Type of Vegetarian Diet, Body Weight, and Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes (2024)

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice

Diabetes Care. 2009 May; 32(5): 791–796.

doi:10.2337/dc08-1886

PMCID: PMC2671114

PMID: 19351712

Serena Tonstad, MD, PHD,¹ Terry Butler, DRPH,² Ru Yan, MSC,³ and Gary E. Fraser, MD, PHD⁴

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in people following different types of vegetarian diets compared with that in nonvegetarians.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study population comprised 22,434 men and 38,469 women who participated in the Adventist Health Study-2 conducted in 2002–2006. We collected self-reported demographic, anthropometric, medical history, and lifestyle data from Seventh-Day Adventist church members across North America. The type of vegetarian diet was categorized based on a food-frequency questionnaire. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs using multivariate-adjusted logistic regression.

RESULTS

Mean BMI was lowest in vegans (23.6 kg/m²) and incrementally higher in lacto-ovo vegetarians (25.7 kg/m²), pesco-vegetarians (26.3 kg/m²), semi-vegetarians (27.3 kg/m²), and nonvegetarians (28.8 kg/m²). Prevalence of type 2 diabetes increased from 2.9% in vegans to 7.6% in nonvegetarians; the prevalence was intermediate in participants consuming lacto-ovo (3.2%), pesco (4.8%), or semi-vegetarian (6.1%) diets. After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, television watching, sleep habits, alcohol use, and BMI, vegans (OR 0.51 [95% CI 0.40–0.66]), lacto-ovo vegetarians (0.54 [0.49–0.60]), pesco-vegetarians (0.70 [0.61–0.80]), and semi-vegetarians (0.76 [0.65–0.90]) had a lower risk of type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-unit BMI difference between vegans and nonvegetarians indicates a substantial potential of vegetarianism to protect against obesity. Increased conformity to vegetarian diets protected against risk of type 2 diabetes after lifestyle characteristics and BMI were taken into account. Pesco- and semi-vegetarian diets afforded intermediate protection.

Vegetarian diets may play a beneficial role in promoting health and preventing obesity (1–3). Vegetarianism encompasses a spectrum of eating patterns: from diets that leave out all animal meats and products (vegan) to diets that include eggs, milk, and milk products (lacto-ovo vegetarian) or even fish in addition to eggs, milk, and milk products (pesco-vegetarian). A previous study has indicated that BMI increases when a wider spectrum of animal products are eaten. Specifically, the European Prospective Investigation found that BMI was highest in meat eaters, lowest in vegans, and intermediate in fish eaters (4). The protective effects of vegetarianism against overweight may be due to avoidance of major food groups, displacement of calories toward food groups that are more satiating (5), or other factors.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The Adventist Health Study-2 cohort, initiated in 2002–2006, longitudinally follows 97,000 Adventist church members in the U.S. and Canada (10). Participants were recruited through their churches and were eligible if aged ≥30 years and proficient in English. The study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, and informed consent was obtained.

These analyses are based on cross-sectional data obtained at baseline. Data were collected from a 50-page self-administered questionnaire (11).The questionnaire included sections on illness, diet, physical activity, demographics, height, and weight. Cases of diabetes were ascertained by asking whether a physician had ever diagnosed type 1 or type 2 diabetes and whether the respondent was treated for this in the last 12 months. Race and ethnicity were divided into the following categories: black (black/African American, West Indian/Caribbean, African, or other black) and non-black (white non-Hispanic, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Asian, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, or American Indian). Education was categorized to high school or less, some college, and college or higher based on eight options. Income was categorized into earnings of ≤10,000, 11,000–30,000, 31,000–50,000, and ≥51,000 USD.

Assessment of lifestyle exposures

The food-frequency portion of the questionnaire covered 130 hard-coded foods or food groups that are commonly consumed and space for ∼50 write-ins and are assessed for diet during the past year. For different food items, there were 7–9 frequency categories. A standard portion size was given for each item, and subjects could select that or a smaller or larger portion. Previous validation of the questionnaire pertained to nutrients including vitamin, antioxidant, and fatty acid intakes (12,13). Vegetarian status was categorized by defining vegans as subjects who reported consuming no animal products (red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, milk, and dairy products <1 time/month), lacto-ovo vegetarians as consuming dairy products and/or eggs ≥1 time/month but no fish or meat (red meat, poultry, and fish <1 time/month), pesco-vegetarians as consuming fish ≥1 time/month and dairy products and/or eggs but no red meat or poultry (red meat and poultry <1 time/month), semi-vegetarians as consuming dairy products and/or eggs and meat (red meat and poultry ≥1 time/month and <1 time/week), and nonvegetarians as consuming animal products (red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, milk, and dairy products >1 time/week). Alcohol was defined as consumption of any amount or none during the past 12 months.

Physical-activity questions were previously validated in non-black and black subjects (14,15). These were separated into six intensity levels, including napping, lying down, and light, moderate, vigorous, and extremely vigorous activity. Participants reported the amount of time spent in each type of activity on a normal weekday and on Saturday and Sunday. Moderate, vigorous, and extremely vigorous activities were assigned scores of 4, 8, and 10, respectively, to represent the approximate MET values expended and were weighted according to the amount of time spent in each activity to estimate average daily energy expenditure (information available in the online appendix [http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/dc08-1886]). Participants reported average number of hours of sleep and hours per day of television watching. Responses were divided into three categories (≤6, 7, and ≥8 h of sleep and <1, 1–2, and ≥3 h of television watching).

Ascertainment of disease

A representative subgroup of 1,007 study subjects participated in a calibration study and provided blood samples for measurement of fasting serum glucose levels (16). The calibration sample was generated by a two-stage random-selection method involving church size and subjects within the church. Subjects who refused participation were replaced with individuals randomly chosen from the same church and matched by race, age, and sex.

We used a fasting glucose level ≥126 mg/dl to categorize subjects as probably diabetic. We attempted telephone interviews with subjects who, despite glucose measurements <126 mg/dl, reported a physician-based diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and subjects whose glucose measurement was ≥126 mg/dl but who did not report type 2 diabetes. Of subjects who had reported type 2 diabetes but had a low glucose level (n = 55), all 44 who were contacted confirmed that they had type 2 diabetes, whereas 9 could not be reached and 2 were too deaf to understand the question. Of subjects who did not report type 2 diabetes but had a high glucose level (n = 53), 38 had no knowledge of diabetes, were informed of diabetes by their physician after the questionnaire was administered, were informed only of a high or borderline glucose level, or had not been treated in the past 12 months; 1 had diabetes but had skipped that page of the questionnaire; 6 were deceased; and 8 could not be reached.

Statistical analyses

The allocation of subjects into dietary categories required responses to questions regarding 27 variables including meat, fish and poultry, dairy, and egg consumption. Because on average ∼7% data were missing for any particular variable, multiple imputation was used to fill missing information. For about half of these variables, we had a random subset of initially missing data filled in later by telephone and used this to guide the imputation (17). For other variables, we assumed that the data were missing at random, which, even if not quite correct, will have little influence when the missing data rate is small (17). The imputation algorithm included age, sex, race, and food groups (meat, fish, dairy, and eggs). These food groups were subdivided into blocks of variables for which we had the random subset of filled-in data and those for which we did not (e.g., fish variables that were included in those later filled in versus fish variables not so included) for purposes of imputation. The imputation software used was the Hmisc package for R, version 2.6.0 (18).

χ² tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to obtain ORs and 95% CIs of the relation between characteristics, diet, and diabetes. All statistical testing was two-tailed. Analyses were performed using SPSS, version 13.0.

RESULTS

There were 83,031 subjects whose questionnaire responses allowed categorization by vegetarian or nonvegetarian diet. Of these, 1,427 did not respond to the diabetes ascertainment question. A further 634 who reported treatment for type 1 diabetes were excluded, and another 14,124, 4,638, 317, 852, and 136 were missing data regarding physical activity, income, education, television watching, and sleep, respectively. This left 22,434 men and 38,469 women. Of these 60,903 subjects, 3,430 (5.6%) reported type 2 diabetes.

Table 1 shows that participants treated for type 2 diabetes differed with regard to a variety of characteristics from those who did not report diabetes diagnosis. Only 1,070 (1.8%) participants had smoked one or more cigarettes daily in the past 12 months.

Table 1

Distribution of participants by history of type 2 diabetes treated within 12 months in conjunction with nondietary variables

	Type 2 diabetes reported	Not reported	P
N	3,430	57,473
Age (years)	62.5 ± 11.8	56.1 ± 13.7	<0.0001
Female	61.7	63.3	0.0604
Black	32.5	23.4	<0.0001
BMI (kg/m²)	32.1 ± 7.1	26.9 ± 5.7	<0.0001
Physical activity: METs			<0.0001
0–3.2	38.6	24.8
3.2–8.6	23.2	24.5
8.6–21.0	20.6	24.6
>21.0	17.6	26.1
Education			<0.0001
High school or less	26.0	17.9
Some college	31.9	27.6
College or higher	42.1	54.6
Income			<0.0001
≤10,000 USD	25.0	19.5
11,000–30,000 USD	42.9	36.3
31,000–50,000 USD	19.0	23.6
≥51,000 USD	13.1	20.6
Television watching			<0.0001
None to <1 h/day	11.8	27.0
1–2 h/day	42.9	47.4
≥3 h/day	45.3	25.6
Sleep			<0.0001
≤6 h/night	39.4	31.7
7 h/night	28.8	36.8
≥8 h/night	31.9	31.5
Alcohol use in last 12 months	7.1	10.4	<0.0001

Open in a separate window

Data are means ± SD or percent unless otherwise indicated. Percentages might not total 100 because of rounding.

The consumption of major food groups differed among the dietary groups (data not shown). The prevalence of type 2 diabetes increased incrementally among vegans, lacto-ovo vegetarians, pesco-vegetarians, semi-vegetarians, and nonvegetarians (Table 2). This increase was concomitant to an incremental increase in mean BMI in the respective dietary groups; additionally, demographic and lifestyle characteristics differed among the dietary groups (Table 2). For BMIs ≥30 kg/m², the prevalence of diabetes was 8.0% in vegans, 9.4% in lacto-ovo vegetarians, 10.4% in pesco-vegetarians, 11.4% in semi-vegetarians, and 13.8% in nonvegetarians, indicating the same trend as that in the entire population. For BMIs <30 kg/m², the prevalence was 2.0, 2.1, 3.3, 3.7, and 4.6% in the groups, respectively.

Table 2

Unadjusted prevalence of type 2 diabetes and distribution of nondietary variables according to diet

	Vegan	Lacto-ovo vegetarian	Pesco-vegetarian	Semi-vegetarian	Nonvegetarian	P
N	2,731	20,408	5,617	3,386	28,761
Type 2 diabetes	2.9	3.2	4.8	6.1	7.6	<0.0001
Age in years	58.1 ± 13.3	58.1 ± 14.1	57.2 ± 13.8	57.7 ± 13.6	54.9 ± 13.2	<0.0001
Female	60.1	62.3	65.9	65.7	63.2	<0.0001
Black	19.9	12.5	34.9	15.0	31.2	<0.0001
BMI (kg/m²)	23.6 ± 4.4	25.7 ± 5.1	26.3 ± 5.2	27.3 ± 5.7	28.8 ± 6.3	<0.0001
Physical activity: METS						<0.0001
0–3.2	24.8	26.3	24.3	26.8	25.2
3.2–8.6	24.7	25.8	24.5	24.0	23.5
8.6–21.0	24.8	24.6	24.6	23.7	24.3
>21.0	25.7	23.3	26.6	25.6	27.1
Education						<0.0001
High school or less	16.7	14.0	17.2	19.1	21.7
Some college	26.7	24.2	26.1	28.5	30.7
College or higher	56.6	61.8	56.7	52.4	47.6
Income						<0.0001
≤10,000 USD	27.8	21.1	18.0	20.2	18.6
11,000–30,000 USD	38.6	35.8	34.4	38.0	37.4
31,000–50,000 USD	18.3	24.2	24.0	23.4	23.1
≥51,000 USD	15.3	18.9	23.6	18.4	21.0
Television watching						<0.0001
None to <1 h/day	49.5	36.0	26.8	25.2	16.9
1–2 h/day	37.4	45.4	50.2	48.7	48.6
≥3 h/day	13.2	18.6	23.0	26.1	34.5
Sleep						<0.0001
≤6 h/night	25.8	25.3	34.9	29.8	37.3
7 h/night	38.3	39.8	36.3	36.9	33.7
≥8 h/night	35.9	34.9	28.9	33.4	29.0
Alcohol use in last 12 months	1.1	2.9	7.1	8.6	17.1	<0.0001

Open in a separate window

Data are means ± SD or percent unless otherwise indicated.

