The journal Nature Medicine published a major study about a cohort of over 105,000 people followed for 30 years. This is that researchers found.
Correlation isn't causation. But that's still interesting.
I have a hard time believing this because it is at odds with my own diet and prejudices.
A combination of beer and fast food is neutral. Gotcha!
My booze is plant based. That has to count for something. Fat free, ultra low sodium and frequently served with frozen crushed whole fruit.
It's medicinal.
The data for the participants relies on mailed questionnaires for lifestyle and medical status
Wtf. We already know this isn't good nutrition science. It's all too easy for people to misrepresent what they're eating in surveys
This sounds like an epidemiological study. What are the listed Relative Risk Increases for mortality they're trying to claim? Are any above 100%, which is the minimum threshold required to establish causality for epidemiological studies?
Not only that, the only sources of refined sugars they show here are all listed as healthier than red meat. Really? Refined sugar, the leading cause of diabetes and atherosclerosis isn't at the bottom of the list?
This study reeks of bullshit. Which is unfortunately not all that weird in nutrition science ever since the Harvard School of Nutrition got bought out by Coca Cola and sugar lobbies back in the 50's
Yea, we'd need to filter out the behavioural angles to clearly identify causal relationships.
Do people who live longer just happen to start eating differently etc.
For example, the better I feel, the better I eat. It's not the bad eating that makes me feel bad - the better eating is a consequence of feeling better.
I can tell exactly when my diet is going to tank, when my chronic conditions flare. Diet has zero effect on them.
I'm having a hard time believing this list.
Nuts, legumes, fruit juice, coffee, tea, fruit/berries, vegetables are all listed multiple times.
Interesting to see beer that close to foods like fish, soy and tea
Conversely, it’s surprising to see fruit so high up, while fish and poultry are in the middle. Does this mean only vegetarian people eat healthy? Hardly believable for an omnivorous animal like humans.
Being an omnivore allows us to get calories from multiple sources, which allows us to live long enough to breed. That's an evolutionary advantage.
After the point of breeding and raising children, evolution taps out.
So something being an evolutionary trait does not mean those traits lead to longevity. But it guarantees we're good fuckers.
There's debate on if humans are actually omnivores.
Very big caveat: while our primate cousins manage to eat some meat from time to time, it was our domestication of fire more than a million year ago that allowed us to access plenty of calories and nutrients from almost any food, everything was suddenly on the table, and was made easy to chew and digest. We are more omnivorous than the naturally omnivorous animals.
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.