We all know obesity is a leading cause of premature death. Here is a
journal article.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 81, No. 6, 1267-1274, June 2005
© 2005 American Society for Clinical Nutrition
ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
Risk of overweight and obesity among semivegetarian, lactovegetarian,
and vegan women1,2,3,4
PK Newby, Katherine L Tucker and Alicja Wolk

1 From the Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition
Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA (PKN and KLT),
and the Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, Department of
Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (AW)

Background: Observational studies suggest that a plant-based diet is
inversely related to body mass index (BMI), overweight, and obesity.

Objective: Our objective was to examine the BMI (kg/m2) and risk of
overweight and obesity of self-defined semivegetarian, lactovegetarian,
and vegan women.

Design: Data analyzed in this cross-sectional study were from 55459
healthy women participating in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Women
were asked whether they considered themselves to be omnivores (n =
54257), semivegetarians (n = 960), lactovegetarians (n = 159), or vegans
(n = 83), and this question was the main exposure variable in this
study. In secondary analyses, we reclassified women as lactovegetarians
on the basis of food intakes reported on the food-frequency questionnaire.

Results: The prevalence of overweight or obesity (BMI ‰¥ 25) was 40%
among omnivores, 29% among both semivegetarians and vegans, and 25%
among lactovegetarians. In multivariate, adjusted logistic regression
analyses, self-identified vegans had a significantly lower risk of
overweight or obesity [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.69] than
did omnivores, as did lactovegetarians (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.85)
and semivegetarians (OR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.62). Risk of overweight
or obesity remained significantly lower among lactovegetarians
classified on the basis of the food-frequency questionnaire (OR = 0.48;
95% CI: 0.30, 0.78).

Conclusions: Even if vegetarians consume some animal products, our
results suggest that self-identified semivegetarian, lactovegetarian,
and vegan women have a lower risk of overweight and obesity than do
omnivorous women. The advice to consume more plant foods and less animal
products may help individuals control their weight.

Key Words: Overweight €¢ obesity €¢ BMI €¢ vegetarian €¢ lactovegetarian €¢ vegan

Beach Runner wrote:
> We all know obesity is a leading cause of premature death. Here is a
> journal article.

It's an abstract, not an article. Note that the number of self-reported
"vegans" was 83, or 0.114966% of the population surveyed. That small of
a sampling is statistically irrelevant for the purposes of comparing to
the other samples.

> American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 81, No. 6, 1267-1274, June
> 2005
> © 2005 American Society for Clinical Nutrition
> ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
> Risk of overweight and obesity among semivegetarian, lactovegetarian,
> and vegan women1,2,3,4
> PK Newby, Katherine L Tucker and Alicja Wolk
>
> 1 From the Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition
> Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA (PKN and KLT),
> and the Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, Department of
> Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (AW)
>
> Background: Observational studies suggest that a plant-based diet is
> inversely related to body mass index (BMI), overweight, and obesity.
>
> Objective: Our objective was to examine the BMI (kg/m2) and risk of
> overweight and obesity of self-defined semivegetarian, lactovegetarian,
> and vegan women.
>
> Design: Data analyzed in this cross-sectional study were from 55459
> healthy women participating in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Women
> were asked whether they considered themselves to be omnivores (n =
> 54257), semivegetarians (n = 960), lactovegetarians (n = 159), or vegans
> (n = 83), and this question was the main exposure variable in this
> study. In secondary analyses, we reclassified women as lactovegetarians
> on the basis of food intakes reported on the food-frequency questionnaire.
>
> Results: The prevalence of overweight or obesity (BMI ‰¥ 25) was 40%
> among omnivores, 29% among both semivegetarians and vegans, and 25%
> among lactovegetarians. In multivariate, adjusted logistic regression
> analyses, self-identified vegans had a significantly lower risk of
> overweight or obesity [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.69] than
> did omnivores, as did lactovegetarians (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.85)
> and semivegetarians (OR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.62). Risk of overweight
> or obesity remained significantly lower among lactovegetarians
> classified on the basis of the food-frequency questionnaire (OR = 0.48;
> 95% CI: 0.30, 0.78).
>
> Conclusions: Even if vegetarians consume some animal products, our
> results suggest that self-identified semivegetarian, lactovegetarian,
> and vegan women have a lower risk of overweight and obesity than do
> omnivorous women. The advice to consume more plant foods and less animal
> products may help individuals control their weight.
>
> Key Words: Overweight €¢ obesity €¢ BMI €¢ vegetarian €¢ lactovegetarian €¢
> vegan
>
>
>
>
>

