Okinawa - does it work
Options
Replies
-
nytrifisoul wrote: »what does the tiny island in japan have to do with weight loss? Mr Miyagi diet program? Wax on wax off?
Always good to link a diet scam to someplace that seems exotic and like it might have "traditional insights", bonus points for picking one in the blue zones.janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »Wonder why they had Loma Linda not within the "sunshine" circle? It gets around 280 days of sunshine a year. I guess that's not enough?
BTW, just saw a longer term study this AM on heart disease -- moderate meat/cheese intake helps dramatically to fend off heart disease. Plants are where it's at. Plant heavy diets or moderate animal consumption diets are being backed more and more by science all the time. Of course, moving more and calorie intake as well as what types of plants you chose to eat matter a great deal as well.
I wonder which of those two is the more important factor, if either. Perhaps you've seen something persuasive in research about that; I haven't.
In practice, if we compare people of similar bodyweight, the two would tend to play off against each other, it would seem like, in large statistical samples. Have you seen anything that compares calorie-appropriateness-similar high-animal/high-plant diets with low-animal/high-plant (or low-animal/low-plant, which latter is a improbable, unless ultra-processed foods count as neither)?
I feel like that's the current "black box" of nutritional research. We know, pretty generally, what types of diets seem to be associated with better health outcomes, but is the higher value from limiting certain foods? Including a higher number of other foods? Or (what seems to me maybe most likely), some not yet fully understood combination of the two factors?
I feel very strongly that a sustainable approach to healthy eating involves looking at the diet as a whole instead of hyperfocusing on specific "superfoods" or their counterpart, demonized foods. But the drawback of applying this approach is that we don't yet have all the information we need to understand the larger trends.
I am aware of (without having read or analyzed them, since my preference to eat less meat exists either way) some studies suggesting that the benefits of the Med diet remain even with more red meat, but there hasn't been enough research on the issue for me be confident in that.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191209182008.htm
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/108/1/33/5036105
I assumed the latter one was backed by the industry, and it was (it's disclosed), but I am not someone who thinks that means it is worthless.
That seems more on point to the question I was asking (though I haven't had time yet to listen to the podcast).
Thank you.
P.S. I admit that my (evidence-free) bias is that health-wise, more people would benefit to a greater degree from adding veggies/fruit, vs. removing meat. Environment-wise, animal-protection-wise, different questions. In a practical sense, the options aren't just either "eat meat" or "eat plants". A fair share of the popular press coverage of the health dimension reads like it's filtered through a lens that includes the environmental and animal welfare motivations. I'm not saying that I'd argue against plant-based eating as the best overall alternative in the abstract, but it seems useful analytically to understand the factual basis in health/nutrition.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I am surprised that the key factor was not mentioned; caloric restriction for life.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17986602/
Given that other areas also have similar benefits, I'm not sure why you think that's the "key factor."
This doesn't make sense at all.
Caloric restriction for life is a clear differentiator.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/dont-eat-until-youre-full-instead-mind-your-hara-hachi-bu-point/#:~:text=Hara hachi bu is a,a fairly long life expectancy.
0 -
What is the goal of weight loss? And once you achieve that goal how do you maintain it? Guess what? Japanese had that figured out a long time ago without having to advertise in every magazine like American magazines do.nytrifisoul wrote: »what does the tiny island in japan have to do with weight loss? Mr Miyagi diet program? Wax on wax off?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
nytrifisoul wrote: »what does the tiny island in japan have to do with weight loss? Mr Miyagi diet program? Wax on wax off?
Always good to link a diet scam to someplace that seems exotic and like it might have "traditional insights", bonus points for picking one in the blue zones.janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »Wonder why they had Loma Linda not within the "sunshine" circle? It gets around 280 days of sunshine a year. I guess that's not enough?
BTW, just saw a longer term study this AM on heart disease -- moderate meat/cheese intake helps dramatically to fend off heart disease. Plants are where it's at. Plant heavy diets or moderate animal consumption diets are being backed more and more by science all the time. Of course, moving more and calorie intake as well as what types of plants you chose to eat matter a great deal as well.
I wonder which of those two is the more important factor, if either. Perhaps you've seen something persuasive in research about that; I haven't.
