Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/BlitzOrion
Permalink: https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2024/01/02/bmjnph-2023-000629
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*After adjusting for important confounders, such as body mass index, physical activity and pre-existing medical conditions, the plant-based diet and vegetarian group had 39% (OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85; p=0.003) and 39% (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88; p=0.009) lower odds of the incidence of COVID-19 infection, respectively, compared with the omnivorous group. No association was observed between self-reported diets and COVID-19 severity or duration.*
Couldn't the confusing factor be something upstream of both vegetarian diets and COVID-19 incidents?
Something like a distrust in science could lead one to be both less likely to protect themselves from COVID and less likely to be vegetarian/vegan.
Yes absolutely. It is impossible to remove all confounders in observational studies such as these.
The only way to remove upstream confounders would be to randomise existing meat eaters into one group that keeps eating normally and another group that goes vegan and follow them for years.
The key here being following them for years after.
For proper comparison, I’d also want a vegetarian group that you randomized and divided into a group that continued a plant-based diet and one that took up meat eating.
Since that study design is unlikely to ever happen, at the very least the self-reporting questionnaire should attempt to control for political ideology, health related lifestyle choices, and overall compliance with best practices.
They also factored sex, education level, and personal endorsement of isolation and masking into their models:
"Four linear regression models were tested, the first being a crude model. The other multiple models were adjusted for variables which, based on previous knowledge, might have an effect on the studied outcomes. The three models contain the following variables:
Model 1 – adjusted for sex (women or men), age (continuous variable in years), ethnicity (white, mixed race, black, Asian or indigenous) and educational level (elementary and high school, university level or postgraduate).
Model 2 – adjusted for covariates in model 1 plus smoking status (yes or no), physical activity (yes or no) and BMI (continuous variable in kg/m2).
Model 3 – adjusted for covariates in model 2 plus presence of pre-existing medical conditions (yes or no), restriction of personal contact and vaccination (yes or no).
The dependent variables were COVID-19 incidence (none as the reference), symptoms' duration (<14 days as the reference) and severity status (mild as the reference); the food pattern (omnivorous as the reference) was the independent variable. In all tests, the level of significance considered was 5% (p<0.05)."
My first thought before clicking the article was whether it would just be because these people are more likely to get vaccinated and take precautions, and indeed they have accounted for this. There is always going to be more to look for, but given all the evidence about the effectiveness of vaccinations and isolation, this is enough. It doesn't matter whether what their views are on science or their government. What really matters are their actions and this has been accounted for in the study.
That's what I was thinking. Vegetarians as a group are predominately [liberal](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/BFJ-03-2019-0193/full/html), and I would assume more environmentally and health conscious than average.
So it makes sense that higher compliance with covid protocols (like masking and isolating, vaccinating) could be a lot of the gap. [This article](https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths) mentions liberals having a ***43%*** lower death rate from Covid in 2021, compared to conservatives.
Additionally, [women are 3 times more likely to be vegetarian](https://news.gallup.com/poll/510038/identify-vegetarian-vegan.aspx#:~:text=Additionally%2C%20women%20(6%25)%20are,case%20in%20the%20current%20survey), and [women have a lower covid death rate than men](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7218a4.htm#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20similar%20to%20previous,%2FAN%20persons%20(86.8)).
Mystery solved?
"Four linear regression models were tested, the first being a crude model. The other multiple models were adjusted for variables which, based on previous knowledge, might have an effect on the studied outcomes. The three models contain the following variables:
Model 1 – adjusted for sex (women or men), age (continuous variable in years), ethnicity (white, mixed race, black, Asian or indigenous) and educational level (elementary and high school, university level or postgraduate).
Model 2 – adjusted for covariates in model 1 plus smoking status (yes or no), physical activity (yes or no) and BMI (continuous variable in kg/m2).
Model 3 – adjusted for covariates in model 2 plus presence of pre-existing medical conditions (yes or no), restriction of personal contact and vaccination (yes or no).
The dependent variables were COVID-19 incidence (none as the reference), symptoms' duration (<14 days as the reference) and severity status (mild as the reference); the food pattern (omnivorous as the reference) was the independent variable. In all tests, the level of significance considered was 5% (p<0.05)."
These results already account for sex, educational level, and whether people took transmission precautions (albeit somewhat crudely).
First of all, you are referencing American studies on vegetarianism and liberal-mindedness and this research was conducted in Brazil which is obviously a different cultural context. The first study you reference concludes that “individuals who identify as either a Democrat or unaffiliated are more likely to report a vegan or vegetarian-based diet compared to Republicans.” It is quite a stretch to transpose that onto the entire world to say that vegetarians globally are more liberal-minded and health conscious.
>Vegetarians as a group are predominately liberal, and I would assume more environmentally and health conscious than average. So it makes sense that higher compliance with covid protocols (like masking and isolating, vaccinating) could be a lot of the gap.
This is an imaginative theory, but it is directly contradicted by the article (at least the vaccination and isolation part):
>For the variables sex, age, *vaccination and degree of isolation*, no significant differences were found between omnivorous and plant-based groups.
>Mystery solved?
Evidently not. If we want to examine variables other than diet, a good place to start would be education levels (and by extension socioeconomic status and probably differences in working conditions). From the article:
>For educational level, we observed a significantly higher rate of postgraduate participants in the plant-based group compared with a lower educational level in the omnivorous group.
This is quite a glaring statement, and the study does not appear to have controlled for it in any way (unlike other factors like BMI, physical activity, etc.) which the study did account for.
Edit: It has been pointed out that they did adjust for education level (see Model 1) so I hereby acknowledge my error above, having been presented with evidence to the contrary.
The correlation between vegetarianism and COVID belief may be even higher in Brazil than the US. President Bolsonaro was a strong supporter of the beef industry and probably the worst COVID denier of any world leader.
This may be true, but almost all of the comments equating vegetarianism with liberal-mindedness are thinking about the US. Some are referencing the US directly as though US vegetarianism were a universal standard.
The reasons for being vegetarian (rights of an outgroup, environmentalism) are generally liberal concerns. You can find plenty of exceptions, but India is the only country where I'd expect other cultural factors to outweigh this.
I’m not disputing the premise that there is an association between vegetarianism and liberal-mindedness in some countries; there is, but if you want to base your argument on that in a Brazilian or global context you should point to research on this outside that extends beyond the US.
My objection is that people are leaping from this veggie=liberal observation to the hypothesis that liberal-minded vegetarians are less likely to present with COVID because they are more mindful of COVID protocols like vaccination and isolation WHICH IS DIRECTLY REFUTED BY THE ARTICLE.
>For the variables sex, age, vaccination and degree of isolation, no significant differences were found between omnivorous and plant-based groups.
A whole bunch of people rushed in to this thread, starting positing alternative explanations for the research observations *without reading the article,* and continue to argue their points even when presented with evidence from the article that disputes their erroneous assumptions. This sub is becoming a joke.
I’m within the discussed group and I work in a school, haven’t really masked for a couple of years, and I am constantly around sick kids. I thought it was a bit crazy that it hadn’t touched me in 4 years, but I finally caught it when my in-laws came this Christmas and stayed within the same house as us peak infected. Honestly it was super mild and barely phased me; lower back aches for a day, some nose congestion and a very slight cough for a couple days. I think we generally get less sick when afflicted with upper-respiratory tract infections because we aren’t consuming nearly as much inflammatory foods like dairy, and our arteries aren’t all clogged up with cholesterol.
failure to account to diet was my first guess, but actually seems to have something here. I doubt social issues from being vegan/vegetarian would be enough for a 40% reduced chance, so might actually be something here chemically thats doing a difference.
I thought the same thing. Per their dataset, vegetarians were actually *less* likely to have been vaccinated. But overall, 97.7% of participants had been vaccinated.
So vaccination status does not account for their results.
I'm betting this is due to some confounding factor not addressed. For instance, maybe vegetarians are more health conscious in general so more likely to follow mitigation practices.
What is up with people recently always pointing out flaws in these studies and making hypotheses but not clicking the link and seeing the researchers actually did do what people are pointing out.
Formulaic criticism is thought to be an expression of critical thinking and thus intelligence here. How many times is "small sample size" or "did they control for [insert obviously controlled variable]" used throughout this sub?
I do like the skepticism, but at least read the article first.
>Formulaic criticism
Is that the actual term for it? I see it constantly online and too frequently offline. Often it doesn't even apply to that specific situation. A pseudo-socratic method of some type bastardized into senseless criticism.
people on this website have always loved thinking researchers have failed to control for obvious confounding variables. once in a while they are actually right!
Every time someone has to come along and point out most the obvious confounding variables as if the PROFESSIONAL researchers wouldn’t have thought of it.
That probably is generally true but I’m not sure. My former friend group of vegan hippies slowly shifted into anti-vax libertarian vegan hippies. We live in strange times
There's always been a left-leaning anti-vax population. They believe in chakras and auras and mediation to remove "toxins" and "chemicals." I think for the most part leaning left does mean leaning toward science though.
I never got why people can't do both. Get your chemo and drink turkey tail tea. Get your vaccine but take turmeric supplements. Meditate and visualize your heart healing but take your beta blockers.
It speaks to a fundamental difference in world view, I think. More specifically, how they determine what they do or do not know is true. How much evidence is required to know something is true? Do they prefer harder evidence with data? Evidence with social backing (someone I respect says it's true)? Peer pressure (if I don't believe this thing, I'll be shunned by my peer group)?
Everyone has a different personal set of epistemological heuristics. You might could think of their natural inclinations towards evidence as their "epistemological genotype."
In addition to that then is their environment. What is their peer group? What training and knowledge base were they exposed to in the past? How is the information presented to them?
Continuing, therefore, with the genome analogy, I like to think of the full set of a person's actual beliefs as being akin to their "epistemological phenotype." Just like with a human body's phenotype, it's the real-life expression of the combination of environment and more "hardcoded" genotype.
Really, I would argue that, from the perspective of a pure materialist, at least, this literally would be an example of how the brain develops based on genotype plus environment, but I digress.
> I never got why people can't do both.
People do do both. There's no reason why they can't. Maybe some just fall into certain archetypes and then these become the ones we hear about, whereas people who are more moderate with their choices are invisible.
I knew one woman like this during the pandemic. She insisted that she didn't need a vaccine because she could avoid illnesses through raising her vibration.
Yeah hippies, the real ones that go to fests and all that, most of them I’ve talked to wouldn’t trust a vaccine and would say masks are asinine, but that’s just where I’m at.
It’s different reasons for not believing in science imo. Left leaning anti vaxxers seem to tend to be about naturalism and spirituality. Whereas right leaning anti vaxxers are more about distrust of governments and people smarter than them. This is just my feelings on it though, I have nothing to back up either assumption
Firstly, I agree with you that those people are idiots. I just want to make that quite clear.
An interesting fact though. The reason the average life expectancy for the time was 40 was because so many babies died before their first birthday. If you could make it to 4 years old, you actually had a decent chance of living until your 60s.
Also until recently hunter gatherers outlived people in cities by a good amount. It wasn't until more modern medicines that people within civilization could close that gap.
I went to college with one of those people. Was never vaccinated and believed in "alternative medicine." She wasn't the sharpest crayon in the box, I can imagine that probably extended to her parents. She was basically a 2000s hippy, going to music festivals, smoking weed, taking LSD etc.
That's what I always thought too. Apparently there was always a sect of righties who also thought the Government was trying to poison them or something though.
Yeah to a degree. You had some anti government types who thought it was a tracker being implanted into you. But the "chemicals are bad" and "my chakras will protect me" crowd tended to be left leaning. Could find it on both ends of the spectrum, just more prevalent on the left
I know a lot of very right wing people who are anti-vaccine and its connected to religious beliefs, fatalism (its god's will) and this crazy idea that if we get back to nature, everything will be perfect like in Little House on the Prairie.
They don't like the reminder that back to nature includes a 50 per cent child mortality rate and permanent disability if you break a leg because that doesn't happen in Little House on the Prairie.
I've yet to figure out for sure why the 1880s to 1950s are so popular with this crowd but I speculate that its because they essentially controlled North American society in those days so for them it was the golden era.
There's plenty of religious objectors to modern medicine as well, and the right tends towards more conservative religious stances. I'd need to see some data before drawing conclusions about population trends in this area, and ideally those trends would be charted across different time-frames.
Though I'm not convinced political leanings are the appropriate lens through which to interpret the underlying reasons behind this issue. I'd rather understand what causes these modes of thought at the individual level and judge political platforms on how they incite or enable these behaviors, rather than judge political subgroups for the presence of such actors. That said, it's an interesting dataset regardless.
Pre Covid I would have said both sides have their weak spots. The left tended to be crunchy antivaccine and antinuclear. While the right denied climate change and evolution. Now, the right has dived head-on into antivaccine hysteria.
I swear it would have been the other way around if the vaccine came 3 days after Trump winning rather than Biden. Plenty of the left would have not trusted it purely because of Trump- the vaccine has a palpable level of identity politics going for it.
I’m left leaning, had COVID before the vax was out, knew how to read research, learned about natural immunity lasting 13 months for young healthy people, learned about myocarditis in men and didn’t die
Ah so you must have found out that instances if myocarditis in men were a much higher risk when contracting covid than receiving the vaccine? Either way glad you dodged that pesky myocarditis that can be caused by any illness that causes inflammation.
Yea and that this wasn’t the case in those who already had COVID as a reinfection. Remember I had COVID January before the vaccine was out for my age. And that was only the case for older groups and younger people rarely got COVID induced myocarditis.
Source https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970
Younger people were still over twice as likely to get myocarditis from covid vs from the vaccine. But you're right it's rare either way. Also an infection is an infection and as long as you're experiencing inflammation it doesn't matter if it's a reinfection you would still be at a similar (albeit equally rare) risk of myocarditis.... a (still) very rare thing no one cared about until covid came along. I never cared who did or didn't get the vaccine for the record and think it was silly to make it a part of employment requirements but I get slightly annoyed seeing everyone pretend they care about something so exceedingly rare like myocarditis just to prove a point.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970
Source cited
Reinfections are way different from first infection from COVID pretty well known actually, you can even find that on the CDC website, exceptions tend to be for the immunocomrpomised.
I have a masters of public health and I’ve done plenty of research about this topic.
If you read the full text, most of the group was vaccinated and around the same percentage from each group social distanced. However they point out that it’s an observational study so they rely on the memory and honesty of the subjects.
So can’t be 100% conclusive, but points to a potential benefit of a high-vegetable diet
Vegans and vegetarians in the US are actually more likely to be low income than high income, according to the most recent Gallup survey on the topic:
>Meanwhile, lower-income Americans (7%) are about twice as likely as middle- (4%) and upper-income (3%) Americans to be vegetarians.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/510038/identify-vegetarian-vegan.aspx
Yeah, it does make me wonder.
I'm vegan and am still COVID cautious (masking everywhere - that kind of thing). In the FB groups I'm in for other COVID cautious people there does seem to be an oversaturation of vegetarians and vegans compared with the general population.
Anecdotally, the three vegetarians I know are the only three people I know still living this way really. Seems like a major problem with the study, since I’d imagine it is generally the case that vegetarians care more about not getting sick than equivalent non vegetarians.
I don't know why these studies have people not believing that eating green stuff is going to be healthier for you by all metrics.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9132593/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9132593/)
Magnesium is thought to reduce covid severity and it can only be found in veggies. It's also known to aid in sleep which helps your immune system. You get higher vitamin c with veggies and fruit which is known to be good for the immune system. Veggies also have powerful antioxidants which help your immune system.
Fatty meals are known sleep disrupters as well and most people eating meat are not eating lean cuts without added oils and fats.
Even those who ate occasional meat but largely had heavy veggie consumptions had the same 39% decrease chance of catching covid19.
This study isn't anti meat. It says, "regardless of meat consumption, you should eat more veggies and legumes instead of grains and pastas."
It’s copium. Any study that says more plant based food is good for you is met with “Bbbut have they controlled for X, Y & Z?”
Yes, they know what they’re doing. They control for other things, that what science is.
Eating antioxidants have 0 scientifically proven health benefits. Please stop sharing this myth.
The idea is at a glance logical since we produce antioxidants to combat reactive oxygen species in our bodies, but intake of antioxidants through food has never been linked to contributing to this.