usual suspect wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> We all know obesity is a leading cause of premature death. Here is a
>> journal article.
>

>
> It's an abstract, not an article.

Correct.
Note that the number of self-reported
> "vegans" was 83, or 0.114966% of the population surveyed. That small of
> a sampling is statistically irrelevant for the purposes of comparing to
> the other samples.

He is either wrong about statistics, which I doubt, or lying.
Statistics don't depend on huge sample sizes. Most statistical studies
are done on groups of 30 or so. There are measurements called T Tests
to measure significance. I'm sure US knew this, but was misleading
those that don't understand statistics. Unlike me, when I say, you're
right, it was the abstract, not the animal, Usual Suspects simples lies
and abuses statistics.


In fact, too large a sample size has problems statistically. The
sample size met the standards for the clinical journal.

>
>> American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 81, No. 6, 1267-1274,
>> June 2005
>> © 2005 American Society for Clinical Nutrition
>> ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
>> Risk of overweight and obesity among semivegetarian, lactovegetarian,
>> and vegan women1,2,3,4
>> PK Newby, Katherine L Tucker and Alicja Wolk
>>
>> 1 From the Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition
>> Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA (PKN and
>> KLT), and the Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, Department of
>> Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (AW)
>>
>> Background: Observational studies suggest that a plant-based diet is
>> inversely related to body mass index (BMI), overweight, and obesity.
>>
>> Objective: Our objective was to examine the BMI (kg/m2) and risk of
>> overweight and obesity of self-defined semivegetarian,
>> lactovegetarian, and vegan women.
>>
>> Design: Data analyzed in this cross-sectional study were from 55459
>> healthy women participating in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Women
>> were asked whether they considered themselves to be omnivores (n =
>> 54257), semivegetarians (n = 960), lactovegetarians (n = 159), or
>> vegans (n = 83), and this question was the main exposure variable in
>> this study. In secondary analyses, we reclassified women as
>> lactovegetarians on the basis of food intakes reported on the
>> food-frequency questionnaire.
>>
>> Results: The prevalence of overweight or obesity (BMI ‰¥ 25) was 40%
>> among omnivores, 29% among both semivegetarians and vegans, and 25%
>> among lactovegetarians. In multivariate, adjusted logistic regression
>> analyses, self-identified vegans had a significantly lower risk of
>> overweight or obesity [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.69]
>> than did omnivores, as did lactovegetarians (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.35,
>> 0.85) and semivegetarians (OR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.62). Risk of
>> overweight or obesity remained significantly lower among
>> lactovegetarians classified on the basis of the food-frequency
>> questionnaire (OR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.78).
>>
>> Conclusions: Even if vegetarians consume some animal products, our
>> results suggest that self-identified semivegetarian, lactovegetarian,
>> and vegan women have a lower risk of overweight and obesity than do
>> omnivorous women. The advice to consume more plant foods and less
>> animal products may help individuals control their weight.
>>
>> Key Words: Overweight €¢ obesity €¢ BMI €¢ vegetarian €¢ lactovegetarian €¢
>> vegan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Bumbling Bob wrote:
>>> We all know obesity is a leading cause of premature death. Here is a
>>> journal article.
>>
>> It's an abstract, not an article.
>
> Correct.

Next time call it an abstract rather than an article.

>> Note that the number of self-reported
>> "vegans" was 83, or 0.114966% of the population surveyed. That small
>> of a sampling is statistically irrelevant for the purposes of
>> comparing to the other samples.
>
> He is either wrong about statistics,

I'm not.

> which I doubt, or lying.

I'm not.

> Statistics
> don't depend on huge sample sizes.

Strawman. I noted that self-described "vegans" made up an infinitesimal
percentage of the entire group surveyed in that study.

> Most statistical studies are done on
> groups of 30 or so.

Ipse dixit and false. Some studies are very small, some are quite large.
The study in question was quite large. I pointed out that out of this
very large survey, just over one-tenth of one-percent of those surveyed
described themselves as vegans.

The issue I've raised is the problem with comparing such a tiny sample
against over 99.8% of those surveyed in such a study. Such a tiny sample
is subject to skewing results, particularly when a sample like that is
of people with an eating disorder and who are being studied for
something altogether different (i.e., the study is a mammography cohort).

> There are measurements called T Tests
> to measure significance.

That's a separate issue from the one I've raised.

A caveat is that the confidence interval relates to the
population sampled. If we have a small sample of part of a
population, or a very small sample of the whole population, then
the confidence interval that is generated is not necessarily
that for the whole population.
http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/bo...ossary/CI.html

> I'm sure US knew this, but was misleading
> those that don't understand statistics.

I'm not misleading anyone. I'm pointing out the greater probability of
skew in interpreting data from 0.114966% of the subjects of a survey and
comparing it to data from the other >99.8%.

> Unlike me, when I say, you're
> right, it was the abstract, not the animal, Usual Suspects simples lies
> and abuses statistics.

I neither lied nor abused anything.

> In fact, too large a sample size has problems statistically.

Not true, numb nuts. Here's a very understandable set of lecture notes
about sample sizes.

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IOA/newsom/pa551/lecture4.htm

> The sample size met the standards for the clinical journal.

Which isn't very high. Acceptance criteria are originality, validity of
data, clarity of writing, strength of conclusions, and potential
importance. It's a peer-review journal, not the Bible of nutrition where
every study is hallowed.

http://www.ajcn.org/misc/Info_for_authors.pdf

>>> American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 81, No. 6, 1267-1274,
>>> June 2005
>>> © 2005 American Society for Clinical Nutrition
>>> ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
>>> Risk of overweight and obesity among semivegetarian, lactovegetarian,
>>> and vegan women1,2,3,4
>>> PK Newby, Katherine L Tucker and Alicja Wolk
>>>
>>> 1 From the Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition
>>> Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA (PKN and
>>> KLT), and the Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, Department of
>>> Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (AW)
>>>
>>> Background: Observational studies suggest that a plant-based diet is
>>> inversely related to body mass index (BMI), overweight, and obesity.
>>>
>>> Objective: Our objective was to examine the BMI (kg/m2) and risk of
>>> overweight and obesity of self-defined semivegetarian,
>>> lactovegetarian, and vegan women.
>>>
>>> Design: Data analyzed in this cross-sectional study were from 55459
>>> healthy women participating in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Women
>>> were asked whether they considered themselves to be omnivores (n =
>>> 54257), semivegetarians (n = 960), lactovegetarians (n = 159), or
>>> vegans (n = 83), and this question was the main exposure variable in
>>> this study. In secondary analyses, we reclassified women as
>>> lactovegetarians on the basis of food intakes reported on the
>>> food-frequency questionnaire.
>>>
>>> Results: The prevalence of overweight or obesity (BMI ‰¥ 25) was 40%
>>> among omnivores, 29% among both semivegetarians and vegans, and 25%
>>> among lactovegetarians. In multivariate, adjusted logistic regression
>>> analyses, self-identified vegans had a significantly lower risk of
>>> overweight or obesity [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.69]
>>> than did omnivores, as did lactovegetarians (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.35,
>>> 0.85) and semivegetarians (OR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.62). Risk of
>>> overweight or obesity remained significantly lower among
>>> lactovegetarians classified on the basis of the food-frequency
>>> questionnaire (OR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.78).
>>>
>>> Conclusions: Even if vegetarians consume some animal products, our
>>> results suggest that self-identified semivegetarian, lactovegetarian,
>>> and vegan women have a lower risk of overweight and obesity than do
>>> omnivorous women. The advice to consume more plant foods and less
>>> animal products may help individuals control their weight.
>>>
>>> Key Words: Overweight €¢ obesity €¢ BMI €¢ vegetarian €¢ lactovegetarian
>>> €¢ vegan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

usual suspect wrote:

> Bumbling Bob wrote:
>
>>>> We all know obesity is a leading cause of premature death. Here is a
>>>> journal article.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's an abstract, not an article.
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>
>
> Next time call it an abstract rather than an article.
>
>>> Note that the number of self-reported "vegans" was 83, or 0.114966%
>>> of the population surveyed. That small of a sampling is statistically
>>> irrelevant for the purposes of comparing to the other samples.
>>
>>
>> He is either wrong about statistics,
>
>
> I'm not.
>
>> which I doubt, or lying.
>
>
> I'm not.
>
>> Statistics don't depend on huge sample sizes.
>
>
> Strawman. I noted that self-described "vegans" made up an infinitesimal
> percentage of the entire group surveyed in that study.
>
>> Most statistical studies are done on groups of 30 or so.
>
>
> Ipse dixit and false. Some studies are very small, some are quite large.
> The study in question was quite large. I pointed out that out of this
> very large survey, just over one-tenth of one-percent of those surveyed
> described themselves as vegans.
>
> The issue I've raised is the problem with comparing such a tiny sample
> against over 99.8% of those surveyed in such a study. Such a tiny sample
> is subject to skewing results, particularly when a sample like that is
> of people with an eating disorder and who are being studied for
> something altogether different (i.e., the study is a mammography cohort).
>
>> There are measurements called T Tests
>> to measure significance.
>
>
> That's a separate issue from the one I've raised.
>
> A caveat is that the confidence interval relates to the
> population sampled. If we have a small sample of part of a
> population, or a very small sample of the whole population, then
> the confidence interval that is generated is not necessarily
> that for the whole population.
> http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/bo...ossary/CI.html
>
>> I'm sure US knew this, but was misleading those that don't understand
>> statistics.
>
>
> I'm not misleading anyone. I'm pointing out the greater probability of
> skew in interpreting data from 0.114966% of the subjects of a survey and
> comparing it to data from the other >99.8%.
>
>> Unlike me, when I say, you're right, it was the abstract, not the
>> animal, Usual Suspects simples lies and abuses statistics.
>
>
> I neither lied nor abused anything.
>
>> In fact, too large a sample size has problems statistically.
>
>
> Not true, numb nuts. Here's a very understandable set of lecture notes
> about sample sizes.
>
> http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IOA/newsom/pa551/lecture4.htm
>
>> The sample size met the standards for the clinical journal.
>
>
> Which isn't very high. Acceptance criteria are originality, validity of
> data, clarity of writing, strength of conclusions, and potential
> importance. It's a peer-review journal, not the Bible of nutrition where
> every study is hallowed.
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/misc/Info_for_authors.pdf
>
>>>> American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 81, No. 6, 1267-1274,
>>>> June 2005
>>>> © 2005 American Society for Clinical Nutrition
>>>> ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
>>>> Risk of overweight and obesity among semivegetarian,
>>>> lactovegetarian, and vegan women1,2,3,4
>>>> PK Newby, Katherine L Tucker and Alicja Wolk
>>>>
>>>> 1 From the Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition
>>>> Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA (PKN and
>>>> KLT), and the Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, Department of
>>>> Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (AW)
>>>>
>>>> Background: Observational studies suggest that a plant-based diet is
>>>> inversely related to body mass index (BMI), overweight, and obesity.
>>>>
>>>> Objective: Our objective was to examine the BMI (kg/m2) and risk of
>>>> overweight and obesity of self-defined semivegetarian,
>>>> lactovegetarian, and vegan women.
>>>>
>>>> Design: Data analyzed in this cross-sectional study were from 55459
>>>> healthy women participating in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Women
>>>> were asked whether they considered themselves to be omnivores (n =
>>>> 54257), semivegetarians (n = 960), lactovegetarians (n = 159), or
>>>> vegans (n = 83), and this question was the main exposure variable in
>>>> this study. In secondary analyses, we reclassified women as
>>>> lactovegetarians on the basis of food intakes reported on the
>>>> food-frequency questionnaire.
>>>>
>>>> Results: The prevalence of overweight or obesity (BMI ‰¥ 25) was 40%
>>>> among omnivores, 29% among both semivegetarians and vegans, and 25%
>>>> among lactovegetarians. In multivariate, adjusted logistic
>>>> regression analyses, self-identified vegans had a significantly
>>>> lower risk of overweight or obesity [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35; 95% CI:
>>>> 0.18, 0.69] than did omnivores, as did lactovegetarians (OR = 0.54;
>>>> 95% CI: 0.35, 0.85) and semivegetarians (OR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.43,
>>>> 0.62). Risk of overweight or obesity remained significantly lower
>>>> among lactovegetarians classified on the basis of the food-frequency
>>>> questionnaire (OR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.78).
>>>>
>>>> Conclusions: Even if vegetarians consume some animal products, our
>>>> results suggest that self-identified semivegetarian,
>>>> lactovegetarian, and vegan women have a lower risk of overweight and
>>>> obesity than do omnivorous women. The advice to consume more plant
>>>> foods and less animal products may help individuals control their
>>>> weight.
>>>>
>>>> Key Words: Overweight €¢ obesity €¢ BMI €¢ vegetarian €¢ lactovegetarian
>>>> €¢ vegan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