In practice, if we compare people of similar bodyweight, the two would tend to play off against each other, it would seem like, in large statistical samples. Have you seen anything that compares calorie-appropriateness-similar high-animal/high-plant diets with low-animal/high-plant (or low-animal/low-plant, which latter is a improbable, unless ultra-processed foods count as neither)?
I feel like that's the current "black box" of nutritional research. We know, pretty generally, what types of diets seem to be associated with better health outcomes, but is the higher value from limiting certain foods? Including a higher number of other foods? Or (what seems to me maybe most likely), some not yet fully understood combination of the two factors?
I feel very strongly that a sustainable approach to healthy eating involves looking at the diet as a whole instead of hyperfocusing on specific "superfoods" or their counterpart, demonized foods. But the drawback of applying this approach is that we don't yet have all the information we need to understand the larger trends.
I am aware of (without having read or analyzed them, since my preference to eat less meat exists either way) some studies suggesting that the benefits of the Med diet remain even with more red meat, but there hasn't been enough research on the issue for me be confident in that.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191209182008.htm
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/108/1/33/5036105
I assumed the latter one was backed by the industry, and it was (it's disclosed), but I am not someone who thinks that means it is worthless.
That seems more on point to the question I was asking (though I haven't had time yet to listen to the podcast).
Thank you.
P.S. I admit that my (evidence-free) bias is that health-wise, more people would benefit to a greater degree from adding veggies/fruit, vs. removing meat. Environment-wise, animal-protection-wise, different questions. In a practical sense, the options aren't just either "eat meat" or "eat plants". A fair share of the popular press coverage of the health dimension reads like it's filtered through a lens that includes the environmental and animal welfare motivations. I'm not saying that I'd argue against plant-based eating as the best overall alternative in the abstract, but it seems useful analytically to understand the factual basis in health/nutrition.
Depending on where you live though, lots of fruits and veggies from e.g. Italy and Spain originate from slave-like, underpaid, the hiring agency keeps big part of pay and people don't have the money to return to Africa labour. As does wine production. Thus if you're talking about ethics we also need to talk about this.2 -
@AnnPT77 -- here's the article I was originally referring to. It refers to a 10 year study and tied (again, correlalationally, not directly, because that's nearly impossible to do) more animal products to a higher risk of heart disease.
https://www.gutmicrobiotaforhealth.com/a-healthy-gut-for-a-healthy-heart-a-10-year-study-looks-at-the-gut-heart-connection/?fbclid=IwAR2zl2WNlfJtZJEZnzPJ3KZlfFiNGxx0sOMyinOdaIVNTocijwRwzooXmBo
There are specific strains of bacteria that will thrive in our microbiome based on more plants and veggies and others that will thrive with more animal products. There are also regional differences and other factors, such as vaginal birth versus secarian birth, exposure to chemicals, antibiotic use, exercise, body weight, etc. But the main thing that people can do is eat better.
Back to the OP's question, there are many similarities between the Okinawa Diet and the Mediterranean Diet or the DASH diet. This is why docs, year after year, say this is the best way to eat and the best diet for your health and the most sustainable way to eat. However, there are no quick fixes and the podcast I posted above addresses that. CICO is the best way to lose weight. There's no magic diet that will make you shed pounds. It will influence your health positively over the LONG term, but it will not make you lose weight in the short term.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I am surprised that the key factor was not mentioned; caloric restriction for life.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17986602/
Given that other areas also have similar benefits, I'm not sure why you think that's the "key factor."
This doesn't make sense at all.
Caloric restriction for life is a clear differentiator.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/dont-eat-until-youre-full-instead-mind-your-hara-hachi-bu-point/#:~:text=Hara hachi bu is a,a fairly long life expectancy.
Do they practice the same level of caloric restriction in the other blue zones?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Do they practice the same level of caloric restriction in the other blue zones?
Same level is debatable, but apparently, the short answer is yes. Caloric restriction is a common trait.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/blue-zones#TOC_TITLE_HDR_4Caloric restriction and periodic fasting are common in Blue Zones. Both these practices can significantly reduce risk factors for certain diseases and prolong healthy life.0 -
I am not convinced we are talking about actual caloric restriction like the kind where people try to eat below their calorie needs until they are underweight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRON-diet#:~:text=The CRON-diet involves calorie,, and Anti-Aging Plan.)
Instead, all that link suggests is not eating until you perceive you feel "full" (as many people may experience it, and which in the US I think often means being overfull in reality), but instead to about 80% there. Since satiety tends to kick in to some extent after one stops eating it makes sense and is common diet advice even in the US, without people having "caloric restriction for life."2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Do they practice the same level of caloric restriction in the other blue zones?
Same level is debatable, but apparently, the short answer is yes. Caloric restriction is a common trait.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/blue-zones#TOC_TITLE_HDR_4Caloric restriction and periodic fasting are common in Blue Zones. Both these practices can significantly reduce risk factors for certain diseases and prolong healthy life.
That mentions that there is periodic fasting in one other blue zone. I don't know if we know enough yet to confidently state that it is a "key factor" across all blue zones, especially where there are other -- documented -- common traits between diet and lifestyle in the zones.2 -
The first thing I thought of when I read about this "flat belly tonic" is that this sounds like just the thing I might've fallen for in my early 20's when trying to lose weight. It took me several years to learn that it's not about any kind of "supplement," it just comes down to eating less and moving more.
The discussion about the Blue Zone diet and plant-based vs. animal-based got me thinking about what a Northwestern professor said a conference (on autism, of all thing) about how our current diets impact our health. The theory about a possible reason why diseases and disorders are increasing (and in this case, autism) is that we were not eating in a way that our ancestral heritage intended for us to do. It sounds kooky, but this professor was actually quite grounded in other ways and convinced me--before I was even married--to never buy baby products with the chemical flame retardant that was currently being used in the US. Anyway, let's say your ancestral heritage was Scandinavian (like part of mine), where they typically eat a lot of fresh fish (which I don't)...that could cause some issues down the line. It really does sound kind of kooky now that I think about it, like a more specific version of Paleo reasoning. I do think, however, there is some truth in the fact that the more we move away from eating plants, healthy fats and lean protein, the more problems we have. I don't know if that's because we're not eating like our own unique ancestors, especially because so many of us have quite a mix of ancestry.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Do they practice the same level of caloric restriction in the other blue zones?
Same level is debatable, but apparently, the short answer is yes. Caloric restriction is a common trait.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/blue-zones#TOC_TITLE_HDR_4Caloric restriction and periodic fasting are common in Blue Zones. Both these practices can significantly reduce risk factors for certain diseases and prolong healthy life.
That mentions that there is periodic fasting in one other blue zone. I don't know if we know enough yet to confidently state that it is a "key factor" across all blue zones, especially where there are other -- documented -- common traits between diet and lifestyle in the zones.
And to what extent there really is, or was, is highly debated, at best.
The "fasting" they are talking about is Orthodox Lent, when the rule is to eliminate olive oil and animal products (and probably a few actual fast days, but I don't think we are talking about lots of days with no food at all). Some of the critics of low fat have tried to use this to accuse Ancel Keys and his team of cherry-picking evidence, in that some of the dietary recalls they did in Greece covered Lent, so they argued the actual diet was higher in meat and fat. That's a stupid argument, since if the diet was different, it would be important to include Lent for a relevant percentage of the dates, as it would be part of the overall diet.
However, as it turns out, macros and total cals didn't actually differ from Lent to not-Lent, since so many people didn't actually strictly follow the church Lent rules.
Here's a paper about it (and many other things--it's a defense of Keys broadly against critics by a few well-respected nutrition scientists): https://www.truehealthinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SCS-White-Paper.THI_.8-1-17.pdf
Re people in Okinawa were at a calorie deficit pre 1960s, I'd want to know to what extent that was a specific situation at a specific time the population was looked at or some longstanding thing (which seems odd if sufficient food was actually present). As mentioned above, the "eat til 80% full" doesn't really support the claim that people are eating at a deficit longterm. And, clearly, there have been lots of other populations where people eat at a deficit longterm (ones with food shortages) and most of them are not the areas with the best health.0 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »especially because so many of us have quite a mix of ancestry.
