Is being vegan as unhealthy as eating lots of meat?!
The Seventh Day Adventist study concluded that the veggies were healthier because of overall healthier eating patterns, eating more fruit, veg, nuts and legumes, and that it was unlikely to be not eating flesh that was the reason for their better health. A British study into the mortality of vegetarians concluded the same thing, pointing out that vegetarians were also from a better social class and had a healthier lifestyle generally.
If you want to disagree with me feel free, but please provide sources for stats or facts. I'm into a diet research phase, and I need some one to bicker constructively with.
If any one wants links, I'll paste them up.
Answers: A few hours of research into the mortality of British vegetarians has turned up some interesting facts. People that eat fish, but not usually meat, live the longest, followed by vegetarians and occasional meat eaters (tied for second place) with Vegans and heavy meat consumers both having the shortest life spans (again a tie).
The Seventh Day Adventist study concluded that the veggies were healthier because of overall healthier eating patterns, eating more fruit, veg, nuts and legumes, and that it was unlikely to be not eating flesh that was the reason for their better health. A British study into the mortality of vegetarians concluded the same thing, pointing out that vegetarians were also from a better social class and had a healthier lifestyle generally.
If you want to disagree with me feel free, but please provide sources for stats or facts. I'm into a diet research phase, and I need some one to bicker constructively with.
If any one wants links, I'll paste them up.
If i had to venture a guess i think i would have said occasional fish eaters first, vegetarians second followed by occasional meat and vegans at about the same in third with heavy meat eaters a distant last. there are so many factors in these things though, very hard to isolate variables for a study. In addition, what i would consider to be modern vegetarianism and veganism really hasnt existed for very long, the type of more enlightened understanding of things like amino acid combinations that are a recent addition to the vegetarian life style are bound to further the separation going forward. Personally, while it is somewhat affirming to think that my no-dairy occasional fish but mainly vegetarian diet would be about the best you could do, that sort of thinking is a good way to get hit by a car.
Every diet has it's plus and minus points! Like you said, vegetarians are more likely to be aware of what they are eating, making conscious decisions to choose something which is healthy and does not contain animal products...
Personally, what I take from the information you have provided is that it's important to eat whatever you want in moderation... too much of anything is a bad thing! People who eat too much meat are obviously getting too much of a certain food group whereas for vegans there isn't much variety in their foods either...
Makes sense to me!
Of course it is. Everyone needs a balanced diet. That means a bit of everything in measure.
Surprise Surprise......moderation is the key.
These facts would also be further supported by the fact that some Asian countries where fish is a large part of the diet tend to live long.
I suspect if the study further broke down the meat eaters into the cuts with low saturated fats that they (like chicken breast) that the numbers would be similar to the fish diet.
I have two vegan family members and they rely heavily on carbs for their calories. Unless you have great discipline and put in an effort, a HEALTHY vegan diet is a lot of work. Not surprised with your vegan numbers either.
And very good help see this link http://www.bobool.com that your question cn may find it is the answer to my questions where shooting
Could you please paste the links... I don't know much about Seventh day adventists but I would never fully trust a religious group, but that's just me. If vegetarians are the healthiest then vegans should be too, if not more so... they eat the same things minus mainly milk and eggs, both of which are full of cholesterol. Milk especially has so many hormones in and has been linked to cancer, especially in women. It's also been proved to cause/irritate allergies and I know this first hand since my eczema and allergies have dissapeared since I gave up milk.
Sorry but I can't really be bothered to go and find the stats and facts which I've read because they've been in different places over a length of time, but try going on the WHO (World Health Organization), ADA (American Dietic Association) and BMA (British Medical Association) websites... most of the leaflets I've read have been quoted from these associations.
You note that the Seventh Day Adventist study reveals that "veggies were healthier because of overall healthier eating patterns, eating more fruit, veg, nuts and legumes, and that it was unlikely to be not eating flesh..." So being that a vegan pretty much follows the same diet, then it's strange to hear that vegans and meat eaters have tied.
I don't have the books with me right now so I can state some facts, but I know that both "Diet For A New America" and "The Food Revolution" by John Robbins states tons of facts from actual research (he provides his sources as well) about vegans (which he calls pure vegetarians), vegetarians, and meat eaters. That is the only source [I can think of right now] that would disagree with the results that the Seventh Day Adventists came up with. Feel free to check it out sometime.
:)
Actually, you don't need to get cholesterol from your diet, as your body makes it naturally.
There's a big difference between how many years one lives and how healthy one is during those years. It doesn't do a lot of good to live long and be unhealthy.
One set of statistics that would be useful but hard to find is Buddhist monks. They've been practicing a vegan-like vegetarianism for around 1500+ years.
In your previous question you seemed to take information from wikipedia, which isn't really a credible source, it's only useful as a basis of some information, and as such you only saw the articles indicated in the wikipedia. I posted a journal article that referenced and compared/summarized 147 different studies which is a far better basis for determining trends.
edit:
I was referring to the previous post which appeared to mirror the information on the wiki entry.
I had commented about the associated article (so I removed the comments) as it wasn't about the one you are referring to (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/78/3/533...
After a quick look there are a few issues, the term "meat eater" is probably the same as in the associated article (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/...
Meaning "meat eater" is someone who eats meat at least one serving a week. In the US "meat eater" would likely be considered someone who eats meat at least everyday. Actual consumption values for meat or fish were not clearly defined in the articles.
Also, it is interesting how in the previous associated article, the top abstract find was "Mortality from ischemic heart disease was 24%
lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians (death rate ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.94; P < 0.01)."
However, in the newer article it says:
"In all 3 studies, mortality from IHD was nonsignificantly lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians (DRRs of 0.85, 0.86, and 0.75 in the
Health Food Shoppers Study, the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and EPIC-Oxford, respectively)." Where they now consider the results as "nonsignificant" even though the DDR levels are between 15-25% compared to 24% in the previous article. Considering that heart disease is among the top causes of death in the US, a reduction of 15-25% should be considered significant.
Additionally the number of vegan subjects was not indicated (though it was in the previous article), and in the previous article it was pointed out that the information for vegans was less sure.
"The number of vegans was small (n = 753 subjects, 68 deaths)." and "Mortality from ischemic heart disease among the vegans was slightly higher than among the fish eaters and the vegetarians, but the number of vegans was small."
Interesting how the format of the articles, and apparently the conclusions, have changed.
yes definitley, you will become unhealht ywith an eating deffiectncy