Newsgroups: rec.food.veg From: taltar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Altar) Subject: Life Expectancy of Vegetarians Message-ID: Sender: news@sfu.ca (seymour news) Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 09:00:33 GMT Lines: 95 Scharffenberg [John Scharffenberg PROBLEMS WITH MEAT, 1989] drawing upon epidemiological data provided by Lemon & Walden (JAMA, 1969, 18:950) reported that the best diet for human beings in terms of health and longevity is vegetarian. In general, vegetarians live about 6 years longer than their meat eating counterparts (i.e., meat-eating Seventh Day Adventists). If we select as our comparison group only those Seventh Day Adventists who still eat meat AND who do not smoke, it turns out that their total vegetarian counterparts still out live them by 3 years. Hence, even when we use a somewhat CONSERVATIVE comparison group (remember, even though not all SDA's are vegetarian but on the whole they would still eat less meat then the average North American) and thereby control for known life style hazards like smoking, VEGETARIANS STILL LIVE LONGER (ABOUT 3 YEARS) THAN EVEN MODERATE MEAT EATERS, and here we are talking a comparable comparison group of meat eaters who otherwise share essentially the same life style. This is still a substantial difference and it would appear that the hazards of meat eating are on the same level as that of smoking (which as we have seen shortens this comparison group's life-span by about 3 years). Also, keep in mind that the observed-to-expected coronary heart disease mortality among total vegetarians is only 14%. Vegetarians, of course, do have heart attacks but they occur approximately 20 years later in life than for meat eaters. Thus, not only is longevity increased but so is the quality of health for the life span that one does live out. This is important, especially if we hope to live a robust and vital life and not end up being a valetudinarian or invalid during our "golden" years, which indeed should be golden. Now, it is the case that the 3 year figure I cited for greater longevity of vegetarian SDAs over their meat-eating SDA counterparts (after activity levels, smoking, etc. had been controlled) would LIKELY BE GREATER between vegetarians and non- vegetarians in the population at large. There is a greater heterogeneity (or heteroscadasticity, if you wish) of dietary practices in the larger population. That is, North Americans as a whole eat about twice as much meat as even our SDA omnivores. Hence, our "with-in" population comparison of SDA vegetarians with SDA non-vegetarians is more homogeneous with respect to meat consumption and would therefore likely manifest a smaller magnitude of difference. Also, when attempting a proper longitudinal follow-up study there are real-world constraints that WORK AGAINST the comparison. That is, many omnivores in our SDA population during the interim of a longitudinal study actually reduce their meat consumption or even become vegetarians. For instance, Snowdon and Phillips (AMER. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 75(5): 507-12) found in their 21 year long follow-up study that meat consumption patterns changed as follows in a sample of 7,012 SDA's: 1960 1976 <1 day/wk (vegetarian) 12% ate meat at least >1 day/wk 1-2 days/wk 49% " " " " " " 3-5 days/wk 72% " " " " " " 6+ days/wk 83% " " " " " " Hence, some vegetarians during the interim became meat-eaters and many meat-eaters became vegetarians. This change of dietary habits does NOT explain the finding of why vegetarians live 3 years longer but works AGAINST it. Hence, this 3 year figure is a very conservative underestimation of the even the actual difference, let alone the potential difference of how vegans and meat-eaters in the population at large would compare.. This figure of three years is therefore a CONSERVATIVE figure and one can say, therefore, that vegetarians live AT LEAST 3 years longer than omnivores. And this is not even taking into account the greater difference that likely would further occur if vegans rather than just lacto-ovo-vegetarians were instead used as our comparison group. It is this figure, conservative as it is, that ought to be the figure you cite since at least we here a figure that is empirically justified and applicable to the North American situation. Incidentally, I've seen higher estimates but I can't find them right now. One last note. The biologic cost of a North American omnivorous diet is only partly given by life expectancy estimates. Certainly, the quality of life is reduced when one has to suffer from, say, non-lethal but debilitating strokes and heart attacks. Problems of obesity, reduced endurance, crapulence, and so on are not to be ignored. Even the cognitive contradiction of being one who loves animals but who would still sit down at dinner to eat dead animals might also be something that detracts from enjoying a quality life, a life in which one can say "I lived a good life and in my small way helped to mitigate some of the suffering in the world instead of helping to increase it". Ted