And because during the long evolutionary period we would have eaten in many different ways, and prehistoric people were pretty mobile and some areas in more northern regions were settled quite late in human terms or populations coming from elsewhere largely replaced the existing populations. There can be relatively quick adaptations (like becoming lactose tolerant in much of Europe (esp the northern parts) and northern India, etc.), but to determine what one should eat by what one's ancestors ate in 1000 or 1500 or whatnot seems unlikely to pan out.
I tend to agree with your statement that moving away from eating lots of plants, healthy fats (inc from fish if one has no ethical/taste objection, and they often are one of the best Vit D sources, as well as certain types of omega-3s), lean meat, plenty of fiber, etc. seems likely to be non ideal.1 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »The first thing I thought of when I read about this "flat belly tonic" is that this sounds like just the thing I might've fallen for in my early 20's when trying to lose weight. It took me several years to learn that it's not about any kind of "supplement," it just comes down to eating less and moving more.
The discussion about the Blue Zone diet and plant-based vs. animal-based got me thinking about what a Northwestern professor said a conference (on autism, of all thing) about how our current diets impact our health. The theory about a possible reason why diseases and disorders are increasing (and in this case, autism) is that we were not eating in a way that our ancestral heritage intended for us to do. It sounds kooky, but this professor was actually quite grounded in other ways and convinced me--before I was even married--to never buy baby products with the chemical flame retardant that was currently being used in the US. Anyway, let's say your ancestral heritage was Scandinavian (like part of mine), where they typically eat a lot of fresh fish (which I don't)...that could cause some issues down the line. It really does sound kind of kooky now that I think about it, like a more specific version of Paleo reasoning. I do think, however, there is some truth in the fact that the more we move away from eating plants, healthy fats and lean protein, the more problems we have. I don't know if that's because we're not eating like our own unique ancestors, especially because so many of us have quite a mix of ancestry.
There is something to that. What the microbiome groups are finding are completely different bacterial mixes in one area of the world from the others, so that's why drawing conclusions is so hard. What they are trying to find out, similar to the Blue Zone research, is what commonalities they can draw out.
For instance (and I don't know if I can find it readily) -- one guy followed around that one tribe (Hazda, I think), who had been identified as having the greatest microbiome diversity in the world, thought to be very beneficial. He expected to be eating plants, tubers, seeds, etc. But for part of the year, they lived off of animals during hunting season, sometimes nearly exclusively. There has been another tribe identified since near the Amazon (Yanomami) that has an even more diverse microbiome.
I think what it really comes down to is that when you eat insects, wild game and live off the land and have to work your *kitten* off to find food, it helps. The same things that are beneficial about modern civilization, like transportation, healthcare and nice homes, also gives rise to modern farming. Antibiotics in food and in chemicals (Round-Up has antibiotic properties to it), exposure to chemicals in the environment and just a complete lack of diversity in what we eat, has led to a weakened microbiome and directly to weakened immune systems. Fat and happy, but also sick as a society.
With that said, it's pretty impractical to eat all wild game, grow all your own organic vegetables, move all day long (with the work that most of us do at a desk). We just have to be smarter about doing your best to eat diverse veggies/fruits all week. One simple thing, that has been proven, is eating 25 different plants a week seems to dramatically improve your gut health. And it's an easy thing to quantify and track. When I go through my own weekly meal plan, I regularly see 30 to 35 different things. If wheat, potatoes and tomatoes are the only plant items on anyone's weekly diversity list, they might just want to get a bit more diverse in their weekly plan before their health deteriorates, because it will. I think that's why we are seeing so many autoimmune diseases in the US (and all the developed nations).
Two more things, related to both the Microbiome and the Okinawa Diet, could also be seaweed and Natto. Natto is loaded with K2, which is fantastic for the heart and bones. Hard to get in the traditional Western Diet. And one of the few things found to quickly impact the gut health quickly (most positive changes take a long time) is seaweed. Most in Japan eat a lot more seaweed as well.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Do they practice the same level of caloric restriction in the other blue zones?
Same level is debatable, but apparently, the short answer is yes. Caloric restriction is a common trait.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/blue-zones#TOC_TITLE_HDR_4Caloric restriction and periodic fasting are common in Blue Zones. Both these practices can significantly reduce risk factors for certain diseases and prolong healthy life.
