit small to draw wide-ranging results from. As far as I can tell from a brief look at the study at this point, the study was focused on a single point in time, and most information gathered was self-reported. (Certainly, one explanation would be the sort of nutter that cuts meat out of their diet is also the type of nutter who thinks they have a wacky disease. [Full disclosure: I'm a wacky nutter who doesn't eat meat]) Also, there is considerable amount of question-ability when folks self-report, depending on the methodology followed - I wouldn't assume folks to lie about being vegetarian, but one of the groups in the comparisons are people eating a carnivorous diet "rich in fruits and vegetables" - if the data is purely self-reported, it's not hard to find folks overestimating this number, to give the correct "healthy" answer. Assumedly, the study would control through this via their data-gathering/questioning method.

By contrast, a study from University of Oxford, for instance, worked with 45,000 participants, 34% of whom were vegetarian, and followed them over 11 years. A portion of the information collected over this time period was also physical - i.e., actual numbers for blood pressure, etc. It has drawn some different conclusions than the Graz study. I haven't really looked into that study very deeply either, and am not attempting to make a point about which one has the "correct" conclusion, simply stating that the methodology involved in any study is worth looking at. Even if these findings were totally false when applied to the population as a whole, I certainly wouldn't attribute malice.

One thing I found interesting was that there was little mention of what diet consisted of in the study outside of the vegetarian/non-vegetarian spectrum, and the non-vegetarians being divided into meat-heavy, less-meat-heavy and rich in fruits and veggies side. I only think of this because when I was younger a knew a lot of vegetarians who ate terribly. Living off ramen, pizza and potato chips is not good for you regardless of whether meat is involved there or not!

The Graz study is only 6 pages, however, and is an interesting read. Not surprisingly, they come to the conclusion that further study is warranted, and while in their findings, they plainly state the results they drew, and that it is evidence that Austria needs a continued strong public health policy. I did find the potential limitations section quite illuminating, and it's often the first section I turn to when looking at a study if I see if frequently quoted in the news. Often times you'll see news reports of new studies that basically draw exactly the conclusions that this portion of the study highlights should not be drawn from their findings, which I always find amusing!

Potential limitationsof 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. More- over, we cannot give any information regarding the long-term consequences of consuming a special diet nor concerning mortality rates. Thus, further longitudinal studies will be required to substantiate our results. Further limitations include the measurement of dietary habits as a self-reported variable and the fact that subjects were asked how they would describe their eating behavior, without giving them a clear definition of the various dietary habit groups. However, a significant association between the dietary habit of individuals and their weight and drinking behavior is indicative for the validity of the variable. Another limitation concerns the lack of detailed information regarding nutritional components (e.g. the amount of carbohydrates, cholesterol, or fatty acids consumed). Therefore, more in-depth studies about nutritional habits and their effects on health are required among Austrian adults. Further studies should e.g. investigate the influence of the various dietary habits on the incidence of different cancer types. To our knowledge this is the first study ever in Austria to analyze differences in terms of dietary habits and their impact on health. We admit that the large number of participants made it necessary to keep the questions simple, in order to cover the large sample. Overall, we feel that our results are of specific interest and contribute to extant scientific knowledge, notwithstanding some limitations regarding causes and effects.

I think this study was decently done, was honest about it's findings, and simply reported what it found, and pushes for futher research as studies should do. I think some of the coverage of it has leaned towards drawing larger conclusions than perhaps is wise for a study of this type.

[Jim Koepke]

I think this study was decently done, was honest about it's findings, and simply reported what it found, and pushes for futher research as studies should do. I think some of the coverage of it has leaned towards drawing larger conclusions than perhaps is wise for a study of this type.

Joshua, thanks for you in depth thoughts on this study.

One of the difficulties I encountered with being a vegetarian is so many people thinks it means all you eat is salads. Many people are not aware of nutritional needs for the human body. Many vegetarians have diets deficient in protein. The lack of protein in vegetarian diets could be a factor in the Austrian study that is not fully explored. In looking at the Graz study, searching on protein finds no match. As a sub-set of studies of vegetarianism that is a very important factor. Other search terms also not found were deficient and lacking.

This story finds a different result:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...23190441042514

The study may be problematic for some because of the specific group of people used in the study is from a select group based on their religion. The Seventh Day Adventist are likely more aware of nutrition and diet than the average person.

At one time I found the Seventh Day Adventist program to stop smoking very effective. Though it is very disciplined approach making it difficult for some to follow. In the end it was feeling like I was dying from smoking being the most effective incentive for me to stop. (Stopping as a word is supposedly more effective for the mind than quitting.)

The part of the story in my original post that bothers me is the part about vegetables being better for our health than fruit. Most days I eat more fruit than vegetables. Guess that is another thing to change.

jtk