Eating Healthy

AnnPT77

Kbankz3 wrote: »

I’ve been told eat to live not live to eat. What are some pointers that y’all use to eat better?

Noting: OP has not been active on the Community since 8/10, when the thread was started; and that I gave a more complete answer early in the thread (possibly a tiresomely long answer, as usual).

IMO, "Eat to live, not live to eat" is one of the silly slogans that people use, that don't really have a common meaning, or a sensible practical application: Too abstract. It's like "Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels", in that way. (There are others.)

If someone says that to me as a "should", likely I'm going to ask them what they heck they mean by that . . . and then, if applicable, follow up with "Is that what you do? Consistently?"

ddsb1111

It was the fact that it doesn't translate well for most of the world

I'm debating, these people live a lifestyle that most people just don't have and will never have, even their children aren't reaping those benefits anymore

That’s not a fact it’s your opinion.

That’s the point of the Blue Zone Project initiative, to create a better quality of life and prolong life. Examples such as the Manhattan Beach project, where after 6 years, the Beach Cities recorded a 25% decrease in obesity and overweight rates, a 36% decrease in tobacco use, an 9% increase in exercise and the highest well-being score in the US compared to 190 metropolitan areas measured. And the original project in Albert Lea, Minnesota where a year and a half after becoming the first Blue Zones Project city, average life expectancy grew by 3 years, and the cost of healthcare dropped by 40%.

Statements like it doesn’t translate well for most of the world is irresponsible. Creating a hybrid approach based on successful Blue Zones seems like a reasonable attempt at creating change. It doesn’t mean it’s the only thing that works.

neanderthin

AnnPT77 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

I suspected you'd miss my point, and you did. I wonder if the the staff that filled in those food frequency questionnaires and specifically the Ikaria one if they realize that fish is meat and that pasta is grain, 2 pretty stupid mistakes, or the fact that the vast majority of the population live in the mostly mountainous and marginal area of the island where each family raised poultry, pigs, goats and sheep but for some reason didn't eat eggs or make any dairy products like cheese or yogurt, maybe their animals were pets and then just let them go after feeding them, who knows, cheers

Presumably they're trying to characterize each areas statistical food frequencies. In the pie charts, it seems like maybe they've un-lumped certain categories when a subcategory was big enough, and lumped them when it wasn't. For example, Okinawa lumps fish/meat/poultry (2%), Ikaria breaks it out as 5% meat and 6% fish; Ikaria averages 5% pasta so they break it out from other grains at 1%. Presumably some foods will have such a small percentage in the eating that they're lumped into "other".

To me, it doesn't seem like there's some kind of plot to misrepresent what is animal-sourced food. It seems odd to me to suggest that the sub-categorizations imply that they think fish is somehow philosophically different from other meat, or that pasta isn't made out of grain. (In common conversation, when people say "meat", I think "fish" is usually categorized separately; and often "seafood" separately from fish as well.)

In all of the cases in the pie charts, if one re-lumps things, plant-source food is a greater fraction of total intake than animal-sourced food.

The larger lifestyle aspects also get some emphasis, not just the eating styles.

I'd also note that though I don't know specifics of lifestyles in those areas, in subsistence farming it's pretty normal to eat the pigs (as the pigs' main role), but to use the chickens for eggs until their laying declines (then eat them), use the goats for milk and sometimes for fiber (then as production declines, eat them), and use the sheep for wool (and later eat them). If that's true in these cases, that would color what fraction of the typical diet would be meat from those sources, vs. from other animal foods the animals produce before being eaten at the end of the full cycle.

neanderthin wrote: »

ddsb1111 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

I suspect you missed my point, which I did suspect would happen. I wonder if the the staff that filled in those food frequency questionnaires and specifically the Ikaria one if they realize that fish is meat and that pasta is grain, 2 pretty stupid mistakes, or the fact that the vast majority of the population live in the mostly mountainous and marginal area of the island where each family raised poultry, pigs, goats and sheep but for some reason didn't eat eggs or make any dairy products like cheese or yogurt, maybe their animals were pets and then just let them go after feeding them, who knows, cheers

Yeah, who knows. That would be a great question for those who provided the questionnaire. I imagine they would have some form of education or signage to prevent erroneous information, because otherwise, what’s the point?

Oh, I don't know. blue zones didn't eat meat very much, apparently, which appears to be the virtue signaling aspect yet they separate other animal products like eggs, cheese, fish and dairy and give them a pass, like these are not animal products or maybe only goat, beef, sheep and chicken kill people and cause them to die early, it's hard to say because other blue zones eat lots of dairy, fish and poultry and eggs, who knows maybe if you indoctrinated your a believer and if you haven't, it's kind of sketchy and verging on astrology. imo

To be clear, broadly speaking, I share concerns about how the "blue zones" material is presented, particularly once it enters popular media. In that coverage, I do see it . . . romanticized, I guess; and sometimes used by advocacy sources to justify and yes, even virtue signal. There's certainly room for rational critique, including critique of the underlying research.

