Is being vegan as unhealthy as eating lots of meat?

Question

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.

The SDA study was a study of Adventists, not by them. But I wouldn't trust a religious groups stats either.

http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/cancer.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12001975&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

This is a link to the 'Mortality of British Vegetarians' study, or rather the sum of it's contents on Pubmed. The whole thing is a bit of a wade, I 'll dig up a link for the it in a bit.

I think the Vegans diet at the same age as the carnivores because of a lack of essential fatty acids and cholesterol (yes, you do seem to need some), it's hard to get bio-available omega three oils from vegan sources, it's always swamped by the omega six.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12001975&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

Here is a link with some factoids from 'Diet for a new America'.
http://www.geocities.com/~newliberty/robbins.htm
Personally, I never accept statistics from a book, too often you'll only get half the argument. I do agree with him about modern farming methods and pollution being a problem. But, and here's the problem with 'Veganism is healthier' mantra, there are a some societies that eat massively high levels of red meat and diary that don't get high levels of cancer, heart disease or diabetes. And you get veggie ones that have heart attacks like crazy. So in itself I can't see how meat is harmful. Personally my money's on refined carbs as the bad guy. Since most heavy red meat eaters are not into health foods, I'd say A high GI diet may be to blame more.

I am also not supposed to drink milk. It lowers my uric acid levels (I have MS). I am supposed to eat a bucket of oily fish or other purine rich flesh though. It's probably why Eskimos don't get MS.

And here is a link to a pro vegan site that has the mortality stats on it. You have to read it carefully to spot that the mortality for vegans was the same as meat eaters.

http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/research

I meant cholesterol in your blood, not so much diet. A lot of people seem to think the lower your serum cholesterol is the better.

No FM, none of it was from Wikipedia. I took the trouble to chase down the results from the research papers published on line. Wiki is good for a reference, but I wouldn't quote it.

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.

:)

Answer 3

There is evidence out there that the human species began as herbivorous. May of our physical features more closely resemble those of true herbivores. However, I personally think that we are natural omnivores. Although, natural omnivores survive on a mostly plant based diet, with the very occasional consumption of meat when a hunt is successful. The meat is eaten raw with all of its nutrients intact. The way humans comsume meat is not natural, nor is it healthy. We comsume far far too much, and the meat is usually from very questionnable sources where hormones, steroids and chemicals are pumped into the animal and into the flesh. The meat is then cooked, destroying most of the nutirents. This cooking issue is one that certainly makes me question whether we are indeed designed to eat meat at all. If we were, why does raw meat make us sick? Regardless, I was raised as a vegetarian, and later became vegan. I am now a mother myself, and we are all in perfect health. Meat is certainly not necessary for good health, and in fact the way it is consumed by most is certainly detrimental to human health.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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/78/3/533S)

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/70/3/516S).

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.

Answer 6

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.

Answer 7

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!

Answer 8

Many common natural remedies are claimed to have blood sugar lowering properties that make them useful for people with or at high risk of diabetes. Learn here https://tr.im/rRaPg

A number of clinical studies have been carried out in recent years that show potential links between herbal therapies and improved blood glucose control, which has led to an increase in people with diabetes using these more 'natural' ingredients to help manage their condition.

Answer 9

Of course it is. Everyone needs a balanced diet. That means a bit of everything in measure.

Answer 10

Actually, you don't need to get cholesterol from your diet, as your body makes it naturally.