Vegetarians vs. Non-Vegetarians

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

So I guess my question is: 'Do we have a half decent idea of what

lifetime heart disease rates are likely to be for those whose heart

disease risk factors are similar those of the subjects in the WUSTL

study?'

Is heart disease incidence for these people near zero? Or is it

similar to the japanese rate of around 6%? Or, for a number, 20% as

with the SDA strict vegetarians?

And similarly, do we know the freqency of diabetes among those with

glucose and insulin test data like those of the WUSTL subjects?

Until now I have assumed the chances of someone established on CRON

coming down with diabetes was close to zero. But is that realistic

if the risk of strict vegetarians is only cut in half?

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> The VEGs suffered high BP and diabetes each half as often as the

> NONVEGs. But their incidence of IHD was only 38% less. I would

have

> hoped that it would have been much lower than that. The VEGs still

> had a lifetime incidence of IHD of 21%. This makes me wonder what

> this stat is for those who are established on CR. I had expected

it

> would be near negligible. Perhaps that expectation is too

> optimistic. The japanese I seem to remember have only a 6% heart

> disease incidence. So the VEGs in this study must be doing some

> things really wrong .................

> As Al noted NUTS turned out to be a major factor in this study for

> helping to reduce heart disease - protection factor 50%. And this

> applied to NONVEGs as much as to VEGs.

> > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/70/3/532S

> >

> > There is much in the full paper that is not apparent in

> > the abstract. For example, see the data on beef consumption

> > versus ischemic heart disease in Figure 1. In men, the

> > vegetarians have a clear benefit from not consuming meat.

> > Surprisingly, there is a not significant negative association

> > for women vegetarians.

> >

> > Also, the BMI data of Table 5 should be of interest to our

> > members, I believe. Caloric intakes are not included,

> > unfortunately.

> >

> > Cheers, Alan Pater