Dec

31

Mr Fake Meats does not support is own research:

Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Findings: In 2017, 11 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 10-12) deaths and 255 million (234-274) DALYs were attributable to dietary risk factors. High intake of sodium (3 million [1-5] deaths and 70 million [34-118] DALYs), low intake of whole grains (3 million [2-4] deaths and 82 million [59-109] DALYs), and low intake of fruits (2 million [1-4] deaths and 65 million [41-92] DALYs) were the leading dietary risk factors for deaths and DALYs globally and in many countries. Dietary data were from mixed sources and were not available for all countries, increasing the statistical uncertainty of our estimates. [Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.]

Note meat does not pop up in this data.

Jeffrey Hirsch writes:

Lot’s of meat works for me. Keto, exercise and sleep. I’m down 50lbs. Skipping the Booze was a big help.

Pamela Van Giessen comments:

Virtually all nutrition studies are pretty meaningless because it is almost impossible to confine study to one food to the exclusion of all else (do people who eat red meat also not drink and exercise regularly; do people who eat low grain diets also eat a lot of processed food and lack exercise, and so on).

Maybe you can hack your health and longevity with diet. Maybe not. I’d err on the maybe not side and get a lot of good exercise (mix of cardio and strength training), dial back the alcohol and soft drinks, drink a goodly amount of water, eat everything in moderation but be sure to get good protein, green veggies, and fruit, especially as you age. But know that your diet is meaningless without the exercise, good mental health, and purpose in life — whatever it may be for you.

Pretty much what my grandmother, born in 1901, used to say. Except I also drink a glass of athletic greens every morning. Can’t hurt. And stretch and do planks/core work. Both are super important to maintaining balance and agility. More ill health and deaths start with falls than anything else.

K. K. Law wonders:

No argument about the benefit of exercising. But a simple and cursory inspection of the regional maps of (a) and (b) show the people in the regions highlighted by red ellipses appear to have lowest death rates. Do they have something in common in their diets that lead to longer lives?

Pamela Van Giessen responds:

Shouldn’t the question be to first isolate commonalities in everything among the people in those regions as opposed to assuming it is solely a food such as fatty fish? Is it just omega 3 or do peoples in those areas also have lower obesity rates, for instance? If they have lower obesity rates (and where there are lower obesity rates, there are routinely lower premature death rates), how come? What are they doing? Is it all diet or are there other variables?

That said, I try to eat fish at least twice a week. Fortunately I have a neighbor who likes to fish but he doesn’t like to eat fish. So we have a steady stream of fresh Montana trout. And elk. Elk meat is fantastic.

Kim Zussman adds:

Genes are a big factor in longevity, likely the biggest factor (besides distance from windows in Moscow). Could explain regional performance since primates primarily mate locally. The best tactic is to choose your parents carefully.

H. Humbert writes:

The media story on how the 100 yr old lived that long because he had one shot of whiskey per day or ate French fries three times a week always crack me up. I’m not saying nutrition (and exercise) do not matter, but of course their longevity is most likely because they won the gene pool lotto and not because of whatever quirky dietary habit they had.

“Virtually all nutrition studies are pretty meaningless”. This comment always cracks me up. It is untrue. Of course epidemiological and observational studies (observation) have value, even if they are not double blind placebo. For example, if you observe four people eat strychnine and die, would you not conclude that it might be dangerous? Would you stay in line to be the fifth person, even though you have merely done an observational study, and strictly speaking causation is unproven by a scientific study? If your answer is “no” then you must believe that epidemiological and observational studies have some value. Otherwise, you would be “blinded by science” (and dead).

Humbert H. responds:

Of course simple studies, like is strychnine dangerous, are useful. However, studies of subtle effects are generally useless, because of the various biases involved. It is to this day not possible to know if Ivermectin helps fight Covid, or if so, to what degree. Partly is because people are invested in the outcome and the set up of the studies appears suspect, and partly is because the effect is seemingly not overwhelming. Hearing about various "Coffee is good/bad for your health" through the years is a more common example.

Big Al adds:

Another issue with broader studies is that we are learning more about how different individuals with different genetics respond differently to coffee or salt or red wine or a high-fat diet. It becomes more difficult to make conclusions like "coffee is good/bad for you".

Humbert H. replies:

I agree completely. Coffee, if I drink it for a week and than stop, gives me terrible, incapacitating headaches, and if I keep drinking it, eventually I will get the same headaches. I don't know anyone else who has the same side effects, but I can only drink it once in a while. So all the recent studies I've read about the positive effects of its consistent use are of no use to me.

H. Humbert agrees:

Yes, this is absolutely true. And the genes may respond differently to foods over time, as other lifestyle factors change. Epigenetics.

Big Al offers:

An interesting show to watch:

Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones

Though thinking about the stats, you would assume there would be pockets of longevity around the world just by chance. Also stat-wise, he claims there is a correlation in Corsica between the longevity of people in towns with the steepness of the streets in the town (steeper = longer lived). Haven't seen the data, but that's an interesting one on an intuitive basis. Maybe you could compare NYC residents on the first floor vs those on the fourth floor of a walkup building. ;-)

Peter Saint-Andre is skeptical:

That Blue Zone hypothesis is somewhat questionable. Here's one critique.

My impression from previous reading is that in some of these remote and frankly somewhat backward areas (e.g., Sardinia, Ikaria), the original cohort of centenarians contained a large number of people who faked their ages (e.g., to obtain government benefits), which they could do because they were born before birth certificates were common. The centenarian numbers didn't hold up in cohorts born after documentation of birth dates kicked in.

Pamela Van Giessen maintains:

The comment is true. Nutrition studies are meaningless. It’s a backward science in crisis with a host of issues starting with what gets published (and then reported) to garbage analytical studies on the same data sets, most of which have null results (but don’t get published) done from a laptop in about an hour.

Until people spend some time learning how “science” gets funded and what gets published, and demanding change, our knowledge will remain more antiquated than my grandmother’s guidance which was at least practical and based on real world experience.

John McPhee wrote about the funding problem in geology in Annals of the Former World. His observations apply to most fields. In short, what gets funded is what is trendy until it is not and then the new trend gets funded. This process takes about 100 yrs. In nutrition it may be worse. Vinay Prasad does a nice recap of the problems.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search