That mentions that there is periodic fasting in one other blue zone. I don't know if we know enough yet to confidently state that it is a "key factor" across all blue zones, especially where there are other -- documented -- common traits between diet and lifestyle in the zones.
And to what extent there really is, or was, is highly debated, at best.
The "fasting" they are talking about is Orthodox Lent, when the rule is to eliminate olive oil and animal products (and probably a few actual fast days, but I don't think we are talking about lots of days with no food at all). Some of the critics of low fat have tried to use this to accuse Ancel Keys and his team of cherry-picking evidence, in that some of the dietary recalls they did in Greece covered Lent, so they argued the actual diet was higher in meat and fat. That's a stupid argument, since if the diet was different, it would be important to include Lent for a relevant percentage of the dates, as it would be part of the overall diet.
However, as it turns out, macros and total cals didn't actually differ from Lent to not-Lent, since so many people didn't actually strictly follow the church Lent rules.
Here's a paper about it (and many other things--it's a defense of Keys broadly against critics by a few well-respected nutrition scientists): https://www.truehealthinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SCS-White-Paper.THI_.8-1-17.pdf
Re people in Okinawa were at a calorie deficit pre 1960s, I'd want to know to what extent that was a specific situation at a specific time the population was looked at or some longstanding thing (which seems odd if sufficient food was actually present). As mentioned above, the "eat til 80% full" doesn't really support the claim that people are eating at a deficit longterm. And, clearly, there have been lots of other populations where people eat at a deficit longterm (ones with food shortages) and most of them are not the areas with the best health.
That's fascinating -- I'd never heard that before regarding the macros and total calories actually not differing between Lent and non-Lent. Thanks.
Regarding people in Okinawa being at a deficit prior to 1960, I'm wondering to what extent that period was covered by the years leading up to WWII and WWII itself, a time when ALL of Japan's food supply was impacted by the preparation for war and the war itself.1 -
nytrifisoul wrote: »what does the tiny island in japan have to do with weight loss? Mr Miyagi diet program? Wax on wax off?
Wonder how many calories one burns when one..... uhhh wax off?😆1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Do they practice the same level of caloric restriction in the other blue zones?
Same level is debatable, but apparently, the short answer is yes. Caloric restriction is a common trait.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/blue-zones#TOC_TITLE_HDR_4Caloric restriction and periodic fasting are common in Blue Zones. Both these practices can significantly reduce risk factors for certain diseases and prolong healthy life.
That mentions that there is periodic fasting in one other blue zone. I don't know if we know enough yet to confidently state that it is a "key factor" across all blue zones, especially where there are other -- documented -- common traits between diet and lifestyle in the zones.
And to what extent there really is, or was, is highly debated, at best.
The "fasting" they are talking about is Orthodox Lent, when the rule is to eliminate olive oil and animal products (and probably a few actual fast days, but I don't think we are talking about lots of days with no food at all). Some of the critics of low fat have tried to use this to accuse Ancel Keys and his team of cherry-picking evidence, in that some of the dietary recalls they did in Greece covered Lent, so they argued the actual diet was higher in meat and fat. That's a stupid argument, since if the diet was different, it would be important to include Lent for a relevant percentage of the dates, as it would be part of the overall diet.
However, as it turns out, macros and total cals didn't actually differ from Lent to not-Lent, since so many people didn't actually strictly follow the church Lent rules.
Here's a paper about it (and many other things--it's a defense of Keys broadly against critics by a few well-respected nutrition scientists): https://www.truehealthinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SCS-White-Paper.THI_.8-1-17.pdf
Re people in Okinawa were at a calorie deficit pre 1960s, I'd want to know to what extent that was a specific situation at a specific time the population was looked at or some longstanding thing (which seems odd if sufficient food was actually present). As mentioned above, the "eat til 80% full" doesn't really support the claim that people are eating at a deficit longterm. And, clearly, there have been lots of other populations where people eat at a deficit longterm (ones with food shortages) and most of them are not the areas with the best health.
Regarding people in Okinawa being at a deficit prior to 1960, I'm wondering to what extent that period was covered by the years leading up to WWII and WWII itself, a time when ALL of Japan's food supply was impacted by the preparation for war and the war itself.
