Return to Answer

wording

Source Link

edited Nov 17, 2018 at 20:32

7.1k
2
24
66

The study is still "valid" in the sense that PLOS One has not retracted the publication. This means the work was done in good faith and the methodology is acceptable, but it does not necessarily mean the results are validshould be accepted as truth. To assess validity of the study we should look at comments and criticisms.

Because of the significant media attention, the UK NHS (National Health Service) published a detailed assessment of the study which is written in layman's terms. In addition, the lead author of the study made some follow-up comments in the reader notes on PLOS One which I'll refer to.

Limitations and Concerns of the Study

The design of the study can only show association, not causality. It is equally likely that people with health problems adopted a vegetarian diet.
Because of limited sample size, the authors grouped together 25 vegans, 126 lacto-ovo vegetarians, and 179 pescetarians and labelled them all as "vegetarians".
The study sought to identify relationships on many variables, such as prevalence of cancer and depression, but the sample size was too small to produce statistically significant results for this kind of multivariate analysis.
The presence of disease was not medically verified, so the results could equally be explained if vegetarians were more likely to be hypochondriacs (people who are abnormally anxious about their health).
The study includes only an Austrian sample who may have different dietary, health and lifestyle habits from other countries.

Perspectives

UK NHS (National Health Service)

https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/vegetarians-have-poorer-quality-of-life-study-claims/

Despite the media headlines, the results from this Austrian cross sectional survey provide no proof that vegetarians are in poorer health than meat eaters.

Lead Author

Nathalie T. Burkert, March 2014

In our opinion, it seems not far to seek that persons with worse health consume a vegetarian diet because they try to develop a better health and eating behavior, and not the opposite, that a certain diet (vegetarian) leads to worse health. We therefore state in our discussion that we can neither say anything about causes or effects, nor about long-term consequences.

The study is still "valid" in the sense that PLOS One has not retracted the publication. This means the work was done in good faith and the methodology is acceptable, but it does not necessarily mean the results are valid. To assess validity of the study we should look at comments and criticisms.

Limitations and Concerns of the Study

The design of the study can only show association, not causality. It is equally likely that people with health problems adopted a vegetarian diet.
Because of limited sample size, the authors grouped together 25 vegans, 126 lacto-ovo vegetarians, and 179 pescetarians and labelled them all as "vegetarians".
The study sought to identify relationships on many variables, such as prevalence of cancer and depression, but the sample size was too small to produce statistically significant results for this kind of multivariate analysis.
The presence of disease was not medically verified, so the results could equally be explained if vegetarians were more likely to be hypochondriacs (people who are abnormally anxious about their health).
The study includes only an Austrian sample who may have different dietary, health and lifestyle habits from other countries.

Perspectives

UK NHS (National Health Service)

https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/vegetarians-have-poorer-quality-of-life-study-claims/

Despite the media headlines, the results from this Austrian cross sectional survey provide no proof that vegetarians are in poorer health than meat eaters.

Lead Author

Nathalie T. Burkert, March 2014

In our opinion, it seems not far to seek that persons with worse health consume a vegetarian diet because they try to develop a better health and eating behavior, and not the opposite, that a certain diet (vegetarian) leads to worse health. We therefore state in our discussion that we can neither say anything about causes or effects, nor about long-term consequences.

The study is still "valid" in the sense that PLOS One has not retracted the publication. This means the work was done in good faith and the methodology is acceptable, but it does not necessarily mean the results should be accepted as truth. To assess validity of the study we should look at comments and criticisms.

Limitations and Concerns of the Study

The design of the study can only show association, not causality. It is equally likely that people with health problems adopted a vegetarian diet.
Because of limited sample size, the authors grouped together 25 vegans, 126 lacto-ovo vegetarians, and 179 pescetarians and labelled them all as "vegetarians".
The study sought to identify relationships on many variables, such as prevalence of cancer and depression, but the sample size was too small to produce statistically significant results for this kind of multivariate analysis.
The presence of disease was not medically verified, so the results could equally be explained if vegetarians were more likely to be hypochondriacs (people who are abnormally anxious about their health).
The study includes only an Austrian sample who may have different dietary, health and lifestyle habits from other countries.

Perspectives

UK NHS (National Health Service)

https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/vegetarians-have-poorer-quality-of-life-study-claims/

Despite the media headlines, the results from this Austrian cross sectional survey provide no proof that vegetarians are in poorer health than meat eaters.

Lead Author

Nathalie T. Burkert, March 2014

In our opinion, it seems not far to seek that persons with worse health consume a vegetarian diet because they try to develop a better health and eating behavior, and not the opposite, that a certain diet (vegetarian) leads to worse health. We therefore state in our discussion that we can neither say anything about causes or effects, nor about long-term consequences.

Source Link

created Nov 17, 2018 at 19:14

Nic

7.1k
2
24
66

The study is still "valid" in the sense that PLOS One has not retracted the publication. This means the work was done in good faith and the methodology is acceptable, but it does not necessarily mean the results are valid. To assess validity of the study we should look at comments and criticisms.

Limitations and Concerns of the Study

The design of the study can only show association, not causality. It is equally likely that people with health problems adopted a vegetarian diet.
Because of limited sample size, the authors grouped together 25 vegans, 126 lacto-ovo vegetarians, and 179 pescetarians and labelled them all as "vegetarians".
The study sought to identify relationships on many variables, such as prevalence of cancer and depression, but the sample size was too small to produce statistically significant results for this kind of multivariate analysis.
The presence of disease was not medically verified, so the results could equally be explained if vegetarians were more likely to be hypochondriacs (people who are abnormally anxious about their health).
The study includes only an Austrian sample who may have different dietary, health and lifestyle habits from other countries.

Perspectives

UK NHS (National Health Service)

https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/vegetarians-have-poorer-quality-of-life-study-claims/

Despite the media headlines, the results from this Austrian cross sectional survey provide no proof that vegetarians are in poorer health than meat eaters.

Lead Author

Nathalie T. Burkert, March 2014

In our opinion, it seems not far to seek that persons with worse health consume a vegetarian diet because they try to develop a better health and eating behavior, and not the opposite, that a certain diet (vegetarian) leads to worse health. We therefore state in our discussion that we can neither say anything about causes or effects, nor about long-term consequences.