>The differences between vegetarians and meat eaters were not limited to diet. On average the vegetarians were leaner, smoked and drank less, exercised slightly more and were more likely to have a university degree. They were less likely to have used hormone replacement therapy or oral contraceptives.
>The study took these factors into account but it was impossible to say to what degree the differences in cancer outcomes were caused by what different groups were eating.
---the OP
So once again we've proven that people who take an active role in maintaining their health have better health outcomes than people who don't, but that taking an active role in maintaining your health is holistic to the point of being confounding when attempting to study one aspect of 'being healthy'.
Is "impossible to say" needed for any disclaimer about trying to control for confounding factors in retrospective and observational studies?
Regarding the subject of whether vegan and vegetarian diets reduce cancer risks, I don't want to dive too deep.
But this issue seems to plague all studies of this kind, bo matter in which direction, right?
E.g. here it is an argument for doubting a positive outcome correlation (higher status, money, exercise, health attention vs diet), but it goes the other way around and is just as flawed.
E.g. stroke risk and pollution, air quality, noise, size of accomodation etc. vs income, social status and resilience.
"Impossible" to me sounds almost like a capitulation?
As if someone would say "It is impossible to say whether pollution, noise, income, diet or exercise effect stroke risk in addition to diet".
Isn't the purpose of statistics to untangle these webs of correlations.
I've found this dubious all my life, but again: in either direction, be it affirming or denying an assumed causation.
smoking and hormone supplementation are by no means independent variables when studying cancer risk. You might normalize for them by only comparing smokers with smokers or oral contraception users w other oral contraception users, but a study like that gets very complex when you have to compare smokers who exercise but use oral contraception, don't drink and are vegetarian vs smokers who exercise but use oral contraception, don't drink and are omnivores and I see no indication in the article that any of these variables were normalized for.I think you're right, the second paragraph is a warning and the word "impossible" was chosen deliberately.
>The differences between vegetarians and meat eaters were not limited to diet. On average the vegetarians were leaner, smoked and drank less, exercised slightly more and were more likely to have a university degree. They were less likely to have used hormone replacement therapy or oral contraceptives.
>The study took these factors into account but it was impossible to say to what degree the differences in cancer outcomes were caused by what different groups were eating.
---the OP
So once again we've proven that people who take an active role in maintaining their health have better health outcomes than people who don't, but that taking an active role in maintaining your health is holistic to the point of being confounding when attempting to study one aspect of 'being healthy'.
They are independent variables, its their job to include the second paragraph as a warning.
Is "impossible to say" needed for any disclaimer about trying to control for confounding factors in retrospective and observational studies?
Regarding the subject of whether vegan and vegetarian diets reduce cancer risks, I don't want to dive too deep.
But this issue seems to plague all studies of this kind, bo matter in which direction, right?
E.g. here it is an argument for doubting a positive outcome correlation (higher status, money, exercise, health attention vs diet), but it goes the other way around and is just as flawed.
E.g. stroke risk and pollution, air quality, noise, size of accomodation etc. vs income, social status and resilience.
"Impossible" to me sounds almost like a capitulation?
As if someone would say "It is impossible to say whether pollution, noise, income, diet or exercise effect stroke risk in addition to diet".
Isn't the purpose of statistics to untangle these webs of correlations.
I've found this dubious all my life, but again: in either direction, be it affirming or denying an assumed causation.
smoking and hormone supplementation are by no means independent variables when studying cancer risk. You might normalize for them by only comparing smokers with smokers or oral contraception users w other oral contraception users, but a study like that gets very complex when you have to compare smokers who exercise but use oral contraception, don't drink and are vegetarian vs smokers who exercise but use oral contraception, don't drink and are omnivores and I see no indication in the article that any of these variables were normalized for.I think you're right, the second paragraph is a warning and the word "impossible" was chosen deliberately.