Anti social lying Unusual Suspects doesn't seem to understand this was a
reported study in a respected journal. Instead he chooses to insult
people. He's obviously mentally ill. He's also forced to point out any
minor typo with an obsession, as if that makes him superior.

This is a study. A good study leads to more research and is replicated.
This was a good study from a leading journal.


Now he'll throw out more insults, demonstrating how mean and insulting
he is. He needs therapy to see why he insults people so often and is so
obsessed with typos.

Beach Runner wrote:
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Bumbling Bob wrote:
>>
>>>>> We all know obesity is a leading cause of premature death. Here is
>>>>> a journal article.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's an abstract, not an article.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>
>>
>>
>> Next time call it an abstract rather than an article.
>>
>>>> Note that the number of self-reported "vegans" was 83, or 0.114966%
>>>> of the population surveyed. That small of a sampling is
>>>> statistically irrelevant for the purposes of comparing to the other
>>>> samples.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He is either wrong about statistics,
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not.
>>
>>> which I doubt, or lying.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not.
>>
>>> Statistics don't depend on huge sample sizes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Strawman. I noted that self-described "vegans" made up an infinitesimal
>> percentage of the entire group surveyed in that study.
>>
>>> Most statistical studies are done on groups of 30 or so.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ipse dixit and false. Some studies are very small, some are quite large.
>> The study in question was quite large. I pointed out that out of this
>> very large survey, just over one-tenth of one-percent of those surveyed
>> described themselves as vegans.
>>
>> The issue I've raised is the problem with comparing such a tiny sample
>> against over 99.8% of those surveyed in such a study. Such a tiny
>> sample is subject to skewing results, particularly when a sample like
>> that is of people with an eating disorder and who are being studied
>> for something altogether different (i.e., the study is a mammography
>> cohort).
>>
>>> There are measurements called T Tests
>>> to measure significance.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a separate issue from the one I've raised.
>>
>> A caveat is that the confidence interval relates to the
>> population sampled. If we have a small sample of part of a
>> population, or a very small sample of the whole population, then
>> the confidence interval that is generated is not necessarily
>> that for the whole population.
>> http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/bo...ossary/CI.html
>>
>>> I'm sure US knew this, but was misleading those that don't understand
>>> statistics.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not misleading anyone. I'm pointing out the greater probability of
>> skew in interpreting data from 0.114966% of the subjects of a survey
>> and comparing it to data from the other >99.8%.
>>
>>> Unlike me, when I say, you're right, it was the abstract, not the
>>> animal, Usual Suspects simples lies and abuses statistics.
>>
>>
>>
>> I neither lied nor abused anything.
>>
>>> In fact, too large a sample size has problems statistically.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not true, numb nuts. Here's a very understandable set of lecture notes
>> about sample sizes.
>>
>> http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IOA/newsom/pa551/lecture4.htm
>>
>>> The sample size met the standards for the clinical journal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which isn't very high. Acceptance criteria are originality, validity
>> of data, clarity of writing, strength of conclusions, and potential
>> importance. It's a peer-review journal, not the Bible of nutrition
>> where every study is hallowed.
>>
>> http://www.ajcn.org/misc/Info_for_authors.pdf
>>
>>>>> American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 81, No. 6, 1267-1274,
>>>>> June 2005
>>>>> © 2005 American Society for Clinical Nutrition
>>>>> ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
>>>>> Risk of overweight and obesity among semivegetarian,
>>>>> lactovegetarian, and vegan women1,2,3,4
>>>>> PK Newby, Katherine L Tucker and Alicja Wolk
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 From the Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition
>>>>> Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA (PKN and
>>>>> KLT), and the Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, Department of
>>>>> Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (AW)
>>>>>
>>>>> Background: Observational studies suggest that a plant-based diet
>>>>> is inversely related to body mass index (BMI), overweight, and
>>>>> obesity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Objective: Our objective was to examine the BMI (kg/m2) and risk of
>>>>> overweight and obesity of self-defined semivegetarian,
>>>>> lactovegetarian, and vegan women.
>>>>>
>>>>> Design: Data analyzed in this cross-sectional study were from 55459
>>>>> healthy women participating in the Swedish Mammography Cohort.
>>>>> Women were asked whether they considered themselves to be omnivores
>>>>> (n = 54257), semivegetarians (n = 960), lactovegetarians (n = 159),
>>>>> or vegans (n = 83), and this question was the main exposure
>>>>> variable in this study. In secondary analyses, we reclassified
>>>>> women as lactovegetarians on the basis of food intakes reported on
>>>>> the food-frequency questionnaire.
>>>>>
>>>>> Results: The prevalence of overweight or obesity (BMI ‰¥ 25) was 40%
>>>>> among omnivores, 29% among both semivegetarians and vegans, and 25%
>>>>> among lactovegetarians. In multivariate, adjusted logistic
>>>>> regression analyses, self-identified vegans had a significantly
>>>>> lower risk of overweight or obesity [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35; 95%
>>>>> CI: 0.18, 0.69] than did omnivores, as did lactovegetarians (OR =
>>>>> 0.54; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.85) and semivegetarians (OR = 0.52; 95% CI:
>>>>> 0.43, 0.62). Risk of overweight or obesity remained significantly
>>>>> lower among lactovegetarians classified on the basis of the
>>>>> food-frequency questionnaire (OR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.78).
>>>>>
>>>>> Conclusions: Even if vegetarians consume some animal products, our
>>>>> results suggest that self-identified semivegetarian,
>>>>> lactovegetarian, and vegan women have a lower risk of overweight
>>>>> and obesity than do omnivorous women. The advice to consume more
>>>>> plant foods and less animal products may help individuals control
>>>>> their weight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Key Words: Overweight €¢ obesity €¢ BMI €¢ vegetarian €¢
>>>>> lactovegetarian €¢ vegan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
> Anti social

Ad hominem evasion of *EVERY* point I made noted. Try again, asshole.

"Pussy Boy" > wrote in message
. ..

> Beach Runner wrote:

>> Anti social
>
> Ad hominem evasion of *EVERY* point I made noted. Try again, asshole.

You have no room to accuse ANYONE of ad homimem evasion. Why don't you
answer Scented Nectar's question in the "Usual dinner fare" thread? It's
because you are being evasive - exactly what you acuse Beach Runner of.
You're a lying pussified hypocrite. Answer the question now, bitch.

See James Strut wrote:

Nothing of substance, as usual.

usual suspect wrote:

> See James Strut wrote:
>
> Nothing of substance, as usual.

You simply attack the sample size. As we all know good research is
replicated. This good research was published in a top journal.

If you want to increase your chances of prostate cancer, heart disease,
and other cancers ignore the research.

James Strut was pointing out your obsession with insulting people. It
is childish and time for you to outgrow it.

Beach Runner wrote:

>>>> Note that the number of self-reported "vegans" was 83, or 0.114966%
>>>> of the population surveyed. That small of a sampling is
>>>> statistically irrelevant for the purposes of comparing to the other
>>>> samples.

Read it again. The study was over 55,000 people. Some were vegans.



Design: Data analyzed in this cross-sectional study were from 55459
healthy women participating in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Women
were asked whether they considered themselves to be omnivores (n =
54257), semivegetarians (n = 960), lactovegetarians (n = 159), or vegans
(n = 83), and this question was the main exposure variable in this
study. In secondary analyses, we reclassified women as lactovegetarians
on the basis of food intakes reported on the food-frequency questionnaire.

Results: The prevalence of overweight or obesity (BMI ‰¥ 25) was 40%
among omnivores, 29% among both semivegetarians and vegans, and 25%
among lactovegetarians. In multivariate, adjusted logistic regression
analyses, self-identified vegans had a significantly lower risk of
overweight or obesity [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.69] than
did omnivores, as did lactovegetarians (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.85)
and semivegetarians (OR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.62). Risk of overweight
or obesity remained significantly lower among lactovegetarians
classified on the basis of the food-frequency questionnaire (OR = 0.48;
95% CI: 0.30, 0.78).

Conclusions: Even if vegetarians consume some animal products, our
results suggest that self-identified semivegetarian, lactovegetarian,
and vegan women have a lower risk of overweight and obesity than do
omnivorous women. The advice to consume more plant foods and less animal
products may help individuals control their weight.


Did you even read the study? It wasn't a study of VEGANs.

It is good research, worthy of replication, and there is no reason to
insult anyone.

Beach Runner wrote:
>
>
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>>>>> Note that the number of self-reported "vegans" was 83, or 0.114966%
>>>>> of the population surveyed. That small of a sampling is
>>>>> statistically irrelevant for the purposes of comparing to the other
>>>>> samples.
>
> Read it again.

I don't need to because I understood it the first time.

> The study was over 55,000 people. Some were vegans.

The number of self-reported "vegans" was 83, or 0.114966% of the entire
population surveyed. The researchers then attempted to compare and
contrast a fraction of one-percent against the other ~99.89%. That's
unwise for the reason I gave you: the larger group (the ~99.89%) will
more accurately reflect all Swedish women than the 83 vegans whose
surveys are more likely to be skewed because of the small sampling
problem, etc.

Slow, stupid Bob wrote:
>> Nothing of substance, as usual.
>
> You simply attack the sample size.

I didn't attack, I questioned the methodology and remain dubious about
comparing 0.114966% of the entire population surveyed against the other
~99.89%.

> If you want to increase your chances of prostate cancer, heart disease,
> and other cancers ignore the research.

Non sequitur. This was a co-hort from a Swedish mammography study.
Swedish women, as far as I know, don't have prostates. I doubt you have
one, either, given you already have a mainly female disorder
(osteoporosis). The study in question dealt with NONE of the issues you
raised.

usual suspect corrected:
<...>
> I didn't attack, I questioned the methodology and remain dubious

That should've been, I remain *DOUBTFUL*.

> about comparing 0.114966% of the entire population surveyed against
> the other ~99.89%.
<...>