Study: Vegetarians Less Healthy, Lower Quality Of Life Than Meat-Eaters


From CBS Atlanta: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 Austria 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 study, at the link above, is pretty easy to read.

Of course, the question that is NOT answered here is if the vegetarian diet causes the issues or if those who have the issues are more likely to be sucked in to the vegetarian lifestyle.

In the meantime, I think I’ll have a nicely marbled Porterhouse steak and contemplate this study :smiley:


Interesting. :smiley: Romans 14 comes to mind. :wink:


You have no idea how hard it is for me to write “quality of life” and “baconless” in the same sentence :stuck_out_tongue:


I’ll see your study, and raise you this one:

This one says eating more vegetables can halve your risk of dying. It seems you can find a study somewhere to validate whichever lifestyle you choose!


I don’t think a study that says strict vegetarianism is not healthy can be construed as saying vegetables are not good for you, so it makes no sense to argue against such a premise.

As for me I fare well on a low carb diet that is high in fresh vegetables, and I just knocked out a respiratory infection using nothing more than fried onions as medicine.


There’s an old joke about colds: They last a week without treatment, and seven days with treatment. :slight_smile:


Well this was just 2 days.


After eating that steak, maybe you should go have a sparring match with a less-healthy, lower-quality-of-life Shaolin Monk.:smiley:

One of the issues with some vegetarians is that their idea of vegetarianism is to eat the typical, high-fat, high processed carb diet sans meat. If one does that, they won’t be healthy.


Ridiculous! Like someone can have quality of like drinking alcohol sparingly! :smiley:


This doesn’t surprise me. What’s always most important is what we DO eat, not what we refrain from. IOW, vegetables are great, as long as we don’t eradicate everything else in its place. :thumbsup:


We can agree on this. All vegetarians diets should include copious amounts of rum. :thumbsup:


Should’ve been “quality of life”! Whoops…:blush:


I have sometimes wondered whether these studies, going in either direction, are flawed by the narrowness of the group studied.

One could study the effect of the Mediterranean diet on people of Mediterranean extraction, compare it to the heavy meals typical of, say, north Germany, and perhaps find that, goodness me, Mediterraneans do better on a Mediterranean diet than they do on a Nordic diet.

This study was an Austrian study. North Europeans’ ancestors were, for thousands of years, herders on the Eurasian plain. If you didn’t consume meat and milk products, you starved to death. If you COULDN’T thrive on those products, you starved to death, because there was virtually nothing else to eat…and that was for thousands and thousands of years. Interestingly, European-descended people are the only people on earth who retain lactose tolerance into adulthood. One hardly thinks the reason for that could be a mystery. Those who couldn’t tolerate milk products in a herder society, starved, and those who retained tolerance lived to pass on that genetic advantage.

Is it different for other foods? Can, say, Brits eat a lot more beef than, say, a Sicilian, without ill effect? Can a Sicilian do better on a more vegetarian diet than a brit? And what about gluten intolerance? How do grain-eating Arabs do with that compared to, say, Irishmen, in whose country there are more cattle than people?

It is easily observable that a lot of Latin Americans who come here get very heavy very quickly and dietary diseases like hypertension and diabetes are very common among them. Mexicans in particular have dozens of varieties of corn and it really is a mainstay of diet in Mexico. Meat is pretty sparingly used there, and always was. If they come here and adopt a “northern European” diet, can we wonder that they go morbidly obese rapidly?

I’m not saying I know. But I am always a little questioning of dietary studies that take no account whatever of ethnic origins when genetic predispositions for thousands of years might skew the outcome based on those origins.


Study: Vegetarians Less Healthy, Lower Quality Of Life Than Meat-Eaters

aahhhh, c’mon!

(Secretly, I’m glad because I’m such a carnivore.) :slight_smile:


The problem with this kind if studies is that the results can be easily manipulated by choosing certain people for the study. You have to take these studies with a grain of salt and use common sense. As the OP correctly points out is it being vegetarian or is it people with avtendency to this are becoming vegetarian? Also there are many different styles of vegetarians, what style are they looking at here? There are vegetarians who do not eat a high whole grain amount in their diets. Also what kind of food those people are eating? Here in the US with all those processed foods and chemicals they throw on things you can easily say that everything causes cancer. Also I do know some vegetarians that have some weird ideas about health and are obsessed with being skinny and weird things. There are too many things that can play onto these results that we don’t know.


Yes, but are your observations PEER REVIEWED?? :stuck_out_tongue:


I take these studies with a grain of salt. The problem with a great many of these studies is that they investigate one or two items, each of which can be affected by 100s or 1,000s of variables. Drawing single conclusions from such studies is simply not possible. The best one can do is drawn a conclusion within a large set of parameters.


What is it with new studies being on the news daily? I have to watch the NBC Nightly News because it’s on at the gym. Last night it was salt. Last week it was Tylenol causing autism.


Please, no more than one grain of salt! Studies show that too much sodium will raise your blood pressure!


Actually, there is a new study that questions this!!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit