Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1620S-1626S. Epub 2009 Mar 11.
Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford).
Key TJ, Appleby PN, Spencer EA, Travis RC, Roddam AW, Allen NE.
Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. [email protected]
BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies have examined cancer incidence among vegetarians. OBJECTIVE: We report cancer incidence among vegetarians and nonvegetarians in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford) study. DESIGN: This was a prospective study of 63,550 men and women recruited throughout the United Kingdom in the 1990s. Cancer incidence was followed through nationwide cancer registries. RESULTS: The standardized incidence ratio for all malignant neoplasms for all participants was 72% (95% CI: 69%, 75%). The standardized incidence ratios for colorectal cancer were 84% (95% CI: 73%, 95%) among nonvegetarians and 102% (95% CI: 80%, 129%) among vegetarians. In a comparison of vegetarians with meat eaters and after adjustment for age, sex, and smoking, the incidence rate ratio for all malignant neoplasms was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80, 1.00). The incidence rate ratio for colorectal cancer in vegetarians compared with meat eaters was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.91). CONCLUSIONS: The overall cancer incidence rates of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study are low compared with national rates. Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters, but the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.
PMID: 19279082 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]Free Article
The effect of meat consumption on body odor attractiveness.
Havlicek J, Lenochova P.
Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities, Charles University, Husnikova 2075, 158 00 Prague 13, Czech Republic. [email protected]
Axillary body odor is individually specific and potentially a rich source of information about its producer. Odor individuality partly results from genetic individuality, but the influence of ecological factors such as eating habits are another main source of odor variability. However, we know very little about how particular dietary components shape our body odor. Here we tested the effect of red meat consumption on body odor attractiveness. We used a balanced within-subject experimental design. Seventeen male odor donors were on “meat” or “nonmeat” diet for 2 weeks wearing axillary pads to collect body odor during the final 24 h of the diet. Fresh odor samples were assessed for their pleasantness, attractiveness, masculinity, and intensity by 30 women not using hormonal contraceptives. We repeated the same procedure a month later with the same odor donors, each on the opposite diet than before. Results of repeated measures analysis of variance showed that the odor of donors when on the nonmeat diet was judged as significantly more attractive, more pleasant, and less intense. This suggests that red meat consumption has a negative impact on perceived body odor hedonicity.</p>
PMID: 16891352 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]Free Article
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 Jun;27(6):728-34.
Diet and body mass index in 38000 EPIC-Oxford meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans.
Spencer EA, Appleby PN, Davey GK, Key TJ.
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. [email protected]
OBJECTIVE: To compare body mass index (BMI) in four diet groups (meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans) in the Oxford cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford) and to investigate lifestyle and dietary factors associated with any observed differences. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of self-reported dietary, anthropometric and lifestyle data. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 37875 healthy men and women aged 20-97 y participating in EPIC-Oxford. RESULTS: Age-adjusted mean BMI was significantly different between the four diet groups, being highest in the meat-eaters (24.41 kg/m(2) in men, 23.52 kg/m(2) in women) and lowest in the vegans (22.49 kg/m(2) in men, 21.98 kg/m(2) in women). Fish-eaters and vegetarians had similar, intermediate mean BMI. Differences in lifestyle factors including smoking, physical activity and education level accounted for less than 5% of the difference in mean age-adjusted BMI between meat-eaters and vegans, whereas differences in macronutrient intake accounted for about half of the difference. High protein (as percent energy) and low fibre intakes were the dietary factors most strongly and consistently associated with increasing BMI both between and within the diet groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fish-eaters, vegetarians and especially vegans had lower BMI than meat-eaters. Differences in macronutrient intakes accounted for about half the difference in mean BMI between vegans and meat-eaters. High protein and low fibre intakes were the factors most strongly associated with increasing BMI.
PMID: 12833118 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]
Public Health Nutr. 2002 Oct;5(5):645-54.
Hypertension and blood pressure among meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians and vegans in EPIC-Oxford.
Appleby PN, Davey GK, Key TJ.
Cancer Research UK, Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Gibson Building, The Radcliffe Infirmary, UK. [email protected]
OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of self-reported hypertension and mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures in four diet groups (meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians and vegans) and to investigate dietary and other lifestyle factors that might account for any differences observed between the groups. DESIGN: Analysis of cross-sectional data from participants in the Oxford cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). SETTING: United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: Eleven thousand and four British men and women aged 20-78 years at blood pressure measurement. RESULTS: The age-adjusted prevalence of self-reported hypertension was significantly different between the four diet groups, ranging from 15.0% in male meat eaters to 5.8% in male vegans, and from 12.1% in female meat eaters to 7.7% in female vegans, with fish eaters and vegetarians having similar and intermediate prevalences. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly different between the four diet groups, with meat eaters having the highest values and vegans the lowest values. The differences in age-adjusted mean blood pressure between meat eaters and vegans among participants with no self-reported hypertension were 4.2 and 2.6 mmHg systolic and 2.8 and 1.7 mmHg diastolic for men and women, respectively. Much of the variation was attributable to differences in body mass index between the diet groups. CONCLUSIONS: Non-meat eaters, especially vegans, have a lower prevalence of hypertension and lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures than meat eaters, largely because of differences in body mass index.
PMID: 12372158 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):533S-538S.
Mortality in British vegetarians: review and preliminary results from EPIC-Oxford.
Key TJ, Appleby PN, Davey GK, Allen NE, Spencer EA, Travis RC.
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. [email protected]
BACKGROUND: Three prospective studies have examined the mortality of vegetarians in Britain. OBJECTIVE: We describe these 3 studies and present preliminary results on mortality from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford). DESIGN: The Health Food Shoppers Study and the Oxford Vegetarian Study were established in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively; each included about 11 000 subjects and used a short questionnaire on diet and lifestyle. EPIC-Oxford was established in the 1990s and includes about 56 000 subjects who completed detailed food frequency questionnaires. Mortality in all 3 studies was followed though the National Health Service Central Register. RESULTS: Overall, the death rates of all the subjects in all 3 studies are much lower than average for the United Kingdom. Standardized mortality ratios (95% CIs) for all subjects were 59% (57%, 61%) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 52% (49%, 56%) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 39% (37%, 42%) in EPIC-Oxford. Comparing vegetarians with nonvegetarians within each cohort, the death rate ratios (DRRs), adjusted for age, sex and smoking, were 1.03 (0.95, 1.13) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 1.01 (0.89, 1.14) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 1.05 (0.86, 1.27) in EPIC-Oxford. DRRs for ischemic heart disease in vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians were 0.85 (0.71, 1.01) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 0.86 (0.67, 1.12) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 0.75 (0.41, 1.37) in EPIC-Oxford. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in these studies is low compared with national rates. Within the studies, mortality for major causes of death was not significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians, but the nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians was compatible with the significant reduction previously reported in a pooled analysis of mortality in Western vegetarians.
PMID: 12936946 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]Free Article
I noticed that the cancer incidence in this one (12936946) appears to be exactly the same between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, although the first abstract up top I believe may be the same cohort at a different time point.. Interesting quote:</p>
Mortality rates did not differ significantly between vegetarians and nonvegetarians. Vegetarians had higher mortality from all malignant neoplasms [DRR = 1.11 (0.82, 1.51)], cerebrovascular disease [DRR = 1.13 (0.65, 1.96)], and all other causes [DRR = 1.10 (0.77, 1.58)] and reduced mortality from all circulatory dis- eases [DRR = 0.93 (0.65, 1.32)] and IHD [DRR = 0.75 (0.41, 1.37)]. All-cause mortality was not significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians [DRR = 1.05 (0.86, 1.27)].</i></div>