Adventist Longevity a Myth?

[Bravus]

Someone mentioned the studies showing that Adventists live longer, and I spent a little time looking into them. I didn't do it with any particular agenda, but I did start with one thought: did the studies compare people living in Loma Linda with all Americans, and are there other systematic factors that could explain the results?

Here's a rundown from Wikipedia on the studies of longevity and Adventists: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies

Here's an abstract to the National Geographic article that started our discussion: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0511/feature1/index.html

There do seem to be some diet and lifestyle factors that are relevant: here's a peer reviewed study on cancer and Adventist lifestyle: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/35/11_Part_2/3513

But checking out my opening question, the results are interesting. Here are a couple of links on life expectancy on a state-by-state basis.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy

http://www.sciway.net/statistics/scsa98/vs/vs8.html

What you get from that is that Californians in general live 2 years longer than the average for all Americans. Since all participants in the Loma Linda study of Adventists are Californians, that already explains some of the finding.

But it's even more interesting than that, as the race statistics at this next link show: http://mlyon01.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/racist-disparities-in-california-life-expectancy/

In general, whites in California live considerably longer than African-Americans in California, and Asians in California live even longer.

Now look at the demographics of Loma Linda - about 50% white and 30% Asian: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loma_Linda,_California

It seems that being affluent white and Asian Californians (with access to an excellent leading hospital) is sufficient to count for most or all of the difference in life expectancy reported in these studies, irrespective of SDA lifestyle and beliefs.

That certainly *seems* to be what the data say. I'm very open to being shown to be wrong, or to perspectives drawing on the data that bring in more nuance and detail. I hope someone is able to post such discussion.

[Gerr]

I would suggest that you get in contact with Dr. Fraser at Loma Linda. I believe he is the head of the ongoing study that compares the lifestyle & longevity of SDAs with the US population in general. I am sure he would be interested to know if there is some error in their statistical analysis. No doubt the US gov't agency that has been funding this ongoing study would be very interested as well.

[CoAspen]

Would also be interesting to factor in Education across the US, in particular those involved in Health Care. Studies that I have seen attribute the longer life to health and life style. The idea of living healthier lives and all that goes with it, should mean those persons would also show longer lives. Of course, generational SDA,s might be longer lived due to genetics, so a look at that also would be interesting. There are so many factors that would need to be looked at, I have my doubts that in this day and times, other 'groups' would not show also some of the same stats.

[Dr. Shane]

Since all participants in the Loma Linda study of Adventists are Californians, that already explains some of the finding.

[Ellen]

The most recent study is collected all over the country. I am in the study and am in Southern Ontario. I know I would live longer if I lived in California (smile).

[Bravus]

Shane, yeah, I may not have been precise enough: I should have said 'the Loma Linda study whose results have already been reported' drew only on local participants. I'll be very interested to see the results of the broader study.

[Woody]

I've been in the study since at least 2002. Can't remember it's been so long.

[Naomi]

I don't remember the exact year that I joined this study, but know it was somewhere in early 2000

[M. T. Cross]

There was a study a few years back that showed that life long British Columbia residents now live an average of 12 years longer than the rest of Canada. THere were some interesting theories on why that might be.

[Jeannieb43]

There's an Adventist Health Study No. 2 going on right now. I think the Health Study No. 1 has been closed and tabulated; not sure, however.

[Gerr]

I was at a CME meeting at LLUMC last year. The statistics that I recall Dr. Fraser quoted were derived from the current and broader study. The longevity advantage still holds true for those who follow a plant-based diet.

[phkrause]

Shane, yeah, I may not have been precise enough: I should have said 'the Loma Linda study whose results have already been reported' drew only on local participants. I'll be very interested to see the results of the broader study.

Not sure where that info is coming from, "local participants." I've been in the study since its beginning. And I was living in Mass at the time. From what I would recall this study was being done in the NAD, not sure if it was also the world wide church in general.

[Bravus]

From the first link in my openjing post:

Quote:

Two studies on Adventist health involving 24,000 and 34,000 Californian Adventists were conducted over the last 40 years. Although not sponsored by the Adventist church itself, the church is supportive of the studies. These studies have been the subject of significant national media coverage on programs such as ABC News: World News Tonight, Good Morning America and in the National Geographic feature article "Longevity: The Secrets of a Long Life".[2]

There is a third larger ongoing study that includes Adventists throughout the United States and Canada.

As I said, the widely reported studies were on Californians. The study all of you are participating in is on-going, and it will be interesting to see those results.

Once I'm back home from holidays I may well take up Gerry's excellent suggestion to contact the chief researcher on the studies at Loma Linda and ask the question: I'm sure it's something they've considered.

Two important points to remember:

1. I'm raising an issue, not making an accusation. I'm not saying anyone is being dishonest or anything like it, although the use of the results may not be as careful in the popular media as a scientist would like. I honestly want to know the truth.

2. I absolutely accept that refraining from smoking, drinking, drugs and meat is likely to yield a longer lifespan. I'm not raising this issue to challenge any of those findings.

I really only ever have one agenda: finding out the truth.

[Dr. Shane]

The results from the current study started being released two or three years ago. These results were one of the principle reasons my wife and I decided to incorporate fish into our diet. Of course it isn't just about diet. There are many lifestyle issues like exercise, sleep, water consumption, stress management, family involvement, role of faith and sense of purpose and belonging.

[Gail]

@ Bravus-

Me, too!

[Gerr]

I believe I understood you clearly. Your points are valid. That's why I made the suggestion. I'd be surprised though if they had not considered your points. Statistical analysis is so detailed these days.

[Gerr]

Watch out for the mercury in the fish. Some have much more than others.

[Dr. Shane]

Watch out for the mercury in the fish. Some have much more than others.

Big fish have more than small fish. FDA says not to eat big fish more than twice each month. Small fish are safe three or four times each week. However that advice is for the population in general. The healthful benefits of fish eating simply outweigh the potential of mercury poisoning - especially when the FDA guidelines are followed.

The mercury does not pose as much danger for vegetarians because green vegetables help flush the mercury from the system. So vegetarians that eat only fish are less likely to suffer from mercury content than normal meat-eaters. That is not to say there is no danger to them, they should still follow the FDA guidelines but certainly there is less danger to them.

Of course fish has no fiber so it should be eaten with fiber-rich foods like beans or brown rice. Deep-fried "chips" is not the ideal companion food nor is "fried" the best method of preparing fish. Grilled or baked served with steamed vegetables and brown rice is ideal.

[phkrause]

The other thing you need to know about Fish and any other meat is if, especially fish, if they are farm raised. The fish are being fed dead fish. So when I buy fish I look for the package's that say that there caught out in the ocean.

[Dr. Shane]

Wild-caught fish is better than farmed fish but there is a lot of paranoia spread around about farmed fish. In the wild, fish eat other fish. So feeding farmed fish dried food made from fish is not as unnatural as it sounds. It isn't like feeding cattle feed made with beef products - which has caused mad cow disease. A cow is an omnivore so to feed it some sort of meat protein is unnatural. Feeding fish dried fish is not. The fish flakes I feed to my goldfish are dried fish.

While wild-caught fish are healthier, eating them does contribute to overfishing and the depletion of some species of fish. So there is an environmental concern there. Farmed fish are never in danger. A person can eat as much farmed fish as they desire without ever endangering any species of fish.

[Gerr]

I've read several times that the wild is definitely healthier food. The omega benefit from farmed fish is different from the wild. Because of the high density of the fish population in the farmed, they are more disease prone and are more likely to have been treated with antibiotics.

[phkrause]

When I had access to 3ABN, up in Mass, I used to watch a cooking program with Curtis and Paula Eakins, they did investigations into this. They visited a number of fish farms in Canada and the conditions were pretty bad.

[Dr. Shane]

There are pros and cons both ways.

Wild fish have these benefits on their side:

• a higher level of omega 3 fatty acids,

• a lower level of total fat

• no chance of containing antibiotics

• perhaps fewer pesticides and environmental pollutants (in ocean fish, not necessarily in lake fish)

Benefits of farm fish include:

• lower cost

• more control over the purity of the water, so they may have a lower level of pollutants

• more control over flavor and quality. A farmer can cater to specific tastes (so-called "designer fish")

• an ecological alternative to depleting fish populations in certain already over-fished waters

The Loma Linda health study has shown that vegans and meat-eaters are dying at about the same age although from vastly different causes. Ovo-lacto vegetarians are living longer and pescatarians are living longer still.

[Gerr]

The Loma Linda health study has shown that vegans and meat-eaters are dying at about the same age although from vastly different causes. Ovo-lacto vegetarians are living longer and pescatarians are living longer still.

Vegans & meat-eaters dying at the same age? Lacto-ovovegetarians & pescatarians living longer than vegans? I think somebody has their facts mixed up.

[Dr. Shane]

Vegans & meat-eaters dying at the same age? Lacto-ovovegetarians & pescatarians living longer than vegans? I think somebody has their facts mixed up.

I heard this from an Adventist preacher a few years back now. On more than one occasion since the results have started to be released I have heard Adventist doctors on the Hope Channel say that eating fish once or twice a week is a good supplement to the vegetarian diet. There was also an article in the Adventist Review a few years ago saying eating fish is a good supplement (although not necessary) to the vegetarian diet. Many vegans have issues with vitamin B12 deficiency which is more scary to me than mercury in fish.