New research into extreme longevity is challenging some of the cleanest narratives in modern nutrition. A large study of older adults suggests people who keep meat on the menu are more likely to reach 100 than strict vegetarians, yet the advantage seems to hinge less on steak itself and more on body weight, protein intake, and how diets shift in very old age. The findings complicate the usual plant-versus-animal debate and point to a more uncomfortable truth: what helps at 50 may not be what keeps you alive at 95.
I see a growing split between midlife advice that prioritizes long term disease prevention and late life realities in which the immediate risk is frailty, weight loss, and malnutrition. The new data on centenarians suggest that, for some older adults, modest meat consumption can act as a nutritional safety net, but only when it is part of an overall balanced pattern rather than a license for unlimited burgers.
What the centenarian study actually found
The provocative claim that meat eaters are more likely to hit 100 comes from a cohort in which researchers tracked diet patterns and then looked at who survived into triple digits. In that analysis, individuals who consistently included meat in their meals were more likely to become centenarians than those who avoided it entirely, a pattern highlighted in coverage that noted how participants who kept meat as part of their diet were more likely to reach 100. Overall, the signal was clear enough that some commentators framed it as a warning against going vegetarian late in life, even though the underlying data are more nuanced than a simple pro meat slogan.
Crucially, the same work emphasized that this apparent edge for meat eaters was tightly bound up with body mass index and the risk of being underweight in old age. Reports on the dataset stressed that Overall patterns showed vegetarians with a healthy BMI did not face the same disadvantage, while those who were very lean or undernourished did worse. That is the first big catch: the study is less a blanket endorsement of meat and more a warning about the dangers of drifting into low weight and low protein intake as people age.
The big catch: weight, frailty and late life nutrition
When I look closely at the data, the most striking theme is how strongly survival into extreme old age tracks with avoiding underweight status. Analyses of the cohort, summarized in one explainer that asked Are meat eaters really more likely to live to 100, describe how the study drew from a large population sample and treated weight as a pivotal variable. As people move past 80, appetite often falls, chewing and digestion can become harder, and the risk of malnutrition rises sharply, which means any diet that makes it harder to maintain muscle and weight can become a liability.
That is where meat appears to function as a practical tool rather than a magic ingredient. Protein rich foods that are energy dense, including meat, can help older adults maintain body weight when their overall intake is dropping, a point echoed in an analysis that described how balancing diet and body weight becomes critical for reaching extreme ages. In that coverage, Eating meat was framed as potentially helpful for some older adults precisely because it counteracts the pattern tied to being underweight, not because it reverses decades of cardiovascular risk.
Vegetarian diets, plant based nuance and the role of fish and dairy
The new findings have been widely interpreted as a blow to vegetarianism, but the underlying reporting tells a more layered story. One summary of the cohort work noted that researchers compared diet patterns and analyzed their association with living to 100 years of age, and that, Contrary to popular belief, strict vegetarian diets in this older population were associated with a reduced chance of reaching that milestone. Yet that same body of work points out that people who avoided meat but still ate fish, dairy or eggs did not show the same drop in longevity, suggesting that the real risk lies in poorly planned or overly restrictive patterns rather than in plant based eating itself.
Coverage that asked Who is more likely to live to 100, meat eaters or vegetarians, emphasized that individuals who do not consume meat can still reach very old age if they secure enough protein, calories and micronutrients from other sources. Another report underlined that, Notably, the reduced likelihood of reaching 100 observed among non meat eaters was not evident in those who included fish, dairy or eggs, which again points to the importance of flexibility and adequate intake rather than a single food group.
How meat might interact with biological aging
Beyond simple survival curves, there is also emerging work on how meat intake could influence biological aging markers. A Mendelian randomization study on the causal relationship between meat intake and biological aging used genetic instruments to probe whether higher meat consumption might speed or slow aging processes. The validity of those causal estimates was assessed through sensitivity analyses and various MR methods, including MR Egger, weighted median and inverse variance techniques, reflecting how seriously researchers are taking the possibility that meat could affect not just lifespan but healthspan.
At the same time, other reporting on the centenarian cohort has stressed that the apparent benefit for meat eaters does not erase long term concerns about saturated fat and chronic disease. One explainer framed the findings under the line that Study Finds Meat to reach 100, but there is a catch related to overall diet quality and lower saturated fat consumption. A follow up piece on the same work highlighted how Cutting Back on specific amino acids has been linked in other research to increased lifespan in animals, which suggests that the relationship between meat and aging is likely to be dose dependent and context specific rather than uniformly positive.
What this means for eating in your 70s, 80s and beyond
For people trying to translate all of this into a dinner plate, the message is less about choosing sides and more about adapting over time. Commentaries that asked Jan who is more likely to live to 100 have stressed that plant forward diets still appear to protect against heart disease and diabetes in midlife, while the new centenarian data simply add a caution about letting weight and protein intake slide in later decades. Another summary of the work, framed around the idea that people who avoid meat may have a lower chance of reaching 100, reinforces that message by showing how risk rises when vegetarian diets are not matched with careful planning.
For older adults already struggling with appetite, I see the practical takeaway as permission to prioritize sufficient calories and high quality protein, whether that comes from meat, fish, eggs, dairy or well designed plant combinations. Reports that framed the findings around Jan advice not to turn vegetarian late in life may overstate the case, but they do capture a real concern about restrictive diets in frail bodies. At the same time, technical work on the validity of causal estimates linking meat to biological aging reminds me that moderation still matters. The emerging picture is that meat can help some people reach 100 m and beyond when it prevents underweight and malnutrition, but only as part of a broader pattern that keeps saturated fat in check and leaves room for the fruits, vegetables and whole grains that support long term health.
More from Morning Overview