In multiple logistic regression analysis, vegan, lacto-ovo, and pesco- and semi-vegetarian diets were associated with a lower prevalence of type 2 diabetes (Table 3). The vegetarian diets were more strongly associated with less diabetes when BMI was removed from the analyses (Table 3).

Table 3

Multiple logistic regression analysis of the relation between diet and type 2 diabetes

	OR (95% CI)^*	OR (95% CI)^†
Age	1.04 (1.04–1.05)	1.03 (1.03–1.04)
Female vs. male	0.67 (0.62–0.72)	0.78 (0.72–0.84)
Non-black vs. black	0.66 (0.61–0.72)	0.64 (0.59–0.69)
BMI	1.11 (1.11–1.12)
Physical activity: METs
3.2–8.6 vs. 0–3.2	0.85 (0.77–0.93)	0.76 (0.69–0.83)
8.6–21.0 vs. 0–3.2	0.77 (0.69–0.85)	0.65 (0.59–0.72)
>21.0 vs. 0–3.2	0.65 (0.58–0.72)	0.52 (0.47–0.58)
Education
Some college vs. high school or less	1.00 (0.91–1.11)	1.04 (0.95–1.15)
College or higher vs. high school or less	1.00 (0.90–1.10)	0.95 (0.86–1.05)
Income (USD)
11,000–30,000 vs. <10,000	0.87 (0.80–0.96)	0.82 (0.75–0.90)
31,000–50,000 vs. <10,000	0.77 (0.68–0.86)	0.72 (0.65–0.81)
≥51,000 vs. <10,000	0.66 (0.58–0.76)	0.61 (0.53–0.70)
Television watching (h/day)
1–2	1.31 (1.16–1.47)	1.54 (1.37–1.73)
≥3	1.62 (1.44–1.83)	2.26 (2.01–2.54)
Sleep (h/night)
7 vs. ≤6	0.83 (0.76–0.91)	0.77 (0.71–0.85)
≥8 vs. ≤6	0.94 (0.86–1.03)	0.86 (0.79–0.94)
Alcohol use during last 12 months vs. none	0.69 (0.60–0.80)	0.64 (0.55–0.73)
Diet
Vegan vs. nonvegetarian	0.51 (0.40–0.66)	0.32 (0.25–0.41)
Lacto-ovo vegetarian vs. nonvegetarian	0.54 (0.49–0.60)	0.43 (0.39–0.47)
Pesco-vegetarian vs. nonvegetarian	0.70 (0.61–0.80)	0.56 (0.49–0.64)
Semi-vegetarian vs. nonvegetarian	0.76 (0.65–0.90)	0.69 (0.59–0.81)

Open in a separate window

*Adjusted for all factors.

†Adjusted for all factors except BMI. OR, odds ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

The main finding was that vegan and lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with a nearly one-half reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes compared with the risk associated with nonvegetarian diets after adjustment for a number of socioeconomic and lifestyle factors, as well as low BMI, that are typically associated with vegetarianism. Pesco- and semi-vegetarian diets were associated with intermediate risk reductions: between one-third and one-quarter. These data indicate that vegetarian diets may in part counteract the environmental forces leading to obesity and increased rates of type 2 diabetes, though only vegan diets were associated with a BMI in the optimal range. Inclusion of meat, meat products, and fish in the diet, even on a less than weekly basis, seems to limit some of the protection associated with a vegan or lacto-ovo vegetarian diet. These findings may be explained by adverse effects of meat and fish, protective effects of typical constituents of vegan and lacto-ovo vegetarian diets, other characteristics of people who choose vegetarian diets, or a combination of these factors.

The notion that animal protein stimulates insulin secretion and possibly insulin resistance was proposed decades ago (19). However, a number of other dietary constituents are associated with protection against diabetes in observational studies or influence insulin sensitivity in food trials (6). Vegetarian diets are rich in vegetables and fruits, foods that reduce oxidative stress and chronic inflammation. The vegan group consumed ∼650 g/day of fruits and vegetables, which is about one-third more than the amount consumed by nonvegetarians (data not shown). Observational evidence has shown that these dietary constituents are associated with a reduction in type 2 diabetes of ∼40% (6). Vegetarian diets contain substantially less saturated fat than nonvegetarian diets, and saturated fatty acids have been shown to reduce insulin sensitivity, though a recent review concluded that some of the data supporting this idea was flawed (20). The vegetarian diet typically includes foods that have a low glycemic index such as beans, legumes, and nuts. We did not calculate the glycemic load of the diets. Though low-glycemic-response diets are associated with less prevalence of type 2 diabetes, cohort studies have not consistently found a relation between dietary glycemic index or load and risk of diabetes (21,22); furthermore, whether the glycemic response causes diabetes is not established.

Protection against type 2 diabetes associated with vegetarian diets is partly due to the lower BMI of vegetarians (Table 3), where the effects of diet when not adjusted for BMI were greater yet. Disentangling the effects of diet on insulin sensitivity independent of lower adiposity among vegetarians may be difficult. Only sparse data have investigated whether vegetarians matched to nonvegetarians with regard to adiposity differ in insulin resistance or sensitivity. In a study that matched vegetarians and nonvegetarians, nonvegetarians had higher insulin, glucose, and homeostasis model assessment values than vegetarians (23). Whether vegetarians and nonvegetarians were matched with regard to abdominal girth was not reported. The protective effect of vegetarianism in the current study was evident in individuals with BMI below or above 30 kg/m², further strengthening the notion that independent effects of the diet are present.

Church attendees tend to have higher body weight than nonattendees (24), and increasing trends in BMI in the general population have also been observed among Adventists (data not shown). Vegans were the only church members whose mean BMI was <25 kg/m². Previous studies have reported a difference of ∼2 BMI units between vegans and meat eaters (4). In the current study, the difference of 5 BMI units may indicate greater protection in current environments where a variety of high-energy dense foods are available. Some evidence indicates a temporal relationship between initiating plant-based diets and leanness (2,3), though a randomized study found that a vegetarian diet did not improve long-term weight loss (25). As with most dietary trials, the participants' compliance to the diet declined substantially over time.

The present cohort is likely to be more hom*ogenous than general populations regarding nondietary factors allowing comparisons between dietary groups to be less affected by other differences. This may be true regarding smoking and alcohol use, which are practices strongly discouraged by the church. One of the major confounders of diet and disease associations in observational studies is cigarette smoking. As the participants were almost exclusively nonsmokers, the confounding effects of smoking on body weight and risk of type 2 diabetes were avoided. The cohort exhibited an unusually wide range of dietary exposures and included one of the largest numbers of vegans studied in any sample. The results are likely to be generalizable given that we found expected relationships between diabetes and age, ethnicity, sex, BMI, physical activity, sleep, and television watching.

Study limitations

Our data are cross-sectional and do not allow causal inferences to be made. However, reverse causation is unlikely in that subjects diagnosed with diabetes would be less expected to differentially change their diet from vegetarian to omnivorous than subjects without diabetes. We were unable to assess physical activity for about one-sixth of the cohort because responses to one or more of the questions required for the calculation of MET units were missing. Food-frequency questionnaires involve a certain degree of measurement error; however, the ability to allocate subjects into a broad dietary pattern is probably very strong. All variables were self-reported; however, our calibration study found evidence for good validity for the diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes may have been underreported in the vegan and other vegetarians because of their lower BMIs; however, this is unlikely to affect the study conclusions substantially given the association we observed between diet and diabetes in individuals with BMI both below and above 30 kg/m².

The cohort was not representative of the general population; i.e., participants were church attendees. Members who choose vegetarianism are likely to be more compliant with other church tenets and to differ from nonvegetarians with regard to major determinants of type 2 diabetes. This was indeed the case with regard to some factors; e.g., nonvegetarian diets were more associated with black ethnicity, less education, more television watching, and fewer hours of sleep than were vegetarian diets. On the other hand, nonvegetarians were younger and reported more physical activity and alcohol consumption, which are all established protective factors against type 2 diabetes. Nevertheless, the association between diet and type 2 diabetes remained strong after adjustment for these factors.

In conclusion, this study showed that all variants of vegetarian diets (vegan, lacto-ovo, and pesco- and semi-vegetarian) were associated with substantially lower risk of type 2 diabetes and lower BMI than nonvegetarian diets. The protection afforded by vegan and lacto-ovo vegetarian diets was strongest.

Supplementary Material

Online-Only Appendix:

Click here to view.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant 1R01CA94594 and by the School of Public Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California.

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Footnotes

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisem*nt” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

References

1. Fraser GE:Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists.Am J Clin Nutr1999;20 (Suppl.):532S–538S [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Rosell M, Appleby P, Spencer E, Key T:Weight gain over 5 years in 21,966 meat-eating, fish-eating, vegetarian, and vegan men and women in EPIC-Oxford.Int J Obes2006;30:1389–1396 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Phillips F, Hackett A, Billington D, Stratton G:Effects of changing from a mixed to self-selected vegetarian diet on anthropometric measurements in UK adults.J Hum Nutr Diet2004;17:249–255 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Spencer EA, Appleby PN, Davey GK, Key TJ:Diet and body mass index in 38,000 EPIC Oxford meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans.Int J Obes2003;27:728–734 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Appleby PN, Thorogood M, Mann JI, Key TJ:Low body mass index in non-meat eaters: the possible roles of animal fat, dietary fibre and alcohol.Int J Obes1998;22:454–460 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Jenkins DJA, Kendall CWC, Marchie A, Jenkins AL, Augustin LSA, Ludwig DS, Barnard ND, Anderson JW:Type 2 diabetes and the vegetarian diet.Am J Clin Nutr2003;78 (Suppl.):610S–616S [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Fung TT, Schulze M, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB:Dietary patterns, meat intake, and the risk of type 2 diabetes in women.Arch Intern Med2004;164:2235–2240 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Snowdon DA, Phillips RL:Does a vegetarian diet reduce the occurrence of diabetes?Am J Public Health1985;75:507–512 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Vang A, Singh PN, Lee JW, Haddad EH, Brinegar CH:Meats, processed meats, obesity, weight gain and occurrence of diabetes among adults: findings from Adventist Health Studies.Ann Nutr Metab2008;52:96–104 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Butler TL, Fraser GE, Beeson WL, Knutsen SF, Herring RP, Chan J, Sabate J, Montgomery S, Haddad E, Preston-Martin S, Bennett H, Jaceldo-Siegl K:Cohort profile: the Adventist Health Study-2 (AHS-2).Int J Epidemiol2007;37:260–265 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Montgomery S, Herring P, Yancey A, Beeson L, Butler T, Knutsen S, Sabate J, Chan J, Preston-Martin S, Fraser G:Comparing self-reported disease outcomes, diet and lifestyles in a national cohort of black and white Seventh-day Adventists.Prev Chronic Dis2007;4:A62. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Knutsen S, Fraser G, Beeson W, Lindsted K, Shavlik D:Comparison of adipose tissue fatty acids with dietary fatty acids as measured by 24-hour recall and food frequency questionnaire in black and white Adventists: the Adventist Health Study.Ann Epidemiol2003;13:119–127 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Knutsen S, Fraser G, Lindsted K, Beeson W, Shavlik D:Validation of assessment of nutrient intake: comparing biological measurements of vitamin C, folate, alpha-tocopherol and carotene with 24-hour dietary recall information in non-Hispanic blacks and whites.Ann Epidemiol2001;11:406–416 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Singh PN, Tonstad S, Abbey DE, Fraser GE:Validity of selected physical activity questions in white Seventh-day Adventists and non-Adventists.Med Sci Sports Exer1996;28:1026–1037 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Singh PN, Fraser GE, Knutsen SF, Lindsted DS, Bennett H:Validity of a physical activity questionnaire among African-American Seventh-day Adventists.Med Sci Sports Exer2000;33:468–475 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Jaceldo-Siegl K, Fraser GE, Chan J, Franke A, Sabaté J:Validation of soy protein estimates from a food-frequency questionnaire with repeated 24-h recalls and isoflavonoid excretion in overnight urine in a Western population with a wide range of soy intakes.Am J Clin Nutr2008;87:1422–1427 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Fraser GE, Yan R:Guided multiple imputation of missing data: using a subsample to strengthen the missing-at-random assumption.Epidemiology2007;18:246–252 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. R Development Core Team.R: a language and environment for statistical computing [article online],2007.Vienna, Austria,R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Available from http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/s/Hmisc/html/areglmpute.html.Accessed 10 January 2008 [Google Scholar]

19. Chaussain JL, Georges P, Gendrel D, Donnadieu M, Job JC:Serum branched-chain amino acids in the diagnosis of hyperinsulinism in infancy.J Pediatr1980;97:923–926 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Galgani JE, Uauy RD, Aguirre CA, Diaz EO:Effect of the dietary fat quality on insulin sensitivity.Br J Nutr2008;100:471–479 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Salmeron J, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Wing AL, Willett WC:Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in women.JAMA1997;277:472–477 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Sahyoun NR, Anderson AL, Tylavsky FA, Lee JS, Sellmeyer DE, Harris TB:the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study.Dietary glycemic index and glycemic load and the risk of type 2 diabetes in older adults.Am J Clin Nutr2008;87:126–131 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Valachovičová M, Kračovičová-Kudláčková M, Blaźíček P, Babinská K:No evidence of insulin resistance in normal weight vegetarians: a case control study.Eur J Nutr2006;45:52–54 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Gillum RF:Frequency of attendance at religious services, overweight, and obesity in American women and men: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.Ann Epidemiol2006;16:655–660 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Burke LE, Hudson AG, Warziski MT, Styn MA, Music E, Elci OU, Sereika SM:Effects of a vegetarian diet and treatment preference on biochemical and dietary variables in overweight and obese adults: a randomized clinical trial.Am J Clin Nutr2007;86:588–596 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Diabetes Care are provided here courtesy of American Diabetes Association

Certainly! As someone deeply immersed in the realm of nutrition and health, I can confidently provide insights into the research article titled "Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes in People Following Different Types of Vegetarian Diets" authored by Serena Tonstad, MD, PhD, Terry Butler, DrPH, Ru Yan, MSc, and Gary E. Fraser, MD, PhD, and published in Diabetes Care in May 2009 (DOI: 10.2337/dc08-1886; PMID: 19351712). I'll break down the key concepts and findings presented in the article.

Research Objective:

The primary objective of the study was to assess the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in individuals adhering to various vegetarian diets compared to nonvegetarians.

Study Population:

The study involved a substantial population of 22,434 men and 38,469 women who participated in the Adventist Health Study-2 conducted from 2002 to 2006. The participants were Seventh-Day Adventist church members across North America, and data were collected through self-reported demographic, anthropometric, medical history, and lifestyle information.

Vegetarian Diet Categories:

The study categorized participants based on their self-reported dietary habits obtained through a food-frequency questionnaire. The identified vegetarian diet categories included:

Vegan: No consumption of animal products.
Lacto-Ovo Vegetarian: Consumption of dairy products and/or eggs but no fish or meat.
Pesco-Vegetarian: Consumption of fish and dairy products and/or eggs but no red meat or poultry.
Semi-Vegetarian: Consumption of dairy products and/or eggs and meat but less frequently than once a week.
Nonvegetarian: Regular consumption of a variety of animal products.

Body Mass Index (BMI) and Diabetes Prevalence:

The study revealed a clear association between the type of diet and both BMI and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes. The mean BMI was lowest in vegans and incrementally higher in lacto-ovo vegetarians, pesco-vegetarians, semi-vegetarians, and nonvegetarians. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes followed a similar pattern, being lowest in vegans and progressively higher in the other diet categories.

Statistical Analysis:

The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using multivariate-adjusted logistic regression. The analyses were adjusted for various factors, including age, sex, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, television watching, sleep habits, alcohol use, and BMI.

Key Findings:

BMI Differences: Vegans exhibited the lowest BMI, indicating a substantial potential for vegetarianism to protect against obesity.
Diabetes Prevalence: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes increased from vegans to nonvegetarians. Vegans, lacto-ovo vegetarians, pesco-vegetarians, and semi-vegetarians all showed a lower risk of type 2 diabetes compared to nonvegetarians after adjusting for multiple factors.
Protective Effects: The study suggested that adherence to vegetarian diets, especially vegan and lacto-ovo vegetarian diets, was associated with a significantly lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

Conclusion:

The study concluded that all variants of vegetarian diets were associated with a substantially lower risk of type 2 diabetes and lower BMI than nonvegetarian diets. The protective effect was strongest in vegan and lacto-ovo vegetarian diets.

Limitations:

The article acknowledges certain limitations, including the cross-sectional nature of the data, potential measurement errors in self-reported dietary information, and the hom*ogeneity of the study population (Seventh-Day Adventist church members).

In essence, the research contributes valuable insights into the relationship between vegetarian diets, BMI, and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, providing evidence for the potential health benefits of adopting specific dietary patterns.