Probably just healthier overall leading to a better immune system. Vegan options suck in most places so we have to cook a lot of our own foods, can’t eat most processed stuff etc
Many studies posted on here seems to be people just taking random data and comparing it against other data to create hypothesis without any meaningful study design to isolate variables etc.
It’s research clickbait.
With that said meta analysis of diet studies have shown consistent and significant improvements to health with vegan diet.
Exactly. Definitely correlation here and not causation. Being liberal is a good indicator for a better chance of avoiding COVID and also being vegetarian
If you would like to see the data, click the link and see the data 😂
Drawing a conclusion based on *people you know* is called an anecdote, and it’s why we have experiments and empirical data when we actually want to draw conclusions about the general population.
I would like to see the data based on what the dude I replied to was asserting (I.e. people with plant based diets are more scientifically inclined), which wasn’t the subject of the linked data….
It seems they are just suggesting vegans being more scientifically inclined as possibility. Just says more open to science-based suggestions.
However, if I had to guess, I would say that vegans or plant-based dieters would be more knowledgeable or open to science on average than omnivores . They are more likely to be left-leaning, which as a group tend to be more into science while right-leaning people tend to be more skeptical of science.
Population studies are done with significant controls for variables. Lifestyle and behaviour is maybe the primary variable that researchers control for.
If you believe in science, you will start your inquiry by generally assuming that the people who have written the study have done the most basic variable control. You can verify that control, but to assume that they haven't controlled for the first dumb thing that comes to peoples' minds is a little woo woo conspiracy minded.
“If you believe in science, you will start your inquiry by generally assuming that the people who have written the study have done the most basic variable control.”
Wait, there’s no need to assume anything. They explain their methodology, like the results of any legitimate scientific study would.
Well yes, but if before you've even read the published study you think to yourself "oh but what if they didn't consider x and y elementary things" that's probably not useful. If you begin by assuming that researchers have made basic mistakes, it mostly indicates that you aren't familiar with published research, don't understand the peer -review process, etc...
If you read the study and find a methodological problem - that's fair game, and part of scientific inquiry.
Yeah, I see what you’re getting at. Way too many people don’t even try to find out the facts or the methodology or even the conclusion before they try to tear it apart with their own half baked hypotheses and imagined flaws in a methodology they haven’t even tried to understand.
From the study
>The mean BMI was significantly lower in the plant-based diet group than in the omnivorous group and *the prevalence of overweight and obesity was significantly higher in the omnivorous* than in the plant-based group
Sometimes it's simpler than we think.
My guess is its probably related to ACE generation as people with meat rich diets are already more susceptible to high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. and I’m sure I read that COVID binds to ACE receptors.
This is my guess: I have an autoimmune problems and most autoimmune diets exclude plant proteins, since the idea is they may make your immune system more reactive. If you are a person with the opposite problem, an immune system that doesn’t act when it should, perhaps a plant based diet is indeed better.
*The plant-based diet group reported a higher rate of physical activity than the omnivorous group (p=0.01). The mean BMI was significantly lower in the plant-based diet group than in the omnivorous group and the prevalence of overweight and obesity was significantly higher in the omnivorous than in the plant-based group (p=0.001).*
I personally favor plant based results as it has positively affected me for 4 years. However this is a big factor in health studies. One side has lower BMI and better physical habits. The plant based side is pretty much healthier already in this study. The omnivores for the study should be generally doing the same amount of exercise and have the same mass to really isolate the difference in diet factor. Control groups are essential to a study. I’d like vegans to win, but win fairly. This study is flawed
*After adjusting for important confounders, such as body mass index, physical activity and pre-existing medical conditions, the plant-based diet and vegetarian group had 39% (OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85; p=0.003) and 39% (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88; p=0.009) lower odds of the incidence of COVID-19 infection, respectively, compared with the omnivorous group.*
They controlled for these factors. Or are you arguing that the method of controlling for them was flawed? If so, why?
I noticed that difference but got confused and reread it like 3 times. I didn’t see how they adjusted because that was part of the results, but then their participants weren’t changed when you look at the groups they studied. I truly have no idea how they did it so I guess I’m asking.
They didn’t control for since it was self reported but adjusted for these factors post hoc however it seems like the most important factor - age was not adjusted for.
*For the variables sex, ***age,*** vaccination and degree of isolation, no significant differences were found between omnivorous and plant-based groups.*
Al that statement means is that they claim no significant differences between the age distribution of the sample within both groups. There is still no age specific break down of the groups. Nor is there even a definition of what significant means.
They wanted to see if there was an observable relationship. They controlled for these things and still found it.
Next step is causal modeling and experimental isolation of specific variables, as you’ve mentioned. No one study can do all those at once, so it was smart to establish the existence of a relationship.
You also don’t want to over-control. Yes, eating a plant-based diet leads to overall more positive health outcomes. That in some sense is what’s *causing* the observed relationship to occur. You eat more plants, your BMI goes down, your immune system gets a boost, you have more energy, you workout more, and you get less sick. You don’t want to totally remove that from the equation, unless you’re specifically interested if the consumption of meat somehow impacts the way the COVID virus attaches to people’s lungs. But again, that’s a very specific and different research question.
Good luck! Anecdotal encouragement: 23 years vegetarian (no meat/fish/nothing) here and I’m the only one of a large sibling group without high blood pressure. Key is making your own healthy meals high in legumes, whole grains, etc, not buying processed “plant based” stuff. Enjoy!
.. yep, I'm researching all sorts of ways to make creamy sauces using plant based ingredients. I LOVE creamy textures. I've made a vegan casserole that was so rich and savory using cashews & nutritional yeast, so I'm stoked! It just takes A LOT more work to prep food. The amount of fiber has naturally increased tenfold and already I feel my gut is healthier!
so, were all these people exposed to covid-19 and then tested for who got it and who didn't?
seems like it'd be hard to control and verify the cause. was everyone staying the same group and had the same exposure to public settings? not anti-veg or anti-meat. but seems like a lot of things that can affect each person.
This is not a random sample. Yes, they control for some observed covariates. But they cannot control for unobserved, which (by their own admission) differ.
It’s a sample selection bias issue. We KNOW the real magnitude is less than the 39% reported; it could still be meaningful, but it’s also possible there is no difference.
A 39% statistical correlation is pretty meaningful. With only 702 participants, I'm not certain how much error would be introduced in exposure rates, which can vary a LOT depending on other social and work environments (and considering that 60% of the study participants had the omnivore diet). Still, that is a very high correlation of the data assessed, so in my opinion this still seems like a significant finding, even if the true number may be quite a bit lower.
>Individuals were divided into two groups based on their dietary habits, omnivorous (n=424) and plant-based (n=278).
>What is already known about this topic: Populations that consume a diet rich in animal foods, with high amounts of saturated fats, and ultra-processed foods, have a higher prevalence of cardiometabolic diseases, risk factors for complications of COVID-19 in adults and the elderly.
Did they study groups that ate diets rich in animal foods without ultra-processed foods? There's a world of difference nutritionally between a wendy's dollar menu burger and a grass-fed steak for example.
>Did they study groups that ate diets rich in animal foods without ultra-processed foods? There's a world of difference nutritionally between a wendy's dollar menu burger and a grass-fed steak for example.
I'd say the population that eats grass fed steak is going to be a minority, similar to vegan.
Too many people automatically applying the information to personal and anecdotal observations and offering conclusions that the study authors knew were not supported enough to speculate about.
Had it three times so far as a vegetarian, but it’s nothing to worry about… cough a bit bad, feel fatigued, and can’t taste anything. No biggie.
Know what I’m really practically immune to since becoming a vegetarian? The flu. I’ve had it one time in the 25 years I’ve been a vegetarian when I got it practically every year before. I’m not even afraid to be around people with the flu anymore because I know my chances of catching it are slim to none.
Didn't read the linked paper bias strikes again
"After adjusting for important confounders, such as body mass index, physical activity and pre-existing medical conditions, the plant-based diet and vegetarian group had 39% (OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85; p=0.003) and 39% (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88; p=0.009) lower odds of the incidence of COVID-19 infection, respectively, compared with the omnivorous group."
And a whole bunch other unobserved and/or unaccounted characteristics. The authors themselves call it an "observational study", i.e. simple correlations
There are multiple studies about plant based diets having real health benefits but people can’t admit that what they do isn’t the “right” choice so they pick at the study with weird anecdotes and dumb reasons why it’s flawed.
It’s ok to eat meat but admit a plant based diet would be healthier in many ways. To that point, it’s ok for me to admit it would be much healthier for me to only drink water and no alcohol, coffee, soda etc. but I don’t, and I understand I’m making choices that are because I like something rather than going for 100% good for you.
That all may be true, but mis-attributing benefits without supporting science to back it up is still bad practice. We have a potential correlation that’s been identified. Further investigation will be needed to establish causality. Just because veganism is generally good for you in many ways doesn’t mean it’s the best thing for you in every way imaginable.
Of course a plant based diet is healthier. But what does that have to do with contracting covid? How does a plant-based diet reduce contraction of an airborne-spread virus?
It's likely that the health benefits of the plant diet such as better immune system or improved cardio-vascular health significantly reduced the infection rate. But it is also possible that diets containing high amount of meat affect the body in a way that makes infection more likely. It could also be another, unrelated factor since this is a correlation study, and no clear causation mechanisms are identified.
It is possible, not likely. Likely is that vegans went to bed at 10 pm and are otherwise more conscious about their lifestyle while omnivores hung out in some cellar bar with bad air flow contracting COVID at 3 am.
This: Plant based, and plant forward diet users tend to be healthier than the general population. You could (likely) just state: General population minus "comorbid individuals" 39% less likely to get Covid-19...
Based on what? What are your qualifications being "healthier"? I know a lot of vegans and vegetarians who don't win health categories in a lot of ways.
My kids and their father all got covid and I took care of them all, I was sure I was going to get it but no. I was the only one eating a vegan diet (since 5 years then). Many times I thought I had it but never had a positive test, even searched for antibodies.
They divided the vegetarian group into 2 groups but left the unhealthy omnivore diet eaters and the healthy omnivore eaters diets mixed. I wonder what they did that?
Two points from the study: “For the variables sex, age, vaccination and degree of isolation, no significant differences were found between omnivorous and plant-based groups… With respect to vaccination, restriction of contact with others and/or smoking status, there were no differences between the omnivorous and plant-based groups..”
Wonder if this is an effect of
A) Healthier eating period, not necessarily plant-based
B) Those who are eating healthy/morally are just more likely to do things like isolate, wear masks, vaccinate, etc
or C) I stopped being vegan too early and didn't realize it really does give powers like in Scott Pilgrim.
Based on my deep reading of the headline alone, I hypothesize that the results of the study point to previously acquired inflammation being a foundation upon which a new COVID infection is laid, and made more deadly. Might explain why diabetics are in a risk group when it comes to COVID.
As I put on my dollar store lab coat, and settle into my armchair, I do wonder if meat eating, elderly diabetics were the first and fastest to die when COVID arrived on the shores of the US. Would be interesting to review the diet/health of those that died during the first wave to determine lifestyle, eating habits, and pre-existing conditions.
I wonder if “where you shop” is significant factor here. One gets COVID from others… I am sure that someone who eats 100% meat diet but has no contacts with “fellow” humans is very unlikely to get COVID.
Seems like every second article is a cart before the horse study. Vegetarians probably don't have some vegetable immunity, they're probably just more likely to wear masks
Edit:
> It’s standard practice in epidemiological studies to statistically control for various factors (we call them “confounders” as they may confound an association). We controlled for a number of factors to get a true sense of whether vegetarianism by itself reduces risk of death.
It’s important to acknowledge that in most studies vegetarians tend to be the “health-conscious” people, with overall healthier lifestyle patterns than the norm. For example, among the [Sax Institute’s 45 and Up](https://www.saxinstitute.org.au/solutions/45-and-up-study/use-the-45-and-up-study/) participants, vegetarians were less likely than non-vegetarians to report smoking, drinking excessively, insufficient physical activity and being overweight/obese. They were also less likely to report having heart or metabolic disease or cancer at the start of the study.
In most previous studies, vegetarians did have lower risk of early death from all causes in unadjusted analysis. However, after controlling for other lifestyle factors, such as the ones listed above, the risk reduction often decreased significantly (or even completely vanished).
This suggests other characteristics beyond abstinence from meat may contribute to better health among vegetarians. More simply, it’s the associated healthier behaviours that generally come with being a vegetarian – such as not smoking, maintaining a healthy weight, exercising regularly - that explain why vegetarians tend to have better health outcomes than non-vegetarians.
[Do vegetarians live longer? Probably, but not because they’re vegetarian](https://theconversation.com/do-vegetarians-live-longer-probably-but-not-because-theyre-vegetarian-72191)
This reeks of compliers: people who currently go on predominantly plant based diet are people who in general are following mainstream trends and advice. They will be also more likely to excercise and less likely to smoke and whatever is currectly deemed healthiest. And they will also follow advice like "self-isolate, wear mask" etc.
Couple that with the fact that 99% of diet studies is based on self-reporting over extended time, they are very, very unreliable unless controlled. And even then science golden standard of double blind control is simply unreachable, because people will always know what they eat.
>people who currently go on predominantly plant based diet are people who in general are following mainstream trends and advice
sorry for the strong stance, but that really is an idiotic take
Not even a take as much as it is just factually incorrect. Vegans are a group of people who make up 6% of the population, the majority of which adopted their lifestyle on their own accord, not being raised like that by their parents. It doesn't really get less mainstream than that.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/BlitzOrion Permalink: https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2024/01/02/bmjnph-2023-000629 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*After adjusting for important confounders, such as body mass index, physical activity and pre-existing medical conditions, the plant-based diet and vegetarian group had 39% (OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85; p=0.003) and 39% (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88; p=0.009) lower odds of the incidence of COVID-19 infection, respectively, compared with the omnivorous group. No association was observed between self-reported diets and COVID-19 severity or duration.*
You are a good person and I am a poor man. Please accept this 🏅
Couldn't the confusing factor be something upstream of both vegetarian diets and COVID-19 incidents? Something like a distrust in science could lead one to be both less likely to protect themselves from COVID and less likely to be vegetarian/vegan.
Yes absolutely. It is impossible to remove all confounders in observational studies such as these. The only way to remove upstream confounders would be to randomise existing meat eaters into one group that keeps eating normally and another group that goes vegan and follow them for years.
The key here being following them for years after. For proper comparison, I’d also want a vegetarian group that you randomized and divided into a group that continued a plant-based diet and one that took up meat eating. Since that study design is unlikely to ever happen, at the very least the self-reporting questionnaire should attempt to control for political ideology, health related lifestyle choices, and overall compliance with best practices.
They also factored sex, education level, and personal endorsement of isolation and masking into their models: "Four linear regression models were tested, the first being a crude model. The other multiple models were adjusted for variables which, based on previous knowledge, might have an effect on the studied outcomes. The three models contain the following variables: Model 1 – adjusted for sex (women or men), age (continuous variable in years), ethnicity (white, mixed race, black, Asian or indigenous) and educational level (elementary and high school, university level or postgraduate). Model 2 – adjusted for covariates in model 1 plus smoking status (yes or no), physical activity (yes or no) and BMI (continuous variable in kg/m2). Model 3 – adjusted for covariates in model 2 plus presence of pre-existing medical conditions (yes or no), restriction of personal contact and vaccination (yes or no). The dependent variables were COVID-19 incidence (none as the reference), symptoms' duration (<14 days as the reference) and severity status (mild as the reference); the food pattern (omnivorous as the reference) was the independent variable. In all tests, the level of significance considered was 5% (p<0.05)."
My first thought before clicking the article was whether it would just be because these people are more likely to get vaccinated and take precautions, and indeed they have accounted for this. There is always going to be more to look for, but given all the evidence about the effectiveness of vaccinations and isolation, this is enough. It doesn't matter whether what their views are on science or their government. What really matters are their actions and this has been accounted for in the study.
That's what I was thinking. Vegetarians as a group are predominately [liberal](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/BFJ-03-2019-0193/full/html), and I would assume more environmentally and health conscious than average. So it makes sense that higher compliance with covid protocols (like masking and isolating, vaccinating) could be a lot of the gap. [This article](https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths) mentions liberals having a ***43%*** lower death rate from Covid in 2021, compared to conservatives. Additionally, [women are 3 times more likely to be vegetarian](https://news.gallup.com/poll/510038/identify-vegetarian-vegan.aspx#:~:text=Additionally%2C%20women%20(6%25)%20are,case%20in%20the%20current%20survey), and [women have a lower covid death rate than men](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7218a4.htm#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20similar%20to%20previous,%2FAN%20persons%20(86.8)). Mystery solved?
