Fish-Eaters and Vegetarians Score Biologically Younger
Graded Moderate — the study analysed more than 400,000 adults, but most comparisons come from one measurement, and only 8,855 people were examined a second time.
- Design
- Prospective cohort study
- Participants
- 407,376
- Duration
- —
- Funding
- National Natural Science Foundation of China; Guangzhou and Guangdong…
In fish-eaters, vegetarians and low meat-eaters, biological age ran less far ahead of actual age than in regular meat-eaters.
People who eat little or no meat appear biologically younger. That was the pattern among more than 400,000 adults. The gap was largest for people who ate fish but no meat, with vegetarians close behind. People who ate only a little meat also did better than regular meat-eaters, but by a smaller margin.
Researchers sorted 407,376 participants into four groups: regular meat-eaters, low meat-eaters, fish-eaters and vegetarians. They then estimated each person's biological age, meaning how old the body seems, using two different calculation methods. What counted was whether biological age was running ahead of actual age. Both methods gave similar results, and the pattern held across many subgroups. A second measurement was available for 8,855 people. Those who ate less or no meat aged biologically more slowly than people who stayed regular meat-eaters.
Most comparisons rest on a single measurement. People who eat differently may also live differently in other ways, even though the researchers accounted for many factors. So the study does not prove that eating less meat slows aging.
Disclaimer: Research summaries are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making changes to your health routine.