Vegetarian Adolescents: Will Sparing the Animals Spoil the Diet?

Will Sparing the Animals Spoil the Diet?
"Cartoons and Poems following each article are created and copyrighted by Dr. Ackerman and cannot be copied or reproduced without his permission."

When evaluating an argument for or against something, the first thing to examine is the major premise upon which it's based. If, for example, a scientist argues that the people from one country are smarter than those from another country, because tests show that their children have consistently higher IQs, it would be a good idea to find out which country created the IQ test. When I first examined the article "Adolescent Vegetarians: How Well Do Their Dietary Patterns Meet the Healthy People 2010 Objectives?" the first thing that I wanted to know was, "What do the authors Perry et al mean by the Healthy People 2010 Objectives?" What I discovered is that the country that created the concept is the United States. As a matter of fact, it's really a government-sponsored concept. Suppose we let the government explain the idea with its own words.

"Healthy People 2010 is the prevention agenda for the Nation. It is a statement of national health objectives designed to identify the most significant preventable threats to health and to establish national goals to reduce these threats. Healthy People 2010 builds on initiatives pursued over the past two decades. The 1979 Surgeon General's Report, Healthy People, and Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives, both established national health objectives and served as the basis for the development of State and community plans. The development process was informed by the Healthy People Consortium-an alliance of more than 350 national membership organizations and 250 State health, mental health, substance abuse, and environmental agencies."

Okay, we have the answer to our question. This IQ test was created in the US based on government-sponsored reports. Now that we have things in perspective, suppose we examine the objectives. The study, which incidentally appeared in the May 2002 Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, was designed to examine the differences in nutrient intake between vegetarian and nonvegetarian adolescents in order to determine which group adhered more closely to the Healthy People 2010 Objectives goals. These objectives include: Obtaining less than 30% of daily calories from fat, obtaining less than 10% of calories from saturated fat, and eating more than 3 servings of fruit and 3 servings of vegetables (including 1 that is dark green). The total amount of fruit and vegetables eaten each day should exceed 5 servings. If you wish to understand exactly why these criteria are good for you to observe, I am afraid that it will be necessary to read the relevant government publications.

Fortunately, the article was accompanied by an editorial written by Stanley Zlotkin, MD, PhD, FRCPC who pointed out a few more interesting questions. He admitted that the study was fairly comprehensive but noted that vegetarians are a bit hard to come by, resulting in their numbering only 262 out of 4521 individuals who responded to the survey. He also noted that the children were primarily white, and from the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, but didn't comment further on these distinctly limiting factors in trying to extrapolate results to other races and regions. He did, however, comment on the Youth and Adolescent Food Frequency Questionnaire, which was used to determine their dietary intake. He indicated that it's fairly reliable and valid but has its limits due to the use of self-reporting, the cross-sectional nature of collecting data, the lack of specificity of food portion sizes, and the inability to assess nutrient content of nonstandard dishes. In addition he reminds us that vegetarians come in all degrees of variance from strict no-animal derived product vegans to semi-vegetarians who consume milk, eggs, poultry, and fish. Furthermore, meat eaters vary as well because some won't eat red meats.

These are some of the objections to any study of this sort, which depends on factors that are virtually impossible to control, and conclusions based on limited resources. For those readers interested in a more thorough discussion I can only recommend that they should obtain the article and the editorial. Whether you choose to rely on the results and conclusions of this study will probably depend to a large extent on your own preconceived prejudices, so I will simply present them without further commentary. It was determined that vegetarian adolescents are significantly more likely to meet the Healthy People 2010 Objectives. The figures were rather striking in that their total fat adherence ran 70% compared to 48%, saturated fat 65% versus 39%, daily servings of vegetables 26% versus 14%, and 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables 39% versus 28%. Also in favor of vegetarians was the finding that they tend to eat less fast food or drink regular soda and fruit drinks. They also drink more diet soda and more caffeine containing drinks, and ingest less vitamin B12, but more iron. Obviously the authors had to conclude that the diets of vegetarian adolescents are more likely to meet the Healthy People 2010 objectives.

I am afraid that this study will merely add more complexity to the increasing differences of opinion between meat eaters and vegetarians. Recently an infant was found to be severely undernourished due to a vegan diet, but this child was also only breast fed for a very short period and was apparently badly neglected. Other studies have supposedly indicated that infants on a vegetarian diet may not be receiving an adequate supply of cholesterol containing products. At this age cholesterol is believed by some observers to be an essential ingredient for proper development of brain centers.

So, the argument continues. If you choose to be a vegetarian for humanitarian and animal rights reasons, then I suppose that none of these arguments will carry any weight one way or the other. If your reasoning is based on healthful dietary preferences, you are likely to welcome this article's conclusions in spite of the evident shortcomings of such research. If you've lived a long and healthful life, you can afford to be indifferent. It's for those little grandchildren that we must now scrutinize articles like this with a fine toothcomb while looking for helpful tidbits of information.

Cartoons and Poems following each article are created and copyrighted by Dr. Ackerman and cannot be copied or reproduced without his permission. Copyright © 2007 by Marvin Ackerman, M.D.