Vegetarian Life Style is Associated with Greater Longevity

[George Che]

"RBR" <rogers@home.com> wrote in message
news:povcg1herrviu3q6c28h12g99b2tgjhdec@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:54:38 -0400, Just Cocky
> <just@cocky.com> wrote:
>
>>How do you explain that the longest living people on this
>>planet, the Okinawans, are not vegetarians?
>
> A centenarian study carried out in the New England states
> (I'll try to dig it up) stated that of the 1200+
> centenarians studied, only four were vegetarians.
>
> In India, the predominantly vegetarian South Indians seem to
> die off quicker than their meat-eating neighbours to the
> North. Vegetarianism does not equal longevity.

How about this?

1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):526S-532S.
Related Articles, Links

Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?

Singh PN, Sabate J, Fraser GE.

Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public
Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA.
psingh@sph.llu.edu

BACKGROUND: Since meat products represent a major source of
protein in the Western diet, findings on whether meat intake
significantly contributes to the burden of fatal disease have
important clinical and public health implications. OBJECTIVE:
The objective was to examine whether a very low meat intake
(less than weekly) contributes to greater longevity. DESIGN:
We reviewed data from 6 prospective cohort studies and report
new findings on the life expectancy of long-term vegetarians
from the Adventist Health Study. RESULTS: Our review of the 6
studies found the following trends: 1) a very low meat intake
was associated with a significant decrease in risk of death in
4 studies, a nonsignificant decrease in risk of death in the
fifth study, and virtually no association in the sixth study;
2) 2 of the studies in which a low meat intake significantly
decreased mortality risk also indicated that a longer duration
(>/= 2 decades) of adherence to this diet contributed to a
significant decrease in mortality risk and a significant
2.6-y (95% CI: 1.4, 5.8 y) increase in life expectancy; and 3)
the protective effect of a very low meat intake seems to
attenuate after the ninth decade. Some of the variation in
the survival advantage in vegetarians may have been due to
marked differences between studies in adjustment for
confounders, the definition of vegetarian, measurement
error, age distribution, the healthy volunteer effect, and
intake of specific plant foods by the vegetarians.
CONCLUSION: Current prospective cohort data from adults in
North America and Europe raise the possibility that a
lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is
associated with greater longevity.

Publication Types:
a.. Review
b.. Review, Tutorial

PMID: 12936945 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Rbr]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:34:28 -0400, "George Cherry the
closet vegetarian"
<GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>How about this?
>
> 1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):526S-532S.
> Related Articles, Links
>
>
>Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?
>
>Singh PN, Sabate J, Fraser GE.
>
>Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public
>Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA.
>psingh@sph.llu.edu
>
>BACKGROUND: Since meat products represent a major source of
>protein in the Western diet, findings on whether meat intake
>significantly contributes to the burden of fatal disease have
>important clinical and public health implications. OBJECTIVE:
>The objective was to examine whether a very low meat intake
>(less than weekly) contributes to greater longevity. DESIGN:
>We reviewed data from 6 prospective cohort studies and report
>new findings on the life expectancy of long-term vegetarians
>from the Adventist Health Study. RESULTS: Our review of the 6
>studies found the following trends: 1) a very low meat intake
>was associated with a significant decrease in risk of death
>in 4 studies, a nonsignificant decrease in risk of death in
>the fifth study, and virtually no association in the sixth
>study; 2) 2 of the studies in which a low meat intake
>significantly decreased mortality risk also indicated that a
>longer duration (>/= 2 decades) of adherence to this diet
>contributed to a significant decrease in mortality risk and a
>significant
>3.6-y (95% CI: 1.4, 5.8 y) increase in life expectancy; and
> 3) the protective effect of a very low meat intake seems to
> attenuate after the ninth decade. Some of the variation in
> the survival advantage in vegetarians may have been due to
> marked differences between studies in adjustment for
> confounders, the definition of vegetarian, measurement
> error, age distribution, the healthy volunteer effect, and
> intake of specific plant foods by the vegetarians.
> CONCLUSION: Current prospective cohort data from adults in
> North America and Europe raise the possibility that a
> lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is
> associated with greater longevity.
>
>Publication Types:
> a.. Review
> b.. Review, Tutorial
>
>PMID: 12936945 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>

I've seen that one George.

Conclusions from the study:

Current data from prospective cohort studies of adults raise
the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that includes a very
low meat intake is associated with greater longevity. The
findings from one cohort of healthy adults raises the
possibility that long-term ( 2 decades) adherence to a
vegetarian diet can further produce a significant 3.6-y
increase in life expectancy.

Because meat products represent a major source of protein in
the Western diet, investigating whether meat intake
significantly contributes to the burden of fatal disease has
important clinical and public health implications. Further
investigation of meat intake in relation to survival in other
cohorts is needed because the published studies summarized
herein represent only a subset of the available cohort data.
More work is also needed to identify the causative roles of
specific plant foods in the longevity observed among
vegetarians.

I snipped the above text from the full-text version of
this study.

So the benefits from following a vegetarian diet for 20 years
is an increased lifespan of 3-6 years. Also, they seem to be
saying that a vegetarian diet is better than a meat-heavy
Western diet.

Funny how none of the longest lived civilizations on this
planet are vegetarian, eh George? ;o)

RBR

[Joshv]

Were alcohol intake and smoking controlled for as
confounding factors? What about fitness level and overall
physical fitness?

I will certainly grant you that vegetarians, being a health
conscious lot on the whole, lead much healthier lifestyles
than the average meat-eater. Is this because of the lack of
animal protein intake? Or because they are less likely to
smoke and drink, and tend to keep themselves more fit? I don't
think these studies can answer this question.

George Cherry wrote:
> "RBR" <rogers@home.com> wrote in message
> news:povcg1herrviu3q6c28h12g99b2tgjhdec@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:54:38 -0400, Just Cocky
> > <just@cocky.com> wrote:
> >
> >>How do you explain that the longest living people on this
> >>planet, the Okinawans, are not vegetarians?
> >
> > A centenarian study carried out in the New England states
> > (I'll try to dig it up) stated that of the 1200+
> > centenarians studied, only four were vegetarians.
> >
> > In India, the predominantly vegetarian South Indians seem
> > to die off quicker than their meat-eating neighbours to
> > the North. Vegetarianism does not equal longevity.
>
> How about this?
>
> 1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):526S-532S.
> Related Articles, Links
>
>
> Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in
> humans?
>
> Singh PN, Sabate J, Fraser GE.
>
> Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public
> Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA.
> psingh@sph.llu.edu
>
> BACKGROUND: Since meat products represent a major source of
> protein in the Western diet, findings on whether meat intake
> significantly contributes to the burden of fatal disease
> have important clinical and public health implications.
> OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine whether a very low
> meat intake (less than weekly) contributes to greater
> longevity. DESIGN: We reviewed data from 6 prospective
> cohort studies and report new findings on the life
> expectancy of long-term vegetarians from the Adventist
> Health Study. RESULTS: Our review of the 6 studies found the
> following trends: 1) a very low meat intake was associated
> with a significant decrease in risk of death in 4 studies, a
> nonsignificant decrease in risk of death in the fifth study,
> and virtually no association in the sixth study; 2) 2 of the
> studies in which a low meat intake significantly decreased
> mortality risk also indicated that a longer duration (>/= 2
> decades) of adherence to this diet contributed to a
> significant decrease in mortality risk and a significant
> 3.6-y (95% CI: 1.4, 5.8 y) increase in life expectancy; and
> 3) the protective effect of a very low meat intake seems
> to attenuate after the ninth decade. Some of the variation
> in the survival advantage in vegetarians may have been due
> to marked differences between studies in adjustment for
> confounders, the definition of vegetarian, measurement
> error, age distribution, the healthy volunteer effect, and
> intake of specific plant foods by the vegetarians.
> CONCLUSION: Current prospective cohort data from adults in
> North America and Europe raise the possibility that a
> lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is
> associated with greater longevity.
>
> Publication Types:
> a.. Review
> b.. Review, Tutorial
>
> PMID: 12936945 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Kamalakar]

"George Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu>
wrote in message
news:urOdnZ2dnZ1K4K7TnZ2dnTkVm96dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com

> > In India, the predominantly vegetarian South Indians seem
> > to die off quicker than their meat-eating neighbours to
> > the North. Vegetarianism does not equal longevity.
> How about this?

There are equal / even more vegeterians in the
northern parts of India . The meat eaters in India
donot consume as much meat as in the west as the
fillers are basically wheat , rice , pulses and
vegetables .

Kam

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Max C .]

> I've seen that one George.

And if this is the one I remember, their calculations were
based on serum cholesterol levels and a few other similar
markers. The problem with that is that there is clear evidence
that as one gets older, they can expect to live longer if
their cholesterol levels rise. I believe their calculations
were based on an assumption of just the opposite. Predicting
life span is a tricky thing.

Max.