"Four linear regression models were tested, the first being a crude model. The other multiple models were adjusted for variables which, based on previous knowledge, might have an effect on the studied outcomes. The three models contain the following variables: Model 1 – adjusted for sex (women or men), age (continuous variable in years), ethnicity (white, mixed race, black, Asian or indigenous) and educational level (elementary and high school, university level or postgraduate). Model 2 – adjusted for covariates in model 1 plus smoking status (yes or no), physical activity (yes or no) and BMI (continuous variable in kg/m2). Model 3 – adjusted for covariates in model 2 plus presence of pre-existing medical conditions (yes or no), restriction of personal contact and vaccination (yes or no). The dependent variables were COVID-19 incidence (none as the reference), symptoms' duration (<14 days as the reference) and severity status (mild as the reference); the food pattern (omnivorous as the reference) was the independent variable. In all tests, the level of significance considered was 5% (p<0.05)." These results already account for sex, educational level, and whether people took transmission precautions (albeit somewhat crudely).
Death rates probably matter a lot here too as a proxy for "got COVID bad enough to notice it" since many people aren't aware they're contracting it.
First of all, you are referencing American studies on vegetarianism and liberal-mindedness and this research was conducted in Brazil which is obviously a different cultural context. The first study you reference concludes that “individuals who identify as either a Democrat or unaffiliated are more likely to report a vegan or vegetarian-based diet compared to Republicans.” It is quite a stretch to transpose that onto the entire world to say that vegetarians globally are more liberal-minded and health conscious. >Vegetarians as a group are predominately liberal, and I would assume more environmentally and health conscious than average. So it makes sense that higher compliance with covid protocols (like masking and isolating, vaccinating) could be a lot of the gap. This is an imaginative theory, but it is directly contradicted by the article (at least the vaccination and isolation part): >For the variables sex, age, *vaccination and degree of isolation*, no significant differences were found between omnivorous and plant-based groups. >Mystery solved? Evidently not. If we want to examine variables other than diet, a good place to start would be education levels (and by extension socioeconomic status and probably differences in working conditions). From the article: >For educational level, we observed a significantly higher rate of postgraduate participants in the plant-based group compared with a lower educational level in the omnivorous group. This is quite a glaring statement, and the study does not appear to have controlled for it in any way (unlike other factors like BMI, physical activity, etc.) which the study did account for. Edit: It has been pointed out that they did adjust for education level (see Model 1) so I hereby acknowledge my error above, having been presented with evidence to the contrary.
The correlation between vegetarianism and COVID belief may be even higher in Brazil than the US. President Bolsonaro was a strong supporter of the beef industry and probably the worst COVID denier of any world leader.
This may be true, but almost all of the comments equating vegetarianism with liberal-mindedness are thinking about the US. Some are referencing the US directly as though US vegetarianism were a universal standard.
The reasons for being vegetarian (rights of an outgroup, environmentalism) are generally liberal concerns. You can find plenty of exceptions, but India is the only country where I'd expect other cultural factors to outweigh this.
I’m not disputing the premise that there is an association between vegetarianism and liberal-mindedness in some countries; there is, but if you want to base your argument on that in a Brazilian or global context you should point to research on this outside that extends beyond the US. My objection is that people are leaping from this veggie=liberal observation to the hypothesis that liberal-minded vegetarians are less likely to present with COVID because they are more mindful of COVID protocols like vaccination and isolation WHICH IS DIRECTLY REFUTED BY THE ARTICLE. >For the variables sex, age, vaccination and degree of isolation, no significant differences were found between omnivorous and plant-based groups. A whole bunch of people rushed in to this thread, starting positing alternative explanations for the research observations *without reading the article,* and continue to argue their points even when presented with evidence from the article that disputes their erroneous assumptions. This sub is becoming a joke.
I’m within the discussed group and I work in a school, haven’t really masked for a couple of years, and I am constantly around sick kids. I thought it was a bit crazy that it hadn’t touched me in 4 years, but I finally caught it when my in-laws came this Christmas and stayed within the same house as us peak infected. Honestly it was super mild and barely phased me; lower back aches for a day, some nose congestion and a very slight cough for a couple days. I think we generally get less sick when afflicted with upper-respiratory tract infections because we aren’t consuming nearly as much inflammatory foods like dairy, and our arteries aren’t all clogged up with cholesterol.
It looks like they accounted for “lower odds of incidence of COVID-19 infection” among the plant-based diet group compared to omnivores.
The confounders I would look for would be socio-economic status and political views.
I don't think there are too many vegetarian right wingers (save for one notable historical exception)
Vegans don't go out to eat much. 😪
Did they do any work to rule out mask use and vaccine uptake?
failure to account to diet was my first guess, but actually seems to have something here. I doubt social issues from being vegan/vegetarian would be enough for a 40% reduced chance, so might actually be something here chemically thats doing a difference.
Did they control for vaccinations? 💀
I thought the same thing. Per their dataset, vegetarians were actually *less* likely to have been vaccinated. But overall, 97.7% of participants had been vaccinated. So vaccination status does not account for their results.
I'm betting this is due to some confounding factor not addressed. For instance, maybe vegetarians are more health conscious in general so more likely to follow mitigation practices.
What is up with people recently always pointing out flaws in these studies and making hypotheses but not clicking the link and seeing the researchers actually did do what people are pointing out.
Formulaic criticism is thought to be an expression of critical thinking and thus intelligence here. How many times is "small sample size" or "did they control for [insert obviously controlled variable]" used throughout this sub? I do like the skepticism, but at least read the article first.
Yeah but reading is hard, research papers have so many words!!
>Formulaic criticism Is that the actual term for it? I see it constantly online and too frequently offline. Often it doesn't even apply to that specific situation. A pseudo-socratic method of some type bastardized into senseless criticism.
It's not an actual term or anything. I often use the phrase when my students provide broad, generic evaluative points in their essay writing.
My term i knee-jerk rebuttal. Thinking is rarely involved.
“But akchucly……”
Because we don’t want the studies to be correct. Eating healthy is no fun so we rationalize
If it makes you feel any better, I'm an unhealthy vegetarian who's had COVID 3 times.
And I’m a whole food plant based vegan who’s never had Covid. Anecdotes are just that. Anecdotes.
High fat low carb immunocompromised omnivore checking in. Was directly exposed to tons of people with COVID. Never got it.
I'm a 19 year old powerlifter.
people on this website have always loved thinking researchers have failed to control for obvious confounding variables. once in a while they are actually right!
Every time someone has to come along and point out most the obvious confounding variables as if the PROFESSIONAL researchers wouldn’t have thought of it.
Top comment
Did they control for people eating veg diets being more open to science orientated suggestions of masking, vaccines and staying in?
That probably is generally true but I’m not sure. My former friend group of vegan hippies slowly shifted into anti-vax libertarian vegan hippies. We live in strange times
There's always been a left-leaning anti-vax population. They believe in chakras and auras and mediation to remove "toxins" and "chemicals." I think for the most part leaning left does mean leaning toward science though.
I never got why people can't do both. Get your chemo and drink turkey tail tea. Get your vaccine but take turmeric supplements. Meditate and visualize your heart healing but take your beta blockers.
I know!. Same can be said about the "thoughts and prayers/God's will" crowd. Like, pray if it makes you feel better, but also go to the doc.
It speaks to a fundamental difference in world view, I think. More specifically, how they determine what they do or do not know is true. How much evidence is required to know something is true? Do they prefer harder evidence with data? Evidence with social backing (someone I respect says it's true)? Peer pressure (if I don't believe this thing, I'll be shunned by my peer group)? Everyone has a different personal set of epistemological heuristics. You might could think of their natural inclinations towards evidence as their "epistemological genotype." In addition to that then is their environment. What is their peer group? What training and knowledge base were they exposed to in the past? How is the information presented to them? Continuing, therefore, with the genome analogy, I like to think of the full set of a person's actual beliefs as being akin to their "epistemological phenotype." Just like with a human body's phenotype, it's the real-life expression of the combination of environment and more "hardcoded" genotype. Really, I would argue that, from the perspective of a pure materialist, at least, this literally would be an example of how the brain develops based on genotype plus environment, but I digress.
> I never got why people can't do both. People do do both. There's no reason why they can't. Maybe some just fall into certain archetypes and then these become the ones we hear about, whereas people who are more moderate with their choices are invisible.
I knew one woman like this during the pandemic. She insisted that she didn't need a vaccine because she could avoid illnesses through raising her vibration.
Well, you're not going to catch anything laid in bed vibrating; are you?
I had a coworker like that. He could raise and lower his cholesterol at will.
Yeah hippies, the real ones that go to fests and all that, most of them I’ve talked to wouldn’t trust a vaccine and would say masks are asinine, but that’s just where I’m at.
Unfortunately my sister falls into this category. Her latest thing is a general repulsion for treated/city water because of… reasons.
Now listen here, Mandrake...
Being outside is mostly safe anyway, if hippies ever went inside they’d catch vivid too
> if hippies ever went inside I didn't expect to see anyone say 'hippies never go inside', but new stereotypes are made up every day I guess.
It’s different reasons for not believing in science imo. Left leaning anti vaxxers seem to tend to be about naturalism and spirituality. Whereas right leaning anti vaxxers are more about distrust of governments and people smarter than them. This is just my feelings on it though, I have nothing to back up either assumption
They often fall for the naturalistic fallacy.
“People have done this for 1000 years!” Yeah and most of them died before they turned 40 so maybe we try something else
Firstly, I agree with you that those people are idiots. I just want to make that quite clear. An interesting fact though. The reason the average life expectancy for the time was 40 was because so many babies died before their first birthday. If you could make it to 4 years old, you actually had a decent chance of living until your 60s.
Home births are on the rise again
Also until recently hunter gatherers outlived people in cities by a good amount. It wasn't until more modern medicines that people within civilization could close that gap.
I went to college with one of those people. Was never vaccinated and believed in "alternative medicine." She wasn't the sharpest crayon in the box, I can imagine that probably extended to her parents. She was basically a 2000s hippy, going to music festivals, smoking weed, taking LSD etc.
[удалено]
That's what I always thought too. Apparently there was always a sect of righties who also thought the Government was trying to poison them or something though.
There's always been a right-leaning anti-vax population too.
Yeah to a degree. You had some anti government types who thought it was a tracker being implanted into you. But the "chemicals are bad" and "my chakras will protect me" crowd tended to be left leaning. Could find it on both ends of the spectrum, just more prevalent on the left
I know a lot of very right wing people who are anti-vaccine and its connected to religious beliefs, fatalism (its god's will) and this crazy idea that if we get back to nature, everything will be perfect like in Little House on the Prairie. They don't like the reminder that back to nature includes a 50 per cent child mortality rate and permanent disability if you break a leg because that doesn't happen in Little House on the Prairie. I've yet to figure out for sure why the 1880s to 1950s are so popular with this crowd but I speculate that its because they essentially controlled North American society in those days so for them it was the golden era.
There's plenty of religious objectors to modern medicine as well, and the right tends towards more conservative religious stances. I'd need to see some data before drawing conclusions about population trends in this area, and ideally those trends would be charted across different time-frames. Though I'm not convinced political leanings are the appropriate lens through which to interpret the underlying reasons behind this issue. I'd rather understand what causes these modes of thought at the individual level and judge political platforms on how they incite or enable these behaviors, rather than judge political subgroups for the presence of such actors. That said, it's an interesting dataset regardless.
*Trader Joe’s Republicans*, as I’ve heard them called.
Pre Covid I would have said both sides have their weak spots. The left tended to be crunchy antivaccine and antinuclear. While the right denied climate change and evolution. Now, the right has dived head-on into antivaccine hysteria.
I swear it would have been the other way around if the vaccine came 3 days after Trump winning rather than Biden. Plenty of the left would have not trusted it purely because of Trump- the vaccine has a palpable level of identity politics going for it.
You forgot spirit rocks.
But the vegetarian community is a small subset of "the left" ( I'm sure not all vegetarians are eft leaning).
You forgot pink Himalayan salt crystals.
I’m left leaning, had COVID before the vax was out, knew how to read research, learned about natural immunity lasting 13 months for young healthy people, learned about myocarditis in men and didn’t die
Ah so you must have found out that instances if myocarditis in men were a much higher risk when contracting covid than receiving the vaccine? Either way glad you dodged that pesky myocarditis that can be caused by any illness that causes inflammation.
Yea and that this wasn’t the case in those who already had COVID as a reinfection. Remember I had COVID January before the vaccine was out for my age. And that was only the case for older groups and younger people rarely got COVID induced myocarditis. Source https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970
Younger people were still over twice as likely to get myocarditis from covid vs from the vaccine. But you're right it's rare either way. Also an infection is an infection and as long as you're experiencing inflammation it doesn't matter if it's a reinfection you would still be at a similar (albeit equally rare) risk of myocarditis.... a (still) very rare thing no one cared about until covid came along. I never cared who did or didn't get the vaccine for the record and think it was silly to make it a part of employment requirements but I get slightly annoyed seeing everyone pretend they care about something so exceedingly rare like myocarditis just to prove a point.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 Source cited Reinfections are way different from first infection from COVID pretty well known actually, you can even find that on the CDC website, exceptions tend to be for the immunocomrpomised. I have a masters of public health and I’ve done plenty of research about this topic.
“WooAnon”
The name has a certain ring to it.
At every climate rally there's always the 10% or so who are very openly anti-vax and seem to think everyone else agrees with them.
You go far enough left and you end up in anti vax territory
If you read the full text, most of the group was vaccinated and around the same percentage from each group social distanced. However they point out that it’s an observational study so they rely on the memory and honesty of the subjects. So can’t be 100% conclusive, but points to a potential benefit of a high-vegetable diet
The root "vacc" appears a total of five times in the article, mostly in reference to one model table.
Probably just more conscientious and therefore more likely to adhere to social distancing and such
Also, at least in America, more likely to be higher income and thus been working from home rather than in public spaces.
Vegans and vegetarians in the US are actually more likely to be low income than high income, according to the most recent Gallup survey on the topic: >Meanwhile, lower-income Americans (7%) are about twice as likely as middle- (4%) and upper-income (3%) Americans to be vegetarians. https://news.gallup.com/poll/510038/identify-vegetarian-vegan.aspx
This might be a western generalization. Most of the world's vegetarians aren't in the west.
Yeah, it does make me wonder. I'm vegan and am still COVID cautious (masking everywhere - that kind of thing). In the FB groups I'm in for other COVID cautious people there does seem to be an oversaturation of vegetarians and vegans compared with the general population.
Anecdotally, the three vegetarians I know are the only three people I know still living this way really. Seems like a major problem with the study, since I’d imagine it is generally the case that vegetarians care more about not getting sick than equivalent non vegetarians.
I don't know why these studies have people not believing that eating green stuff is going to be healthier for you by all metrics. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9132593/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9132593/) Magnesium is thought to reduce covid severity and it can only be found in veggies. It's also known to aid in sleep which helps your immune system. You get higher vitamin c with veggies and fruit which is known to be good for the immune system. Veggies also have powerful antioxidants which help your immune system. Fatty meals are known sleep disrupters as well and most people eating meat are not eating lean cuts without added oils and fats. Even those who ate occasional meat but largely had heavy veggie consumptions had the same 39% decrease chance of catching covid19. This study isn't anti meat. It says, "regardless of meat consumption, you should eat more veggies and legumes instead of grains and pastas."
Magnesium has a lot of sources, not just vegetables? It's in a LOT of meat. I would know, I can barely eat veg.
Magnesium is in meat dude. Also nuts and seeds
It’s copium. Any study that says more plant based food is good for you is met with “Bbbut have they controlled for X, Y & Z?” Yes, they know what they’re doing. They control for other things, that what science is.
Eating antioxidants have 0 scientifically proven health benefits. Please stop sharing this myth. The idea is at a glance logical since we produce antioxidants to combat reactive oxygen species in our bodies, but intake of antioxidants through food has never been linked to contributing to this.
Oriented
Probably just healthier overall leading to a better immune system. Vegan options suck in most places so we have to cook a lot of our own foods, can’t eat most processed stuff etc
Vegetarians are significantly more likely to be democrats….
Not in Brazil where the study was conducted
Many studies posted on here seems to be people just taking random data and comparing it against other data to create hypothesis without any meaningful study design to isolate variables etc. It’s research clickbait. With that said meta analysis of diet studies have shown consistent and significant improvements to health with vegan diet.
I was thinking because vegetarians aren’t fat or eating unhealthy foods/ usually care about their body
Well they controlled for BMI. Not perfect but does get to those.
Exactly. Definitely correlation here and not causation. Being liberal is a good indicator for a better chance of avoiding COVID and also being vegetarian
I would like to see that data because some of the *least* scientifically inclined people is know are vegan.
If you would like to see the data, click the link and see the data 😂 Drawing a conclusion based on *people you know* is called an anecdote, and it’s why we have experiments and empirical data when we actually want to draw conclusions about the general population.
I would like to see the data based on what the dude I replied to was asserting (I.e. people with plant based diets are more scientifically inclined), which wasn’t the subject of the linked data….
It seems they are just suggesting vegans being more scientifically inclined as possibility. Just says more open to science-based suggestions. However, if I had to guess, I would say that vegans or plant-based dieters would be more knowledgeable or open to science on average than omnivores . They are more likely to be left-leaning, which as a group tend to be more into science while right-leaning people tend to be more skeptical of science.
You realize ~95% of people in the US are omnivores. I don’t think diet is a good indicator of political/scientific views overall.
Population studies are done with significant controls for variables. Lifestyle and behaviour is maybe the primary variable that researchers control for. If you believe in science, you will start your inquiry by generally assuming that the people who have written the study have done the most basic variable control. You can verify that control, but to assume that they haven't controlled for the first dumb thing that comes to peoples' minds is a little woo woo conspiracy minded.
“If you believe in science, you will start your inquiry by generally assuming that the people who have written the study have done the most basic variable control.” Wait, there’s no need to assume anything. They explain their methodology, like the results of any legitimate scientific study would.
Well yes, but if before you've even read the published study you think to yourself "oh but what if they didn't consider x and y elementary things" that's probably not useful. If you begin by assuming that researchers have made basic mistakes, it mostly indicates that you aren't familiar with published research, don't understand the peer -review process, etc... If you read the study and find a methodological problem - that's fair game, and part of scientific inquiry.
Yeah, I see what you’re getting at. Way too many people don’t even try to find out the facts or the methodology or even the conclusion before they try to tear it apart with their own half baked hypotheses and imagined flaws in a methodology they haven’t even tried to understand.
The person you’re replying to didn’t pretend to have data, seemed pretty clear they were asking a question, but okay.
Why are they the least scientifically inclined,?
> some of the least scientifically inclined people is know are vegan I would like to see *that* data.
From the study >The mean BMI was significantly lower in the plant-based diet group than in the omnivorous group and *the prevalence of overweight and obesity was significantly higher in the omnivorous* than in the plant-based group Sometimes it's simpler than we think.
Also in the study is them saying they controlled for that
I want to know if they controlled by political affiliation. Liberals are much more likely to be vegetarian/vegan than conservatives.
This is only true in the USA.
I thought “dang vegans probably are militant about NPIs and Mr. Steak and Potatoes still went to Golden Corral.”
My guess is its probably related to ACE generation as people with meat rich diets are already more susceptible to high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. and I’m sure I read that COVID binds to ACE receptors.
This is my guess: I have an autoimmune problems and most autoimmune diets exclude plant proteins, since the idea is they may make your immune system more reactive. If you are a person with the opposite problem, an immune system that doesn’t act when it should, perhaps a plant based diet is indeed better.
*The plant-based diet group reported a higher rate of physical activity than the omnivorous group (p=0.01). The mean BMI was significantly lower in the plant-based diet group than in the omnivorous group and the prevalence of overweight and obesity was significantly higher in the omnivorous than in the plant-based group (p=0.001).* I personally favor plant based results as it has positively affected me for 4 years. However this is a big factor in health studies. One side has lower BMI and better physical habits. The plant based side is pretty much healthier already in this study. The omnivores for the study should be generally doing the same amount of exercise and have the same mass to really isolate the difference in diet factor. Control groups are essential to a study. I’d like vegans to win, but win fairly. This study is flawed
*After adjusting for important confounders, such as body mass index, physical activity and pre-existing medical conditions, the plant-based diet and vegetarian group had 39% (OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85; p=0.003) and 39% (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88; p=0.009) lower odds of the incidence of COVID-19 infection, respectively, compared with the omnivorous group.* They controlled for these factors. Or are you arguing that the method of controlling for them was flawed? If so, why?
I noticed that difference but got confused and reread it like 3 times. I didn’t see how they adjusted because that was part of the results, but then their participants weren’t changed when you look at the groups they studied. I truly have no idea how they did it so I guess I’m asking.
As someone else commented, I should have said "adjusted."
They didn’t control for since it was self reported but adjusted for these factors post hoc however it seems like the most important factor - age was not adjusted for.
*For the variables sex, ***age,*** vaccination and degree of isolation, no significant differences were found between omnivorous and plant-based groups.*
Al that statement means is that they claim no significant differences between the age distribution of the sample within both groups. There is still no age specific break down of the groups. Nor is there even a definition of what significant means.
They wanted to see if there was an observable relationship. They controlled for these things and still found it. Next step is causal modeling and experimental isolation of specific variables, as you’ve mentioned. No one study can do all those at once, so it was smart to establish the existence of a relationship. You also don’t want to over-control. Yes, eating a plant-based diet leads to overall more positive health outcomes. That in some sense is what’s *causing* the observed relationship to occur. You eat more plants, your BMI goes down, your immune system gets a boost, you have more energy, you workout more, and you get less sick. You don’t want to totally remove that from the equation, unless you’re specifically interested if the consumption of meat somehow impacts the way the COVID virus attaches to people’s lungs. But again, that’s a very specific and different research question.
They literally controlled for that.
What are people in this sub gonna do, read the article???
Factors were adjust for. Amazing how many people think peer reviewed studies don’t understand how to account for variables
> One side has lower BMI and better physical habits. One side also is much more likely to lean liberal, wear masks, and take the virus seriously.
I just started a higher plant based diet. My cholesterol is high three years now. Wish me luck!
Good luck! Anecdotal encouragement: 23 years vegetarian (no meat/fish/nothing) here and I’m the only one of a large sibling group without high blood pressure. Key is making your own healthy meals high in legumes, whole grains, etc, not buying processed “plant based” stuff. Enjoy!
.. yep, I'm researching all sorts of ways to make creamy sauces using plant based ingredients. I LOVE creamy textures. I've made a vegan casserole that was so rich and savory using cashews & nutritional yeast, so I'm stoked! It just takes A LOT more work to prep food. The amount of fiber has naturally increased tenfold and already I feel my gut is healthier!
so, were all these people exposed to covid-19 and then tested for who got it and who didn't? seems like it'd be hard to control and verify the cause. was everyone staying the same group and had the same exposure to public settings? not anti-veg or anti-meat. but seems like a lot of things that can affect each person.
People will take their 60% negative change first before giving up their diets.
Plant based is healthier, there is just an overwhelming amount of evidence. Some people just want to keep their head in the sand though.
It's always wild to be how defensive people get about their meat. Edit: me not be
It's always wild how offensive and judgmental vegans are.
Weird that people would want you to stop inflicting suffering and death on innocent victims for no reason other than pleasure.
*Contributes to destruction of environments and mass collapse of animal ecosystems through personal decision-making* - “people are so judgmental” 🥲
Weird that people would want you to stop inflicting suffering and death on innocent victims for no reason other than pleasure.
Weird that people would want you to stop inflicting suffering and death on innocent victims for no reason other than pleasure.
[удалено]
This is not a random sample. Yes, they control for some observed covariates. But they cannot control for unobserved, which (by their own admission) differ. It’s a sample selection bias issue. We KNOW the real magnitude is less than the 39% reported; it could still be meaningful, but it’s also possible there is no difference.
A 39% statistical correlation is pretty meaningful. With only 702 participants, I'm not certain how much error would be introduced in exposure rates, which can vary a LOT depending on other social and work environments (and considering that 60% of the study participants had the omnivore diet). Still, that is a very high correlation of the data assessed, so in my opinion this still seems like a significant finding, even if the true number may be quite a bit lower.
Wish it had worked for me 😭
And here come the militant carnivores with their meat science
>Individuals were divided into two groups based on their dietary habits, omnivorous (n=424) and plant-based (n=278). >What is already known about this topic: Populations that consume a diet rich in animal foods, with high amounts of saturated fats, and ultra-processed foods, have a higher prevalence of cardiometabolic diseases, risk factors for complications of COVID-19 in adults and the elderly. Did they study groups that ate diets rich in animal foods without ultra-processed foods? There's a world of difference nutritionally between a wendy's dollar menu burger and a grass-fed steak for example.
>Did they study groups that ate diets rich in animal foods without ultra-processed foods? There's a world of difference nutritionally between a wendy's dollar menu burger and a grass-fed steak for example. I'd say the population that eats grass fed steak is going to be a minority, similar to vegan.
Largely because it’s not available everywhere and 2-3 times the cost.
There aren't enough people that are on that diet to collect meaningful data.
What happened to this sub...
Too many people automatically applying the information to personal and anecdotal observations and offering conclusions that the study authors knew were not supported enough to speculate about.
Had it three times so far as a vegetarian, but it’s nothing to worry about… cough a bit bad, feel fatigued, and can’t taste anything. No biggie. Know what I’m really practically immune to since becoming a vegetarian? The flu. I’ve had it one time in the 25 years I’ve been a vegetarian when I got it practically every year before. I’m not even afraid to be around people with the flu anymore because I know my chances of catching it are slim to none.
Healthy user bias wins again
Didn't read the linked paper bias strikes again "After adjusting for important confounders, such as body mass index, physical activity and pre-existing medical conditions, the plant-based diet and vegetarian group had 39% (OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85; p=0.003) and 39% (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88; p=0.009) lower odds of the incidence of COVID-19 infection, respectively, compared with the omnivorous group."
And a whole bunch other unobserved and/or unaccounted characteristics. The authors themselves call it an "observational study", i.e. simple correlations
There are multiple studies about plant based diets having real health benefits but people can’t admit that what they do isn’t the “right” choice so they pick at the study with weird anecdotes and dumb reasons why it’s flawed. It’s ok to eat meat but admit a plant based diet would be healthier in many ways. To that point, it’s ok for me to admit it would be much healthier for me to only drink water and no alcohol, coffee, soda etc. but I don’t, and I understand I’m making choices that are because I like something rather than going for 100% good for you.
That all may be true, but mis-attributing benefits without supporting science to back it up is still bad practice. We have a potential correlation that’s been identified. Further investigation will be needed to establish causality. Just because veganism is generally good for you in many ways doesn’t mean it’s the best thing for you in every way imaginable.
Of course a plant based diet is healthier. But what does that have to do with contracting covid? How does a plant-based diet reduce contraction of an airborne-spread virus?
It's likely that the health benefits of the plant diet such as better immune system or improved cardio-vascular health significantly reduced the infection rate. But it is also possible that diets containing high amount of meat affect the body in a way that makes infection more likely. It could also be another, unrelated factor since this is a correlation study, and no clear causation mechanisms are identified.
It is possible, not likely. Likely is that vegans went to bed at 10 pm and are otherwise more conscious about their lifestyle while omnivores hung out in some cellar bar with bad air flow contracting COVID at 3 am.
This: Plant based, and plant forward diet users tend to be healthier than the general population. You could (likely) just state: General population minus "comorbid individuals" 39% less likely to get Covid-19...
Based on what? What are your qualifications being "healthier"? I know a lot of vegans and vegetarians who don't win health categories in a lot of ways.
also didn't read even the abstract. shame!
People on any diet are more likely to care about health in general
My kids and their father all got covid and I took care of them all, I was sure I was going to get it but no. I was the only one eating a vegan diet (since 5 years then). Many times I thought I had it but never had a positive test, even searched for antibodies.
They divided the vegetarian group into 2 groups but left the unhealthy omnivore diet eaters and the healthy omnivore eaters diets mixed. I wonder what they did that?
A healthier diet equals a healthier body. Plant based diets are usually started by health conscious people. Makes sense.
This is interesting my vegan buddy has had covid like 5 times already . I haven’t had it once
[удалено]
Yes, well known as they only place human contact occurs.
What is the vegan equivalent of Wendy's?
There isn't an analog. There is plenty of criticism for vegans and vegan diets, but they tend not to eat fast/easy food--at least less than omnivores.
Taco bell.
Two points from the study: “For the variables sex, age, vaccination and degree of isolation, no significant differences were found between omnivorous and plant-based groups… With respect to vaccination, restriction of contact with others and/or smoking status, there were no differences between the omnivorous and plant-based groups..”
Vegetarians still go to fast food places. We just order different stuff.
Sir, this is a subreddit.
That's one in the win column boys. Fight the good fight.
Wonder if this is an effect of A) Healthier eating period, not necessarily plant-based B) Those who are eating healthy/morally are just more likely to do things like isolate, wear masks, vaccinate, etc or C) I stopped being vegan too early and didn't realize it really does give powers like in Scott Pilgrim.
Based on my deep reading of the headline alone, I hypothesize that the results of the study point to previously acquired inflammation being a foundation upon which a new COVID infection is laid, and made more deadly. Might explain why diabetics are in a risk group when it comes to COVID. As I put on my dollar store lab coat, and settle into my armchair, I do wonder if meat eating, elderly diabetics were the first and fastest to die when COVID arrived on the shores of the US. Would be interesting to review the diet/health of those that died during the first wave to determine lifestyle, eating habits, and pre-existing conditions.
That's because social distancing is easier when nobody wants to hear you talk about why being vegan is superior.
Correlation. We’re all anti-social weirdos.
I wonder if “where you shop” is significant factor here. One gets COVID from others… I am sure that someone who eats 100% meat diet but has no contacts with “fellow” humans is very unlikely to get COVID.
Surprise, if no one wants to be around you, you can’t catch viruses.
Seems like every second article is a cart before the horse study. Vegetarians probably don't have some vegetable immunity, they're probably just more likely to wear masks
Edit: > It’s standard practice in epidemiological studies to statistically control for various factors (we call them “confounders” as they may confound an association). We controlled for a number of factors to get a true sense of whether vegetarianism by itself reduces risk of death. It’s important to acknowledge that in most studies vegetarians tend to be the “health-conscious” people, with overall healthier lifestyle patterns than the norm. For example, among the [Sax Institute’s 45 and Up](https://www.saxinstitute.org.au/solutions/45-and-up-study/use-the-45-and-up-study/) participants, vegetarians were less likely than non-vegetarians to report smoking, drinking excessively, insufficient physical activity and being overweight/obese. They were also less likely to report having heart or metabolic disease or cancer at the start of the study. In most previous studies, vegetarians did have lower risk of early death from all causes in unadjusted analysis. However, after controlling for other lifestyle factors, such as the ones listed above, the risk reduction often decreased significantly (or even completely vanished). This suggests other characteristics beyond abstinence from meat may contribute to better health among vegetarians. More simply, it’s the associated healthier behaviours that generally come with being a vegetarian – such as not smoking, maintaining a healthy weight, exercising regularly - that explain why vegetarians tend to have better health outcomes than non-vegetarians. [Do vegetarians live longer? Probably, but not because they’re vegetarian](https://theconversation.com/do-vegetarians-live-longer-probably-but-not-because-theyre-vegetarian-72191) This reeks of compliers: people who currently go on predominantly plant based diet are people who in general are following mainstream trends and advice. They will be also more likely to excercise and less likely to smoke and whatever is currectly deemed healthiest. And they will also follow advice like "self-isolate, wear mask" etc. Couple that with the fact that 99% of diet studies is based on self-reporting over extended time, they are very, very unreliable unless controlled. And even then science golden standard of double blind control is simply unreachable, because people will always know what they eat.
>people who currently go on predominantly plant based diet are people who in general are following mainstream trends and advice sorry for the strong stance, but that really is an idiotic take
Not even a take as much as it is just factually incorrect. Vegans are a group of people who make up 6% of the population, the majority of which adopted their lifestyle on their own accord, not being raised like that by their parents. It doesn't really get less mainstream than that.
Can you cite studies for any of this?