Interesting study presented today

[prometheus]

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm

[ahinton]

This is indeed an interesting study, although I am personally somewhat wary of these kinds of thing being taken out of context - or rather not seen in the wider context of general medical benefit. The very term "vegetarian" is often misunderstood and misused (as this report mentions), since many people who describe themselves as such are not actually so. There are varying degress of animal product consumption and, for a proper understanding of how this works, one must begin by recognising that these are
1. Those who eat red and white meat and fish
2. Those who eat no red meat but eat white meat and fish
3. Those who eat no meat but eat fish
4. Those who eat no meat or fish but eat dairy products
5. Those who eat no animal products of any kind.
Of these, the last are usually described as "vegans".

Clearly, the more restrictions on dietary intake, the more challenging the diet, which is why those who do restrict their diet in these ways often tend to be more imaginative in what they prepare.

Even this, however, is only a part of the overall story.

Some people who restrict their diets in one of the ways in 2. - 5. above will do so purely out of personal preference - i.e. some people don't eat certain kinds of food because they either do not like it or have an allergic reaction to it, whereas most people think of "vegetarians" as people who restrict their dietary intake only because of concerns for animal welfare.

Many people in 4. and 5. above are likely to have preferences for organically produced food, although this preference is by no means restricted to those who restrict their dietary intake (in other words an increasing number of people are maving away from mass-produced meat and buying free range or organic free range meat products); again, some of these choices are for "moral" reasons (better standards of animal husbandry bringing about better animal welfare, etc.) and others purely for perceived taste and health benefits. The jury remains out on whether or to what extent organically produced meat, vegetables, fruit, nuts, etc. offer greater health benefits than non-organically produced food, but many have testified to the usually better taste and texture of organic products.

Then there's the food miles argument. Some people refuse to eat food - especially meat - that has been imported over long distances; again, some of these people make this choice from a "moralistic" standpoint and others purely because locally produced food is almost certainly going to have finer taste, texture and health benefits and thus offer greater enjoyment.

One of the problems with those in 5. above is that, as their dietary choices are the most restrictive of all, they are most likely to need to include a greater proportion of imported produce into their diets, otherwise their dietary régimes would be very dull indeed.

On top of all this, there are those in classifications 1.-4. above who nevertheless do not eat meat, fish, etc. daily and others that never go a day without one or the other, so there is the additional question of frequency of intake within these four classifications.

Finally, there is the matter of diet being an individual matter; we are all made up differently, so (within certain parameters) what suits one person will not necessarily be of precisely the same benefit to others; there are obvious dietary no-nos for most of us but, aside from those, it is not merely a matter of individual choice but one of best suiting diet to person.

This particular study has concentrated on the medical benefits of certain types of dietary restriction in respect of IQ. Man does not live by IQ alone, however. This is what motivated my opening sentence; the value of a study such as this is in the extent to which it may open more people's minds to the potential medical benefits of good diet - which in turn means the diet best suited to them. The risk of prioritising one possible benefit over another in dietary planning is rarely wise.

Other factors to consider are when and where one eats, how long one takes over it, the quantities that one eats, whether and to what extent one is stressed when eating and so on. In addition, there is the argument about fresh local produce as against pre-packaged foods. It goes on and on - which I won't any more here!

The fact remains that this study covers just one aspect of potential dietary benefit andf I do not believe that it would be sensible to view it in isloation, however valuable or credible its findings may be in their own right.

For the record, I have no dietary restrictions other than those things which I do not enjoy, but I do not eat meat or fish daily (although rarely does a day go by without my consuming at least some dairy produce). I always eat locally produced organic foods whenever possible and hardly ever buy pre-packaged food (except such items as milk and eggs, since I do not own any farm animals). As a supporter of this kind of produce, I have for some years been a member of The Soil Association in UK, which is dedicated to promoting this kind of thing.

Living as I do in England, however, I wisely do not restrict my wine intake to locally produced stuff, since the improvements in British wine production are mostly of very recent origin and they still have an awful long way to go!

My dietary choices are not principally made on moral grounds but prompted by the desire to enjoy better quality products, although clearly in some cases (for example, organically reared poultry rather than the appalling battery kind) the two stances tend to go hand in hand in any case.

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Actually it wouldn't be that interesting were it not that 5 points is quite significant.

This is a statistical study. You cannot really learn much from them.

