Brief: How does IQ predict vegetarian practices?

Our impression is that it's the smarter people who are more likely to practice vegetarianism to some degree. Go to a blue-collar picnic one weekend and a yuppy dinner party the next, and just ask which one had more vegetarian fare. At the former, we think of hamburgers and hot dogs, while we think of salad and risotto at the latter.

The GSS asks whether you refuse to eat meat for environmental reasons to varying degrees, or if you never abstain for such reasons. I've collapsed responses into refuse to eat meat to any degree (vegetarians) and never refuse to eat meat (omnivores). The pattern doesn't change if we look at the disaggregated data, but this makes the pattern easier to see. The GSS also gives a vocab test to roughly measure IQ. (I've collapsed those who got 0 to 2 words into one group just to keep sample sizes near 100 or greater.) Here is a graph that shows how likely a person is to be vegetarian to any degree depending on what their IQ is (red means veg):


This may shock us at first because vegetarianism almost strictly declines as IQ increases. Maybe we weren't considering representative samples of smarties -- maybe the more liberal or new age tribe among them goes vegetarian, while the conservative or traditional tribe goes for steak. I re-did the analysis looking only at liberals, and again only at conservatives, but the pattern holds up. Nor is there a strong relationship between vegetarianism and either income (meat is more expensive than corn, so that's worth looking at) or education level (this may affect your awareness of the treatment of animals, your exposure to philosophy classes, etc.). Strange as it may seem, there's something unique to smarts that makes you less likely to go veg.

There are the trend-bucking super-smarties, of course, but I'm inclined to believe this is a sort of counter-signaling -- adopting a lower-IQ practice to show that you can still do well even with such a handicap. The very smarts want some way to show that they have the analytical horsepower to have philosophical views on their diet, and at the same time look down their noses at the behavior of their immediate inferiors -- who serve such things as caviar, foie gras, and kobe beef at their parties -- so it's vegetarianism to the rescue!

GSS variables used: nomeat, wordsum, polviews, realinc, educ

Brief: Do Asians consume boat loads of carbohydrates?

One thing that confuses many people about the value of low-carbohydrate diets is the presence of rice as a staple in East Asian diets -- if they eat so much rice, why aren't they as obese as we are? The key is that empty (or digestible) carbohydrates all have roughly the same effect -- to be converted into glucose, and thus raise our blood sugar and therefore our insulin levels over the long term.

Insulin is the primary hormone responsible for storing fat in fat cells, while just about every other hormone serves to break fat out of fat cells to be burned as fuel. Just think of when you get an adrenaline rush that prepares you for fight or flight -- you need to get lots of energy now, so get those fatty acids out of the fat cells. Chronically high insulin levels will therefore lead to weight gain, as well as extreme difficulty in losing weight if you go on some kind of diet and exercise program. Thus, it doesn't really matter that Asians consume more rice than we do. What we need is a total count of carbohydrates.

I went to NationMaster and checked per capita grain consumption for various countries, and their data come from the USDA. I'm sure there is more detailed information on the USDA website, but this is just a brief post. They include 6 food grains (corn, oats, rice, rye, sorghum, and wheat) and barley, which I take to refer to beer consumption. The lists are of the top 15 (roughly), and this list varies by grain, although some countries do show up across the board. All units are thousand metric tons per million population.

I've made two tables below, one with whatever data were available, and another where I replaced missing values with the minimum value to be conservative. (If a country didn't make it into the top 15, the greatest its value could be is the minimum of the top 15.) The ranking is essentially the same either way, though the bar chart below reflects the table with imputed values and leaves out barley (again the ranking doesn't really change, as you can see from the tables). I ignored a country if it didn't show up in at least one of the big three categories -- corn, rice, or wheat -- and retained those that showed up in many categories. Here are the results:

	barley	corn	oats	rice	rye	sorghum	wheat	sum	w/o barley
min	3.00	11.66	0.46	13.13	0.00	1.91	47.40
India		11.66		78.92		7.41	63.87	161.86	161.86
Indonesia		31.82		152.70				184.52	184.52
South Africa		196.19		15.22				211.41	211.41
Iran	32.00			45.58			194.07	271.64	239.64
Japan	13.00	125.57		67.95	2.35	11.77	47.40	268.05	255.05
China	3.00	98.06	0.46	103.34	0.00	1.91	80.00	286.78	283.78
South Korea		196.75		103.12	1.03			300.90	300.90
Brazil		198.80	1.85	43.52		5.91	53.46	303.55	303.55
Mexico	8.00	241.99	1.41			88.51		339.91	331.91
Russia	122.00		41.84		42.88		247.53	454.24	332.24
Egypt		141.92		42.58		9.68	163.86	358.04	358.04
Australia	149.00		54.75			84.62	308.61	596.98	447.98
Hungary		459.68	9.99					469.67	469.67
Canada	293.00	338.36	57.00		5.33		234.72	928.42	635.42
United States	19.00	700.02	11.57	13.13		18.04	112.27	874.03	855.03

	barley	corn	oats	rice	rye	sorghum	wheat	sum	w/o barley
min	3.00	11.66	0.46	13.13	0.00	1.91	47.40
India	3.00	11.66	0.46	78.92	0.00	7.41	63.87	165.32	162.32
Indonesia	3.00	31.82	0.46	152.70	0.00	1.91	47.40	237.30	234.30
Iran	32.00	11.66	0.46	45.58	0.00	1.91	194.07	285.68	253.68
Japan	13.00	125.57	0.46	67.95	2.35	11.77	47.40	268.51	255.51
South Africa	3.00	196.19	0.46	15.22	0.00	1.91	47.40	264.20	261.20
China	3.00	98.06	0.46	103.34	0.00	1.91	80.00	286.78	283.78
Brazil	3.00	198.80	1.85	43.52	0.00	5.91	53.46	306.56	303.56
South Korea	3.00	196.75	0.46	103.12	1.03	1.91	47.40	353.68	350.68
Egypt	3.00	141.92	0.46	42.58	0.00	9.68	163.86	361.50	358.50
Russia	122.00	11.66	41.84	13.13	42.88	1.91	247.53	480.95	358.95
Mexico	8.00	241.99	1.41	13.13	0.00	88.51	47.40	400.45	392.45
Australia	149.00	11.66	54.75	13.13	0.00	84.62	308.61	621.78	472.78
Hungary	3.00	459.68	9.99	13.13	0.00	1.91	47.40	535.12	532.12
Canada	293.00	338.36	57.00	13.13	5.33	1.91	234.72	943.46	650.46
United States	19.00	700.02	11.57	13.13	0.00	18.04	112.27	874.04	855.04

As you can see, despite scoring a bit higher than Western European countries on rice consumption, most East Asian countries don't consume "boat loads" of it. And in any case, looking at their overall grain consumption shows that they don't consume much of any of the other types either. Although China, Japan, and South Korea are developed nations, they blend right in with second and third-world countries in terms of grain consumption (in the poorer countries, this is likely all they eat, in contrast to the mounds of pork and fish that Northeast Asians enjoy). Western Europe and its off-shoots are clearly unusual in the amount of non-fiber carbohydrates that they consume, the US in particular.

It's true that grains are only one source of empty carbohydrates, but including others would only strengthen the pattern here, whether starches like the potato or straight-up sugar bombs like snack cakes, soda, and fruit juice. Even in Chinese restaurants geared toward American tastes, there is rarely any dessert offered, and that's also true for bakeries in Chinatowns. (You've never sampled such bland pastries.) Including sweets might distinguish some of the low-grain countries -- e.g., lots of syrupy sweets available in India compared to Japan -- but the chasm between East Asian and Western European populations would only widen.

This exercise drives home the importance of quantitative data rather than mere rankings. China indeed ranks far above the US in rice consumption, but it is "only" by 90 thousand metric tons per million population, and they don't outrank us in consumption of any other grain. By contrast, we outrank China in corn consumption -- but here it is by 600 thousand metric tons per million population, and we also lead them on the order of 10 thousand metric tons per million population for oats, sorghum, and wheat. Looking at these finer-grained data, maybe the longer lives and overall better health of East Asians, compared to other developed countries, isn't so surprising.