I had the same thought.0 -
nytrifisoul wrote: »what does the tiny island in japan have to do with weight loss? Mr Miyagi diet program? Wax on wax off?
Always good to link a diet scam to someplace that seems exotic and like it might have "traditional insights", bonus points for picking one in the blue zones.janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »Wonder why they had Loma Linda not within the "sunshine" circle? It gets around 280 days of sunshine a year. I guess that's not enough?
BTW, just saw a longer term study this AM on heart disease -- moderate meat/cheese intake helps dramatically to fend off heart disease. Plants are where it's at. Plant heavy diets or moderate animal consumption diets are being backed more and more by science all the time. Of course, moving more and calorie intake as well as what types of plants you chose to eat matter a great deal as well.
I wonder which of those two is the more important factor, if either. Perhaps you've seen something persuasive in research about that; I haven't.
In practice, if we compare people of similar bodyweight, the two would tend to play off against each other, it would seem like, in large statistical samples. Have you seen anything that compares calorie-appropriateness-similar high-animal/high-plant diets with low-animal/high-plant (or low-animal/low-plant, which latter is a improbable, unless ultra-processed foods count as neither)?
I feel like that's the current "black box" of nutritional research. We know, pretty generally, what types of diets seem to be associated with better health outcomes, but is the higher value from limiting certain foods? Including a higher number of other foods? Or (what seems to me maybe most likely), some not yet fully understood combination of the two factors?
I feel very strongly that a sustainable approach to healthy eating involves looking at the diet as a whole instead of hyperfocusing on specific "superfoods" or their counterpart, demonized foods. But the drawback of applying this approach is that we don't yet have all the information we need to understand the larger trends.
I am aware of (without having read or analyzed them, since my preference to eat less meat exists either way) some studies suggesting that the benefits of the Med diet remain even with more red meat, but there hasn't been enough research on the issue for me be confident in that.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191209182008.htm
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/108/1/33/5036105
I assumed the latter one was backed by the industry, and it was (it's disclosed), but I am not someone who thinks that means it is worthless.
That seems more on point to the question I was asking (though I haven't had time yet to listen to the podcast).
Thank you.
P.S. I admit that my (evidence-free) bias is that health-wise, more people would benefit to a greater degree from adding veggies/fruit, vs. removing meat. Environment-wise, animal-protection-wise, different questions. In a practical sense, the options aren't just either "eat meat" or "eat plants". A fair share of the popular press coverage of the health dimension reads like it's filtered through a lens that includes the environmental and animal welfare motivations. I'm not saying that I'd argue against plant-based eating as the best overall alternative in the abstract, but it seems useful analytically to understand the factual basis in health/nutrition.
Depending on where you live though, lots of fruits and veggies from e.g. Italy and Spain originate from slave-like, underpaid, the hiring agency keeps big part of pay and people don't have the money to return to Africa labour. As does wine production. Thus if you're talking about ethics we also need to talk about this.
I'm not suggesting that ethical concerns - of all sorts, including human exploitation - are unimportant. I'm simply saying that I think it's useful to understand the implications of different ethical and health factors each clearly, without conflating them into a murkily simplistic good/bad scheme. I think much of the popular press coverage conflates those issues, i.e., the health coverage is often distorted by writers' ethical agendas. I have no problem with them discussing non-health ethical concerns explicitly, but distorting health science coverage (to support an ethical agenda) while pretending to be providing objective reportage about health science . . . is unethical, IMO.
Of course, the behavioral choices an individual makes should account for whatever aspects one considers relevant, including potentially many more than the couple (environment, animal welfare) that I listed as examples. I've posted much more about that on the "Ethical Food Consumption" thread over in Debate, where it's on topic.
I'm in the Northern US. I source produce locally, when feasible. Most local production is owner-farmer, small scale. Inevitably, some of what I eat comes from distant places, and I do consider more than my health when I make food choices. Optimally? No. Impossible.2 -
psychod787 wrote: »nytrifisoul wrote: »what does the tiny island in japan have to do with weight loss? Mr Miyagi diet program? Wax on wax off?
Wonder how many calories one burns when one..... uhhh wax off?😆
User photo checks out!
(bugger, MFP needs a <laugh> like!)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions