"Believing is seeing." But really, this study appears not to even try to make a claim about cause and effect. It certainly is an interesting correlation, and either way could have an interesting causal relationship. I can say anecdotally that many of my friends and family (but by no means all) who are vegetarians are naturally given to depression of bipolarism. I think that there's something about that state that makes one more sensitive to animals. But on the other side, there are certainly a lot of nutrients in animals that aren't present in high concentrations in plants. I'm a huge advocate of eating fat, for example. I think fat suffered a terrible PR stretch in the 70s and 80s from which it has never recovered. There have been a few epidemiological studies that have come out recently in favor of fat, and I suppose this one may support that growing body of evidence, as well. Fuck skim milk. Would anyone ever eat a "skim avocado"? Terrible idea.
|this study appears not to even try to make a claim about cause and effect But isn't that a good choice, considering the limitations of the study? It would be very difficult to prove that a diet caused any of these effects. Things like mental health have so many potential contributing factors, from genetics, to home environment, etc, that it would be very difficult to sift through and pinpoint one single cause or even one factor that provably increased the chance of mental instability. At least, this is according to what I know of Science. It's an interesting result, however, which is why it's (slightly) news-worthy. I find it interesting also that my vegetarian friends are so offended by it; while I reposted it because I found it interesting, I certainly wasn't trying to pinpoint those individuals and say that they have lower qualities of life. I mean, studies also show that cigarette smokers are more inclined to have depression, especially if they are women, and studies show that if you have tattoos you are more likely to have major depressive episodes in your life (or at least I've heard about studies of both) - but if a friend posted a link, I wouldn't get offended by it: I would accept it. I have heard of this. (Maybe that predispositions me to be accepting of it.) I don't feel it's a personal attack. Maybe for these friends the results hit too close to home. It's not like either the study or any of the articles say "Stop being vegetarian and you will be happier/your quality of life will improve!"
Yes. We should never make claims of fact that we don't know to be true. The authors of the study know this, and I'm sure they've been careful to say, "here are the data", not let's figure out why this is the case. The media are typically the ones who get in the way. Yes, but they are probably already sensitive, because people probably tell them from time to time that their life choice is stupid. They likely see it as an attack on their lifestyle, and can't see it as just an interesting dataset. It's like if you're a Christian, and I tell you of a new study that says that Jesus probably wasn't a historical figure. You might get bent out of shape about it, even though there might be other good reasons why being a Christian works for you. Not a perfect analogy, but I think there are some parallels.But isn't that a good choice, considering the limitations of the study?
I find it interesting also that my vegetarian friends are so offended by it; while I reposted it because I found it interesting, I certainly wasn't trying to pinpoint those individuals and say that they have lower qualities of life.