The original (peer reviewed, etc) research was submitted in liu of a journalistic news story for increased submission quality.[1] The conclusion of that research reads:

"Overall, our findings reveal that vegetarians report poorer health, follow medical treatment more frequently, have worse preventive health care practices, and have a lower quality of life."

Which is unfortunately too long for HN submission, but is the (in fact, verbatim) published summary. A revised headline might read, Without any substantial editorialization or modification of meaning:

"Vegetarians report poorer health...and...lower quality of life."

Aruably the word "report" is more neutral than "have", but is substantially similar to the submission. All that being said if you guys want to change it...it is absolutely your perogotive. Its just hard to avoid making certain compromises (imperfect title or imperfect article). This is unfortunately one of those corner cases IMHO.

It goes without saying that the published academic title ishopelessly vague for anyone not already familiar with the results. To wit:

"The Association between Eating Behavior and Various Health Parameters: A Matched Sample Study"

Has infinite degrees of freedom.

[1] An third party edited and published title highlight what it is 'newsworthy' (ie, this is not self edited). The original research was submitted (ie, mismatched) to increase the quality and availability of the information provided to readers.