Like so many Americans, Woody Daniels hews to holiday tradition for his family, stuffing two stockings late on Christmas Eve when the house is quiet.“Winston gets all kinds of gifts, he's so spoiled. He'll get several kinds of treats, a bit of nip, and I'm getting him a stuffed mouse this year so he stops bringing me real ones,” said Daniels, who lives in North Park.
“And Buddy gets new tennis balls, food treats and some toys, including his favorite stuffed hamburger. They don't make that one anymore, so I keep putting the same one in his stocking year after year. He never seems to notice.”
Winston is a cat, Buddy a dog, and their owner is among millions of Americans who are including their pets as part of the family in holiday celebrations.
The 63 percent of U.S. households that own at least one pet will account for an estimated $38.4 billion in spending in 2006, according to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association.
A significant chunk of that will be spent around the holidays. A survey done by the association found that 55 percent of dog owners and 37 percent of cat owners planned to buy their pets holiday presents this year.
A great deal more money and effort will be invested in cute photos, processing and postage as the holiday greetings of untold numbers of families are sent in the form of cards bearing images not of them or their kids, but of their pets.
And some dogs and cats have somehow initiated gift exchanges. Darby and Cadha, a pair of cairn terriers who live in Ocean Beach, were busy last week wrapping gifts, with the help of their owner, Dee McMillen, for relatives back East.
“This year my dogs are sending Fortune Snookies, fortune cookies for dogs,” McMillen said, as the dogs took a break to work out with a tennis ball.
“They have cute sayings, like: 'What happens at the dog park stays at the dog park'; and 'You had me at, Here, boy!' They're sending them to their cousins in Michigan,” she said.
“They've already opened their own presents – rope toys this year. They love them.”
Not everyone is crazy about the idea of buying gifts for dogs and cats, however.
“Dear Abby” got a letter this month from the mother in a struggling Alaska farm family of four whose sister-in-law insisted the couple buy gifts for her dog and wrap them, “because the dog likes opening packages!”
“I told her we don't ask people to purchase gifts for our kids, and we don't purchase gifts for other people's pets,” the mom wrote. “Now she's offended.” (Abby sided with the mom.)
Yet, many pet owners wouldn't think of letting the holidays pass without presents for the family pooch or puss.
On a shopping spree last week at Muttropolis, a high-end pet-gift shop in La Jolla, Sondra Gemmill and her mixed-breed Sadie paid particular attention to the multiflavored chew sticks.
“Sadie is absolutely part of our family,” Gemmill said, sampling a “human grade,” scone-like Harvest Apple treat herself. “We'll have smoked turkey for dinner and she will, too – a little bit, anyway.”
Gemmill, who also has a cat named Ollie, was willing to spend a few bucks on “bully sticks” and other chews. But she passed on the $209 collars embedded with crystals, and the $275 top-end dog bed.
“Feel that fabric,” said Johanna Karcher of the sales staff. “It's made of chenille fabric and is supposed to look like a powder puff. These beds are very popular; we're on our second shipment of these.”
For those interested in sending Christmas cards with photos of their dogs, Puptown Doggy DayCare in downtown San Diego makes it easy. They dress up clients' dogs in Santa hats and antlers, pose them next to wreaths and ornaments and send the photos home.
“My wife, Pam, is at Costco right now turning Shadow's photo into our Christmas card,” said Fred Hollinger of Coronado.
“We always send pictures of our dog on our Christmas cards. Our son, who is 20 now, thinks we're crazy. He says stuff like, 'You guys should be put in an insane asylum. You love that dog more than you love me.' ”
Petco, which reports it racks up more sales during the holiday season than at any other time of year, offers to take your pet photos and weave them into a tapestry throw (for furniture or hanging) or a canvas suitable for framing.
Anne Perry of El Cajon said she and husband, Joe, have sent friends and family Christmas cards bearing their dogs' photos for the past five years. It's a matter of taste.
“We weren't lucky enough to have children and we're at the age where a cute picture of our dogs (Molly, a golden retriever, and Colby, a cocker spaniel) is much nicer to send than a photo of two middle-aged people,” she explained.
“These dogs really are our family.”
Library researcher Merrie Monteagudo contributed to this report.
Monday, December 25, 2006
We'll all be cyborgs someday, scientist says
In Casino Royale, the latest James Bond movie, Bond is implanted with a microchip that allows headquarters to track his whereabouts and monitor his vital signs.
If a British cybernetics expert is right, the day will come when most people are implanted with chips -- and the real-life chips will do a lot more than Bond's does in the movie.
Kevin Warwick, a professor of cybernetics at the University of Reading, has first-hand knowledge. In 1998, he had a chip surgically inserted into his left arm, becoming he believes the first human ever implanted with a computer chip.
Since then, he's had a more sophisticated chip connected directly to his nervous system. He is still working toward his grandest experiment: having a chip implanted in his brain.
''I want to become a cyborg,'' he said with an infectious grin. ``I can see the advantages.''
A cyborg, for the record, is a mixture of man and machine. And cybernetics is the study of communication and control between humans and computers.
IN THE MAD LAB
Warwick, who is 52, presides excitedly over the apparent chaos at the university's MAD lab. (The name stands not for madness but Mobile Autonomic Devices.)
Cables and machine parts litter the work benches. On the floor, two robots the size of model cars race around, mapping their environment and learning how not to bump into things. Nearby, a robot with a skull for a head works on combining the input from his various senses -- audio, video, ultrasonics, radar and infrared -- to interpret what's going on around it.
And in another lab on campus, computers are being controlled by living tissue taken from the brains of rats.
But Warwick's most daring experiments have been on himself. On Aug. 24, 1998, as the BBC filmed, doctors made a small incision in Warwick's left arm, slid in a thin inch-long glass capsule, and stitched him back up.
The capsule contained silicon microchips that announced Warwick's presence to other computers. His office doors swung open as he approached. Lights flicked on as he entered. His computer said hello and told him how many e-mails were waiting.
That chip stayed in for a couple of weeks. It's now on display at the Science Museum in London.
In 2002, doctors sliced open Warwick's left wrist and implanted a much smaller and more sophisticated device. For three months, its 100 electrodes were connected to his median nerves, linking his nervous system to a computer.
''I moved my hand, and my neural signals were sent over the Internet to open and close a robot hand,'' he said.
Not only that: The robotic hand had sensors. As it grasped a sponge or an eyeglasses case, it sent information back to Warwick.
''It was tremendously exciting,'' Warwick said. ``I experienced it as signals in my brain -- which my brain was quite happy to recognize as feedback from the robot hand's fingertips.''
FUTURE POSSIBILITIES
The research has significant medical implications.
Paralyzed people might regain movement if one chip were implanted above the break in the nerves and another below to receive the impulses, Warwick said.
More intelligent chips in the brains of people with Parkinson's disease might sense when tremors were on the way and signal the brain to stop them.
''It's like a computer brain out-thinking a human brain,'' he said.
But Warwick's biggest experiment, in which he will have a chip implanted in his brain, is seven or eight years away. He will attempt thought communication -- ''literally the first brain-to-brain communication,'' he said.
''That excites me beyond all proportion,'' he said. ``Nothing is going to stop me from doing that.''
ETHICAL QUESTIONS
Not everyone approves of Warwick. From time to time, he receives missives from people he calls ''religious extremists'' telling him he is tampering with God's work.
And in an opinion piece this month in the Toronto Star, Kevin Haggerty, an associate professor of criminology at the University of Alberta, called Warwick part of the ''advance guard'' trying to expand chip technology as widely as possible. The day will come, Haggerty warned, when all people will be chipped and the government will be able to track them all the time, recording their smallest behavioral traits.
CHIPS IN OPERATION
Despite differing over the desirability of implantation, Warwick and Haggerty agree on a great deal.
For one thing, the procedure is now more common.
More and more pet owners are taking advantage of chip implants that transmit identification to veterinarians.
Still, Warwick said, important questions will have to be answered for humans.
''Is it OK to upgrade? What about the people who don't upgrade?'' he asked. ``If they don't upgrade, they could become some sort of subspecies.''
If a British cybernetics expert is right, the day will come when most people are implanted with chips -- and the real-life chips will do a lot more than Bond's does in the movie.
Kevin Warwick, a professor of cybernetics at the University of Reading, has first-hand knowledge. In 1998, he had a chip surgically inserted into his left arm, becoming he believes the first human ever implanted with a computer chip.
Since then, he's had a more sophisticated chip connected directly to his nervous system. He is still working toward his grandest experiment: having a chip implanted in his brain.
''I want to become a cyborg,'' he said with an infectious grin. ``I can see the advantages.''
A cyborg, for the record, is a mixture of man and machine. And cybernetics is the study of communication and control between humans and computers.
IN THE MAD LAB
Warwick, who is 52, presides excitedly over the apparent chaos at the university's MAD lab. (The name stands not for madness but Mobile Autonomic Devices.)
Cables and machine parts litter the work benches. On the floor, two robots the size of model cars race around, mapping their environment and learning how not to bump into things. Nearby, a robot with a skull for a head works on combining the input from his various senses -- audio, video, ultrasonics, radar and infrared -- to interpret what's going on around it.
And in another lab on campus, computers are being controlled by living tissue taken from the brains of rats.
But Warwick's most daring experiments have been on himself. On Aug. 24, 1998, as the BBC filmed, doctors made a small incision in Warwick's left arm, slid in a thin inch-long glass capsule, and stitched him back up.
The capsule contained silicon microchips that announced Warwick's presence to other computers. His office doors swung open as he approached. Lights flicked on as he entered. His computer said hello and told him how many e-mails were waiting.
That chip stayed in for a couple of weeks. It's now on display at the Science Museum in London.
In 2002, doctors sliced open Warwick's left wrist and implanted a much smaller and more sophisticated device. For three months, its 100 electrodes were connected to his median nerves, linking his nervous system to a computer.
''I moved my hand, and my neural signals were sent over the Internet to open and close a robot hand,'' he said.
Not only that: The robotic hand had sensors. As it grasped a sponge or an eyeglasses case, it sent information back to Warwick.
''It was tremendously exciting,'' Warwick said. ``I experienced it as signals in my brain -- which my brain was quite happy to recognize as feedback from the robot hand's fingertips.''
FUTURE POSSIBILITIES
The research has significant medical implications.
Paralyzed people might regain movement if one chip were implanted above the break in the nerves and another below to receive the impulses, Warwick said.
More intelligent chips in the brains of people with Parkinson's disease might sense when tremors were on the way and signal the brain to stop them.
''It's like a computer brain out-thinking a human brain,'' he said.
But Warwick's biggest experiment, in which he will have a chip implanted in his brain, is seven or eight years away. He will attempt thought communication -- ''literally the first brain-to-brain communication,'' he said.
''That excites me beyond all proportion,'' he said. ``Nothing is going to stop me from doing that.''
ETHICAL QUESTIONS
Not everyone approves of Warwick. From time to time, he receives missives from people he calls ''religious extremists'' telling him he is tampering with God's work.
And in an opinion piece this month in the Toronto Star, Kevin Haggerty, an associate professor of criminology at the University of Alberta, called Warwick part of the ''advance guard'' trying to expand chip technology as widely as possible. The day will come, Haggerty warned, when all people will be chipped and the government will be able to track them all the time, recording their smallest behavioral traits.
CHIPS IN OPERATION
Despite differing over the desirability of implantation, Warwick and Haggerty agree on a great deal.
For one thing, the procedure is now more common.
More and more pet owners are taking advantage of chip implants that transmit identification to veterinarians.
Still, Warwick said, important questions will have to be answered for humans.
''Is it OK to upgrade? What about the people who don't upgrade?'' he asked. ``If they don't upgrade, they could become some sort of subspecies.''
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Newly Found Gene Mutation Banishes Pain
A Pakistani teenager who entertained street crowds by walking on hot coals and sticking knives through his arms has led scientists to find a genetic defect that renders its carriers unable to feel pain.
Scientists at the University of Cambridge in England pinpointed the cause: a defect in a gene that codes for a protein on the surface of pain-sensing nerve cells.
They found mutations in a gene for a particular protein called the 1.7 sodium channel. This is a sort of gate that opens and shuts on the surface of the nerve cells. When the gate opens, sodium ions flood into the cell, causing it to fire. In children with the defect, the gate is welded shut. So their pain nerves cannot fire.
A report in the journal Nature details six individuals with the mutation in three related families. They feel no pain, but are apparently normal in every other way, sensing both touch and temperature.
Pain experts think that if they can find a drug to block the same protein that is disabled in the Pakistani children, it could be the safest and most effective painkiller ever devised.
For now, doctors marvel at the idea there are some people who never know what it's like to hurt. But those with the mutation also can't tell when they break a bone or suffer a cut. As young children, they sometimes injure themselves without knowing. But they eventually learn to compensate.
But pain teaches crucial lessons about danger -- and people with the pain-blocking gene may not learn those lessons. The Pakistani street performer who led to to the discovery died before his 14th birthday, after falling from a roof.
Scientists at the University of Cambridge in England pinpointed the cause: a defect in a gene that codes for a protein on the surface of pain-sensing nerve cells.
They found mutations in a gene for a particular protein called the 1.7 sodium channel. This is a sort of gate that opens and shuts on the surface of the nerve cells. When the gate opens, sodium ions flood into the cell, causing it to fire. In children with the defect, the gate is welded shut. So their pain nerves cannot fire.
A report in the journal Nature details six individuals with the mutation in three related families. They feel no pain, but are apparently normal in every other way, sensing both touch and temperature.
Pain experts think that if they can find a drug to block the same protein that is disabled in the Pakistani children, it could be the safest and most effective painkiller ever devised.
For now, doctors marvel at the idea there are some people who never know what it's like to hurt. But those with the mutation also can't tell when they break a bone or suffer a cut. As young children, they sometimes injure themselves without knowing. But they eventually learn to compensate.
But pain teaches crucial lessons about danger -- and people with the pain-blocking gene may not learn those lessons. The Pakistani street performer who led to to the discovery died before his 14th birthday, after falling from a roof.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Alcohol 'may prevent arthritis'
In the Swedish study, mice whose water contained 10% alcohol had a lower risk of rheumatoid arthritis.
The team said it was not possible to say exactly how much alcohol would have the same effect for humans.
But UK arthritis experts cast doubt on the relevance of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study findings for treating human disease.
Low or moderate alcohol intake has been shown to benefit people in a number of ways, such as lowering the risk of heart disease.
But drinking too much causes complications including liver damage.
Translation 'not possible'
In the study carried out by a team at Gothenburg University, mice were given injections of collagen to induce rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
They were then either given untreated tap water, or water with 10% pure alcohol - a level which was not toxic to the livers - for between six and eight weeks.
RA was found to develop significantly more slowly in the mice given the alcohol, and had less severe symptoms once the disease did start to progress.
The researchers say alcohol may boost production of the male hormone testosterone.
This then restricts a key part of the mechanism which releases proteins called cytokines which cause inflammation.
The team also found that acetaldehyde, which is formed when the body processes alcohol, can produce similar protective effects.
Professor Andrzej Tarkowski, who led the research, said: "We can't translate these results to find out the therapeutic dose in humans.
"The mice were given a dose of 10% of alcohol in their water, but we don't know if it would be the same for humans. It would probably be lower."
He added: "One possibility would be to use acetaldehyde, which produced similar effects, but which could provide an alternative non-addictive treatment."
Testosterone 'offers protection'
Professor Alan Silman, incoming medical director at the Arthritis Research Campaign said: "Studies in humans have not shown any relationship either protective or in terms of increased risk between alcohol intake and rheumatoid arthritis.
"There is no really close mouse model of rheumatoid arthritis, and the collagen-induced arthritis may not be a particularly good human model."
But he added: "There is evidence to suggest that alcohol can increase testosterone and increased testosterone may protect against development of rheumatoid arthritis.
"And rheumatoid arthritis is rare in younger males and, at all ages, is more common in females.
"It is possible therefore that in this mouse model, alcohol may have had some effect in relation to arthritis.
"However it is doubtful whether this would have much influence in the human situation. "
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Lower-fat diet cuts breast cancer recurrence: study
Breast cancer is less likely to return in patients who stick to a low-fat diet, according to a study released on Saturday.
The study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, involved 2,437 breast cancer survivors, some of whom reduced their daily fat intake by roughly 40 percent while the others stayed about the same as when they started.
The women with the lower-fat diets had a 24 percent lower risk of a recurrence than the other women, according to researchers led by Dr. Rowan Chlebowski of the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute in Torrance, California.
"To me, it seems like if women are asking what can they do themselves to prevent a recurrence, then this represents something that they can try," Chlebowski said in a telephone interview.
What role dietary fat plays in a woman's risk of developing breast cancer has been debated by cancer experts.
The American Cancer Society has noted that studies focusing on fat in the diet have not clearly shown this to be a breast cancer risk factor, although being overweight has been found to raise breast cancer risk, especially for women after menopause.
Chlebowski acknowledged that this study will not settle the issue. Women who took part in the study were recruited between 1994 and 2001 and were tracked through 2003. They entered the study with diets averaging about 57 grams (2 ounces) of fat per day, amounting to 30 percent of total calories.
Women in one group decreased their fat intake to 33 grams per day, or 20 percent of total calories, while the other women consumed 51 grams per day, or 29 percent of total calories.
About 9.8 percent of the women on lower-fat diets suffered breast cancer relapses, compared to 12.4 percent of women who did not have lower fat intake.
"A lifestyle intervention reducing dietary fat intake, with modest influence on body weight, may improve relapse-free survival of breast cancer patients receiving conventional cancer management," the researchers wrote.
Chlebowski said the study indicated that women with the faster-growing type of the disease, hormone receptor-negative breast cancer, may experience the largest reduction in relapse risk due to a lower-fat diet. This type of breast cancer is not fed by the hormone estrogen.
The researchers noted that women who ate less fat lost weight, and that the weight loss may have been at least partially responsible for lowering the relapse risk rather than the reduced fat intake alone.
The study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, involved 2,437 breast cancer survivors, some of whom reduced their daily fat intake by roughly 40 percent while the others stayed about the same as when they started.
The women with the lower-fat diets had a 24 percent lower risk of a recurrence than the other women, according to researchers led by Dr. Rowan Chlebowski of the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute in Torrance, California.
"To me, it seems like if women are asking what can they do themselves to prevent a recurrence, then this represents something that they can try," Chlebowski said in a telephone interview.
What role dietary fat plays in a woman's risk of developing breast cancer has been debated by cancer experts.
The American Cancer Society has noted that studies focusing on fat in the diet have not clearly shown this to be a breast cancer risk factor, although being overweight has been found to raise breast cancer risk, especially for women after menopause.
Chlebowski acknowledged that this study will not settle the issue. Women who took part in the study were recruited between 1994 and 2001 and were tracked through 2003. They entered the study with diets averaging about 57 grams (2 ounces) of fat per day, amounting to 30 percent of total calories.
Women in one group decreased their fat intake to 33 grams per day, or 20 percent of total calories, while the other women consumed 51 grams per day, or 29 percent of total calories.
About 9.8 percent of the women on lower-fat diets suffered breast cancer relapses, compared to 12.4 percent of women who did not have lower fat intake.
"A lifestyle intervention reducing dietary fat intake, with modest influence on body weight, may improve relapse-free survival of breast cancer patients receiving conventional cancer management," the researchers wrote.
Chlebowski said the study indicated that women with the faster-growing type of the disease, hormone receptor-negative breast cancer, may experience the largest reduction in relapse risk due to a lower-fat diet. This type of breast cancer is not fed by the hormone estrogen.
The researchers noted that women who ate less fat lost weight, and that the weight loss may have been at least partially responsible for lowering the relapse risk rather than the reduced fat intake alone.
Smithsonian TV deal irks investigators
Two filmmakers were refused access to the Smithsonian Institution's collections for their projects but researchers generally have not been restricted so far by the Smithsonian's semi-exclusive deal with a cable network, congressional investigators say.
The public has justifiable concerns nonetheless about the 30-year contract between the Smithsonian and Showtime Networks Inc., a cable network owned by CBS Corp., according to the
Government Accountability Office.
"It is too early to determine the long-term impact of the contract," Congress' investigative arm said in a report Friday. "Access to the Smithsonian's collections and staff for research purposes remains unchanged, but the direct impact on filmmakers will depend largely on how many request permission to use a substantial amount of Smithsonian content."
The GAO also criticized the Smithsonian for not providing enough information to the public about the contract and for assuring filmmakers their access would not suffer based on analyses that rely on "incomplete data and oversimplified criteria."
Investigators said the Smithsonian must give filmmakers better information about how the contract will affect them. The Smithsonian's secretary, Lawrence Small, agreed to comply by better explaining decisions made about filming requests.
The deal does not affect the use of Smithsonian collections for news or public affairs programs.
In the first nine months since the contract took effect on Jan. 1, Smithsonian denied two of 117 filmmaking requests because of its new obligations to Showtime to restrict the commercial use of the Smithsonian name, the GAO found. Four other requests were approved, but only as exceptions to the new contractual rules that allow for up to six independent projects each year.
The Smithsonian's Board of Regents approved the contract with Showtime in November 2005, after approaching 18 major media companies to gauge their interest in gaining semi-exclusive rights to produce and commercially distribute audiovisual programs using Smithsonian trademarks and content.
The Smithsonian anticipates the new commercial programming will bring anywhere from $99 million to more than $150 million over the life of the contract.
That projection depends partly on the success of the programming, mainly a new cable channel, Smithsonian on Demand, jointly owned by Smithsonian and Showtime. Smithsonian projects the channel will reach 31 million households by 2010.
Filmmakers, historians, archivists, librarians and other researchers have criticized the venture for its confidentiality and its potential to limit public access to the Smithsonian's vast public resources.
Commonly referred to as "the nation's attic," the Smithsonian includes 19 museums and galleries, the National Zoo and nine research facilities.
Small told GAO investigators their findings were accurate. In a letter this month accompanying the GAO report, he said Smithsonian's expansion into television was long overdue and already generating "an exponential growth in filming projects" that could only have occurred by joining with a large, established multimedia corporation.
The public has justifiable concerns nonetheless about the 30-year contract between the Smithsonian and Showtime Networks Inc., a cable network owned by CBS Corp., according to the
Government Accountability Office.
"It is too early to determine the long-term impact of the contract," Congress' investigative arm said in a report Friday. "Access to the Smithsonian's collections and staff for research purposes remains unchanged, but the direct impact on filmmakers will depend largely on how many request permission to use a substantial amount of Smithsonian content."
The GAO also criticized the Smithsonian for not providing enough information to the public about the contract and for assuring filmmakers their access would not suffer based on analyses that rely on "incomplete data and oversimplified criteria."
Investigators said the Smithsonian must give filmmakers better information about how the contract will affect them. The Smithsonian's secretary, Lawrence Small, agreed to comply by better explaining decisions made about filming requests.
The deal does not affect the use of Smithsonian collections for news or public affairs programs.
In the first nine months since the contract took effect on Jan. 1, Smithsonian denied two of 117 filmmaking requests because of its new obligations to Showtime to restrict the commercial use of the Smithsonian name, the GAO found. Four other requests were approved, but only as exceptions to the new contractual rules that allow for up to six independent projects each year.
The Smithsonian's Board of Regents approved the contract with Showtime in November 2005, after approaching 18 major media companies to gauge their interest in gaining semi-exclusive rights to produce and commercially distribute audiovisual programs using Smithsonian trademarks and content.
The Smithsonian anticipates the new commercial programming will bring anywhere from $99 million to more than $150 million over the life of the contract.
That projection depends partly on the success of the programming, mainly a new cable channel, Smithsonian on Demand, jointly owned by Smithsonian and Showtime. Smithsonian projects the channel will reach 31 million households by 2010.
Filmmakers, historians, archivists, librarians and other researchers have criticized the venture for its confidentiality and its potential to limit public access to the Smithsonian's vast public resources.
Commonly referred to as "the nation's attic," the Smithsonian includes 19 museums and galleries, the National Zoo and nine research facilities.
Small told GAO investigators their findings were accurate. In a letter this month accompanying the GAO report, he said Smithsonian's expansion into television was long overdue and already generating "an exponential growth in filming projects" that could only have occurred by joining with a large, established multimedia corporation.
High IQ link to being vegetarian
Intelligent children are more likely to become vegetarians later in life, a study says.
A Southampton University team found those who were vegetarian by 30 had recorded five IQ points more on average at the age of 10.
Researchers said it could explain why people with higher IQ were healthier as a vegetarian diet was linked to lower heart disease and obesity rates.
The study of 8,179 was reported in the British Medical Journal.
Twenty years after the IQ tests were carried out in 1970, 366 of the participants said they were vegetarian -- although more than 100 reported eating either fish or chicken.
Men who were vegetarian had an IQ score of 106, compared with 101 for non-vegetarians; while female vegetarians averaged 104, compared with 99 for non-vegetarians.
There was no difference in IQ score between strict vegetarians and those who said they were vegetarian but who reported eating fish or chicken.
Researchers said the findings were partly related to better education and higher occupational social class, but it remained statistically significant after adjusting for these factors.
Vegetarians were more likely to be female, to be of higher occupational social class and to have higher academic or vocational qualifications than non-vegetarians.
However, these differences were not reflected in their annual income, which was similar to that of non-vegetarians. Lead researcher Catharine Gale said: "The finding that children with greater intelligence are more likely to report being vegetarian as adults, together with the evidence on the potential benefits of a vegetarian diet on heart health, may help to explain why higher IQ in childhood or adolescence is linked with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease in adult life."
Intelligence
However, she added the link may be merely an example of many other lifestyle preferences that might be expected to vary with intelligence, such as choice of newspaper, but which may or may not have implications for health.
Liz O'Neill, of the Vegetarian Society, said: "We've always known that vegetarianism is an intelligent, compassionate choice benefiting animals, people and the environment.
"Now we've got the scientific evidence to prove it. Maybe that explains why many meat-reducers are keen to call themselves vegetarians when even they must know that vegetarians don't eat chicken, turkey or fish."
But Dr. Frankie Phillips, of the British Dietetic Association, said: "It is like the chicken and the egg. Do people become vegetarian because they have a very high IQ or is it just that they tend to be more aware of health issues?"
A Southampton University team found those who were vegetarian by 30 had recorded five IQ points more on average at the age of 10.
Researchers said it could explain why people with higher IQ were healthier as a vegetarian diet was linked to lower heart disease and obesity rates.
The study of 8,179 was reported in the British Medical Journal.
Twenty years after the IQ tests were carried out in 1970, 366 of the participants said they were vegetarian -- although more than 100 reported eating either fish or chicken.
Men who were vegetarian had an IQ score of 106, compared with 101 for non-vegetarians; while female vegetarians averaged 104, compared with 99 for non-vegetarians.
There was no difference in IQ score between strict vegetarians and those who said they were vegetarian but who reported eating fish or chicken.
Researchers said the findings were partly related to better education and higher occupational social class, but it remained statistically significant after adjusting for these factors.
Vegetarians were more likely to be female, to be of higher occupational social class and to have higher academic or vocational qualifications than non-vegetarians.
However, these differences were not reflected in their annual income, which was similar to that of non-vegetarians. Lead researcher Catharine Gale said: "The finding that children with greater intelligence are more likely to report being vegetarian as adults, together with the evidence on the potential benefits of a vegetarian diet on heart health, may help to explain why higher IQ in childhood or adolescence is linked with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease in adult life."
Intelligence
However, she added the link may be merely an example of many other lifestyle preferences that might be expected to vary with intelligence, such as choice of newspaper, but which may or may not have implications for health.
Liz O'Neill, of the Vegetarian Society, said: "We've always known that vegetarianism is an intelligent, compassionate choice benefiting animals, people and the environment.
"Now we've got the scientific evidence to prove it. Maybe that explains why many meat-reducers are keen to call themselves vegetarians when even they must know that vegetarians don't eat chicken, turkey or fish."
But Dr. Frankie Phillips, of the British Dietetic Association, said: "It is like the chicken and the egg. Do people become vegetarian because they have a very high IQ or is it just that they tend to be more aware of health issues?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)