[Rbr]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:10:11 +0000 (UTC), "Kamalakar
Pasupuleti" <p_kamalakar@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"George Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu>
>wrote in message
>news:urOdnZ2dnZ1K4K7TnZ2dnTkVm96dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com
>
>
>> > In India, the predominantly vegetarian South Indians seem
>> > to die off quicker than their meat-eating neighbours to
>> > the North. Vegetarianism does not equal longevity.
>> How about this?
>
> There are equal / even more vegeterians in the
> northern parts of India . The meat eaters in India
> donot consume as much meat as in the west as the
> fillers are basically wheat , rice , pulses and
> vegetables .
>

Dear Kam, the meat eaters in India eat meat. The vegetarians
do not! So far, so good? Who was talking about the
Westerners? I was comparing Northern Indians with vegetarian
Southern Indians.

RBR

[Rbr]

Correction: The study says a 3.6 year increase in life
expectancy, not 3-6 years as I erroneously said. That is for
someone that has been on a vegetarian diet for 20 years,
according to the study you referenced.

I suggest that you don't actually live longer, it just seems
longer eating all that low-fat rabbit food. ;o)

RBR

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:16:41 -0400, RBR
<rogers@home.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:34:28 -0400, "George Cherry the
>closet vegetarian"
><GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>How about this?
>>
>> 1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):526S-532S.
>> Related Articles, Links
>>
>>
>>Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in
>>humans?
>>
>>Singh PN, Sabate J, Fraser GE.
>>
>>Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public
>>Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA.
>>psingh@sph.llu.edu
>>
>>BACKGROUND: Since meat products represent a major source of
>>protein in the Western diet, findings on whether meat intake
>>significantly contributes to the burden of fatal disease
>>have important clinical and public health implications.
>>OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine whether a very low
>>meat intake (less than weekly) contributes to greater
>>longevity. DESIGN: We reviewed data from 6 prospective
>>cohort studies and report new findings on the life
>>expectancy of long-term vegetarians from the Adventist
>>Health Study. RESULTS: Our review of the 6 studies found the
>>following trends: 1) a very low meat intake was associated
>>with a significant decrease in risk of death in 4 studies, a
>>nonsignificant decrease in risk of death in the fifth study,
>>and virtually no association in the sixth study; 2) 2 of the
>>studies in which a low meat intake significantly decreased
>>mortality risk also indicated that a longer duration (>/= 2
>>decades) of adherence to this diet contributed to a
>>significant decrease in mortality risk and a significant
>>3.6-y (95% CI: 1.4, 5.8 y) increase in life expectancy; and
>> 3) the protective effect of a very low meat intake seems
>> to attenuate after the ninth decade. Some of the variation
>> in the survival advantage in vegetarians may have been due
>> to marked differences between studies in adjustment for
>> confounders, the definition of vegetarian, measurement
>> error, age distribution, the healthy volunteer effect, and
>> intake of specific plant foods by the vegetarians.
>> CONCLUSION: Current prospective cohort data from adults in
>> North America and Europe raise the possibility that a
>> lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is
>> associated with greater longevity.
>>
>>Publication Types:
>> a.. Review
>> b.. Review, Tutorial
>>
>>PMID: 12936945 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>>
>
> I've seen that one George.
>
>Conclusions from the study:
>
>Current data from prospective cohort studies of adults raise
>the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that includes a very
>low meat intake is associated with greater longevity. The
>findings from one cohort of healthy adults raises the
>possibility that long-term ( 2 decades) adherence to a
>vegetarian diet can further produce a significant 3.6-y
>increase in life expectancy.
>
>Because meat products represent a major source of protein in
>the Western diet, investigating whether meat intake
>significantly contributes to the burden of fatal disease has
>important clinical and public health implications. Further
>investigation of meat intake in relation to survival in other
>cohorts is needed because the published studies summarized
>herein represent only a subset of the available cohort data.
>More work is also needed to identify the causative roles of
>specific plant foods in the longevity observed among
>vegetarians.
>
>
>I snipped the above text from the full-text version of
>this study.
>
>So the benefits from following a vegetarian diet for 20 years
>is an increased lifespan of 3-6 years. Also, they seem to be
>saying that a vegetarian diet is better than a meat-heavy
>Western diet.
>
>Funny how none of the longest lived civilizations on this
>planet are vegetarian, eh George? ;o)
>
>RBR

[Kamalakar]

"RBR" <rogers@home.com> wrote in message
news:m33gg1l2gg80cf63ub16if63lkam00l434@4ax.com

> Dear Kam, the meat eaters in India eat meat. The vegetarians
> do not! So far, so good? Who was talking about the
> Westerners? I was comparing Northern Indians with vegetarian
> Southern Indians.
>
> RBR

Dear RBR , I think the following points relating to
dietery habits
of north and south should help .If you draw a line
horizontally and
consider all below vindhya mountains as south and above
as north .

The more south one go people eat more of rice and less of
wheat . The coastal area eat more sea food then meat .

As you go more north they consume more of wheat and less
rice . The noth indians consume the pulses as whole with
skin like chana ( chick pea ) , green gram , black gram
etc . All these pulses are used in the south with outer
skin removed .

North Indians prefer to eat more legumes then southern
states .
They also eat fresh salads in liberal . The southerns
less of it .

Regards , Kam


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Rbr]

Yes Kam, I have no problem with what you say with regards to
the regional diets of Indians. I was educated years ago by my
Indian (Punjabi mostly) friends. The initial point was that
the vegetarian population in the South shouldn't be used as an
example of vegetarianism improving longevity. The Northerners,
who eat more animal foods because they supplement with meat
are generally healthier and live longer than the vegetarians
in that country.

Regards.

RBR

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:24:15 +0000 (UTC), "Kamalakar
Pasupuleti" <p_kamalakar@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"RBR" <rogers@home.com> wrote in message
>news:m33gg1l2gg80cf63ub16if63lkam00l434@4ax.com
>
>> Dear Kam, the meat eaters in India eat meat. The
>> vegetarians do not! So far, so good? Who was talking about
>> the Westerners? I was comparing Northern Indians with
>> vegetarian Southern Indians.
>>
>> RBR
>
> Dear RBR , I think the following points relating to dietery
> habits
> of north and south should help .If you draw a line
> horizontally and
> consider all below vindhya mountains as south and above as
> north .
>
> The more south one go people eat more of rice and less of
> wheat . The coastal area eat more sea food then meat .
>
> As you go more north they consume more of wheat and less
> rice . The noth indians consume the pulses as whole with
> skin like chana ( chick pea ) , green gram , black gram etc
> . All these pulses are used in the south with outer skin
> removed .
>
>North Indians prefer to eat more legumes then southern states
> .
>They also eat fresh salads in liberal . The southerns less of
> it .
>
>Regards , Kam

[Mmu]

Are north and south india comparable in terms of demographics
like per capita income for example?

"RBR" <rogers@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0t8ig1p9otg5s1lunl88kokejgkq8vabpk@4ax.com...
> Yes Kam, I have no problem with what you say with regards to
> the regional diets of Indians. I was educated years ago by
> my Indian (Punjabi mostly) friends. The initial point was
> that the vegetarian population in the South shouldn't be
> used as an example of vegetarianism improving longevity. The
> Northerners, who eat more animal foods because they
> supplement with meat are generally healthier and live longer
> than the vegetarians in that country.
>
> Regards.
>
> RBR
>
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:24:15 +0000 (UTC), "Kamalakar
> Pasupuleti" <p_kamalakar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"RBR" <rogers@home.com> wrote in message
>>news:m33gg1l2gg80cf63ub16if63lkam00l434@4ax.com
>>
>>> Dear Kam, the meat eaters in India eat meat. The
>>> vegetarians do not! So far, so good? Who was talking about
>>> the Westerners? I was comparing Northern Indians with
>>> vegetarian Southern Indians.
>>>
>>> RBR
>>
>>Dear RBR , I think the following points relating to dietery
>> habits
>> of north and south should help .If you draw a line
>> horizontally and
>> consider all below vindhya mountains as south and above as
>> north .
>>
>> The more south one go people eat more of rice and less of
>> wheat . The coastal area eat more sea food then meat .
>>
>> As you go more north they consume more of wheat and less
>> rice . The noth indians consume the pulses as whole with
>> skin like chana ( chick pea ) , green gram , black gram
>> etc . All these pulses are used in the south with outer
>> skin removed .
>>
>> North Indians prefer to eat more legumes then southern
>> states .
>> They also eat fresh salads in liberal . The southerns less
>> of it .
>>
>>Regards , Kam

[Kamalakar]

"MMu" <brilhasti@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:4309b117$0$8024$3b214f66@usenet.univie.ac.at

> Are north and south india comparable in terms of
> demographics like per capita income for example?

Simple answer yes . Toady the south is the hub of activity
for the software industry . The giant infosis at bangalore
and the microsoft at hyderabad .

Kam

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG