David Sinclair· PhD
And what they found was that, what's called the hazard ratio, went down the more vegetarian and vegan you were.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
And what they found was that, what's called the hazard ratio, went down the more vegetarian and vegan you were.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So, the numbers are the following, non-vegetarians are at one, if you call that one, compared to that, the next best one was semi vegetarians at 0.92 and lacto-ovo vegetarians, 0.91. Okay, so almost a 10% reduction in mortality, death. And then you get into vegans, with 0.85, so, that's 15% reduction in death, and then the best one was Pesco vegetarian. So, getting a little bit of meat- - Little bit of fish, - Yeah, little bit of meat from fish, probably the fish oils in there are beneficial. And then you're down to 0.81. So that's a 19% reduction in your chance of death at any given day, late in life.