Nutritional Status of Flemish Vegetarians Compared with Non-Vegetarians: A Matched Samples Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study compares the nutritional status of vegetarian (V) with non-vegetarian (NV) subjects. A three-day food record and a health questionnaire were completed by 106 V and 106 NV matched for following characteristics: sex, age, BMI, physical activity, tobacco use and alcohol consumption. Total energy intake was not significantly different (men: V: 2,346 ± 685 kcal/d; NV: 2,628 ± 632 kcal/d; p = 0.078; women: V: 1,991 ± 539 kcal/d; NV: 1,973 ± 592 kcal/d; p = 0.849). Macronutrients intake differed significantly between the V and NV subjects for protein (men: V:12.7 ± 2.3 E%; NV:15.3 ± 4.5 E%; p = 0.003; women: V: 13.2 ± 2.3 E%; NV:16.0 ± 4.0 E%; p < 0.001), fat (men: V: 29.3 ± 8.4 E%; NV: 33.8 ± 5.3 E%; p = 0.010; women: V: 29.7 ± 6.9 E%; NV: 34.7 ± 9.0 E%; p < 0.001), and carbohydrate (men: V: 55.3 ± 10.1 E%; NV: 47.4 ± 6.9 E%; p < 0.001; women: V: 55.1 ± 7.6 E%; NV: 47.2 ± 8.2 E%; p < 0.001). The intake of most minerals was significantly different between the V and the NV subjects. V had a lower sodium intake, higher calcium, zinc, and iron intake compared to the NV subjects. Our results clearly indicate that a vegetarian diet can be adequate to sustain the nutritional demands to at least the same degree as that of omnivores. The intakes of the V subjects were closer to the recommendations for a healthy diet when compared to a group of well matched NV subjects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".