Maybe eating less meat makes you smarter. Maybe educated people have generally a higher IQ and generally are more concerned with moral issues. Etc etc...

[counterpoint]

There are many questions for me:

Do the ingredients of animal meat kill intelligent human brain cells?

Do the ingredients of vegetarian food let grow intelligent human brain cells?

Do intelligent people prefer eating vegetarian food because of the flavour?

Do intelligent people prefer eating vegetarian food because they know better, how animal meat is produced?

Do the testers want us make believe, that vegetarians are the better humans?

[prometheus]

Counterpoint, like I pointed out no hard science can be done in the field of sociology. So until we find a method to do so we are limited to this kind of 'data mining'. But we will never get a deeper understanding.

Maybe with more statistical research it is possible to rule out a few possible explenations.

But in a case like this there could be a hundred ones.

I just wanted to start some discussion, I guess.


As for your last question. I don't think the researchers are trying to say anything. To answer your question with 'yes' it would mean that people with a high IQ are somehow 'better' humans, whatever that means.
It does not even claim that people more concerned with morality are more often vegetarian, a thing that would imply that human morality of contenporary society really considers vegetarianism to be more moral.

One detail that seems kind of meaningful is that people that are 'meat reducers' or people that only eat fish and consider themelves to be vegetarian and true vegetarians show the same result.
It does not seem to matter if one is ignorant of the 'proper' definition of vegetarianism for the IQ difference.

Maybe people with a high IQ generally want to carry the label 'vegetarian'.

[nicco]

mmmm...meat

[wishful thinker]

Do intelligent people prefer eating vegetarian food because they know better, how animal meat is produced?

Well, I must declare an interest here, as one of the evil cynics that produce "animal meat".    In fact I raise sheep and cattle.  They live out their lives, until mature, on grass pastures with their mothers in small flocks/herds, and have pretty contented lives.  Whilst not being officially "organic" I do not use feritiser or additional feed.  They only eat grass and hay (dried grass).  The meat has much better flavour/teaxture to that which you will find in the supermarket.

On the other hand, most "vegetables" are produced in soil that is heavily artificially fertilised, and sprayed with perticides within an inch of their lives.  Not what I would consider to be a healthy option.

[counterpoint]

mmmm...meat

 

[prometheus]

wishful thinker, I don't think most vegetarians have a real big problem with what you describe.

Almost all animals are eaten by other animals. At least that is what nature 'meant' for them.

It is just the way we humans exploit animals for food. It is intensive animal production and the numbers of animals. It is about if animals can follow their natural behavior before they get eaten.

In my country we kill 450 million chickens every year while we only have 16 million people. Also, on top of that 50 million pigs and cows also. And that is each year. Just one small tiny European country.

[wishful thinker]

Exactly.  Which is why quality in whatever one eats should be the priority, not meat good, veg bad or vice versa.  There is a campaign in my country (England) for people to appreciate the higher food standards of which Alistair speaks.

But the bottom line is price.  People want, and have come to expect, cheap food.  Until they are prepared to pay what it costs to produce, and a bit more for the farmer, then there will be no wide scale improvement in the battery farming practises of which you speak. 

[counterpoint]

It would be interesting, to have a poll, how many/few people here are vegetarians and how many/few do have a high IQ.

For me its NO two times  

[prometheus]

Yes, food here is not much more expensive or just as cheap as it was 20 years ago. Including inflation.

I think that animal suffering needs to be taxed.

[ahinton]

Exactly.  Which is why quality in whatever one eats should be the priority, not meat good, veg bad or vice versa.  There is a campaign in my country (England) for people to appreciate the higher food standards of which Alistair speaks.

But the bottom line is price.  People want, and have come to expect, cheap food.  Until they are prepared to pay what it costs to produce, and a bit more for the farmer, then there will be no wide scale improvement in the battery farming practises of which you speak. 

This is all absolutely correct, although UK is not the only country trying to encourage this kind of thing (even though it is perhaps one of the leaders in the field).

I do think, however, that the question of "price" needs properly to be understood by those who understandably cite it as a factor in this issue; when one considers the "cost" to oneself of anything at all, one's view of it has to be determined by two factors - affordability and value for money. Most if not all people who say that they don't buy organically produced food because of its price are doing so on the basis of the first of those alone or, worse still, on the basis that, even if they can afford the organic items, they prfer to purchase the non-organic equivalents ones because their prices are lower; "value for money" does not enter into the matter. When one considers the taste, texture and nutritional value of the average battery chicken and compare it to those of the organic variety, the organic one is probably "cheaper" in value-for-money terms. Additionally, the "price" argument can often be revealed to falter when one examines the shopping trolleys of some people who claim primarily to be price-driven yet who purchase large quantities of processed pre-packaged foods that, whatever else they may or may not be, are usually not inexpensive. The prices of most foods of all kinds and qualities in UK are, in any case, greater than those in, say, France or Spain. I consider that I usually get comparatively good value for money for most of the food purchases that I make, although I am at the same time conscious of getting better value for money for food that is at least as good and sometimes better in those other two nearby countries that I mentioned.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Well, I must declare an interest here, as one of the evil cynics that produce "animal meat".    In fact I raise sheep and cattle.  They live out their lives, until mature, on grass pastures with their mothers in small flocks/herds, and have pretty contented lives.  Whilst not being officially "organic" I do not use feritiser or additional feed.  They only eat grass and hay (dried grass).  The meat has much better flavour/teaxture to that which you will find in the supermarket.

The only reason that your produce is not officially organic is (as you of course know) that you have either chosen not to apply for, or have yet to receive, the official organic seal of approval from the UK Soil Association; what some people do not realise is that it is possible to buy organically produced food that is not advertised as such simply because it is illegal to do so withouth that certification. The certification process, whilst of itself a good and welcome thing, doesn't make the food taste any better!

On the other hand, most "vegetables" are produced in soil that is heavily artificially fertilised, and sprayed with perticides within an inch of their lives.  Not what I would consider to be a healthy option.

This is why it can often take a long time to get that kind of certification - and time is money to the farmer just as it is to almost anyone else. As a farmer, were you to opt for organic arable farming, you would have to ensure that the soil in which you grow your produce is not only free from pesticides and other artifically prepared chemical treatments but also reasonably defensible against their presence in airborne form; this is obviously expensive and time-consuming before you can even start to grow certifiable organic vegetables and fruit. In the case of livestock, there is the additional factor the all animal feed must be free of certain chemical additives and, since organically reared animals are by definition free range, the soil in which you grow which the grass, hay, herbs, etc. that they eat must again be free of pesticides and other artificial chemical residues - again, not an inexpensive option.

The only reason that I used at times to purchase non-organically produced fruit and vegetables was that my local supermarket's organic produce was all too often imported and therefore less fresh than some of its locally produced non-organic items; this problem is now far more rare than it once was (except, of course, in the case of foods that cannot be produced locally). The rise of local farmers' markets and farm shops in UK (aping the French), once regarded by some as abit of a fad, has now taken sufficient hold in UK to be giving the supermarkets a run for their money; my local one, for example, stocks organic chickens from a local supplier which, though not quite of the order of poulets de Bresse, are of a fine quality. Some UK supermarkets used to refuse to purchase organic products from local farms because they could not get them in sufficient quantities; this is now becoming less of a problem, with increasing numbers of organic farmers supplying their produce to supermarkets as well as other outlets.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i hear you can spray on grapefruit juice - lemon juice - or sometimes vinegar?  to rid plants of bugs.  has anyone else done or heard this? 

also, i find that study very interesting prometheus!  perhaps it has not only to do with iq but also life spans.  i mean, in parts of okanowa - there are these really old people that are extremely healthy (still diving, working out) and they eat mostly natural plants and fish.

and, of course, there is daniel (inthe bible) that only ate veggies and was considered one of the smartest - along with his friends - of the babylonian government.  and, also - before the flood - there is really no mention of people eating meat.  in fact, it is said that the animals were even at peace in the garden (before adam and eve were ejected) - and gen. 1:30 says they ALL ate 'every green plant for food.' 

now, i suppose the bible stuff you don't want to hear - but it's interesting that in the milleneum (ideal living conditions) that the lion will eat straw like the ox.  so, basically -we're back to the creation as it was when created 'good.'  isa. 65:25 'the wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent's food.  they shall do no harm or evil in all My holy mountain, says the Lord.'

it reminds me of that song 'i've got peace like a river...'  but alas, my cat is not converted to christianity because yesterday she left a dead bluebird on the porch.

[mephisto]

I am very much looking forward to the ribb I will be eating on christmas eve.