It's true that some vegan advocacy sources cherry pick, distort and misrepresent research to support their point, whether intentionally or through biased thinking. I've also noticed that some advocates of animal-food-heavy eating styles can do the same. Humans are like that, generally - needing to feel like our mode is somehow objectively best, evaluating evidence after that through some cognitive biases, reacting emotionally and defensively, etc.

I don't think or ever never said it was a plot. Sardinian centenarian's apparently eat more added sugar than extra virgin olive oil on a % basis, really? Sardinia's total fat consumption is around 35%, I just looked it up and suspect it's from dairy and don't suspect the families are removing the fat for health reasons or removing all the fat from their livestock products and with only 2% from added fat, which I don't believe for a second, they use a lot of olive oil. Consistency and clarification would be nice touch in these questionnaires. It would be nice if total calories from each group was represented as well including all animal products when compared to all plant food as an example and what spin would the media put on blue zones then? It's just interesting that as a meat eater (animal products) that the narrative for a plant based diet gets noisier every year and the "blue zones" come up as some undeniable proof for longevity where like I've mentioned, it's a little more complicated than that. Someone has to defend and support animal products and I'm all in, lol. Cheers

AnnPT77

neanderthin wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

I suspected you'd miss my point, and you did. I wonder if the the staff that filled in those food frequency questionnaires and specifically the Ikaria one if they realize that fish is meat and that pasta is grain, 2 pretty stupid mistakes, or the fact that the vast majority of the population live in the mostly mountainous and marginal area of the island where each family raised poultry, pigs, goats and sheep but for some reason didn't eat eggs or make any dairy products like cheese or yogurt, maybe their animals were pets and then just let them go after feeding them, who knows, cheers

Presumably they're trying to characterize each areas statistical food frequencies. In the pie charts, it seems like maybe they've un-lumped certain categories when a subcategory was big enough, and lumped them when it wasn't. For example, Okinawa lumps fish/meat/poultry (2%), Ikaria breaks it out as 5% meat and 6% fish; Ikaria averages 5% pasta so they break it out from other grains at 1%. Presumably some foods will have such a small percentage in the eating that they're lumped into "other".

To me, it doesn't seem like there's some kind of plot to misrepresent what is animal-sourced food. It seems odd to me to suggest that the sub-categorizations imply that they think fish is somehow philosophically different from other meat, or that pasta isn't made out of grain. (In common conversation, when people say "meat", I think "fish" is usually categorized separately; and often "seafood" separately from fish as well.)

In all of the cases in the pie charts, if one re-lumps things, plant-source food is a greater fraction of total intake than animal-sourced food.

The larger lifestyle aspects also get some emphasis, not just the eating styles.

I'd also note that though I don't know specifics of lifestyles in those areas, in subsistence farming it's pretty normal to eat the pigs (as the pigs' main role), but to use the chickens for eggs until their laying declines (then eat them), use the goats for milk and sometimes for fiber (then as production declines, eat them), and use the sheep for wool (and later eat them). If that's true in these cases, that would color what fraction of the typical diet would be meat from those sources, vs. from other animal foods the animals produce before being eaten at the end of the full cycle.

neanderthin wrote: »

ddsb1111 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

I suspect you missed my point, which I did suspect would happen. I wonder if the the staff that filled in those food frequency questionnaires and specifically the Ikaria one if they realize that fish is meat and that pasta is grain, 2 pretty stupid mistakes, or the fact that the vast majority of the population live in the mostly mountainous and marginal area of the island where each family raised poultry, pigs, goats and sheep but for some reason didn't eat eggs or make any dairy products like cheese or yogurt, maybe their animals were pets and then just let them go after feeding them, who knows, cheers

Yeah, who knows. That would be a great question for those who provided the questionnaire. I imagine they would have some form of education or signage to prevent erroneous information, because otherwise, what’s the point?

Oh, I don't know. blue zones didn't eat meat very much, apparently, which appears to be the virtue signaling aspect yet they separate other animal products like eggs, cheese, fish and dairy and give them a pass, like these are not animal products or maybe only goat, beef, sheep and chicken kill people and cause them to die early, it's hard to say because other blue zones eat lots of dairy, fish and poultry and eggs, who knows maybe if you indoctrinated your a believer and if you haven't, it's kind of sketchy and verging on astrology. imo

To be clear, broadly speaking, I share concerns about how the "blue zones" material is presented, particularly once it enters popular media. In that coverage, I do see it . . . romanticized, I guess; and sometimes used by advocacy sources to justify and yes, even virtue signal. There's certainly room for rational critique, including critique of the underlying research.

It's true that some vegan advocacy sources cherry pick, distort and misrepresent research to support their point, whether intentionally or through biased thinking. I've also noticed that some advocates of animal-food-heavy eating styles can do the same. Humans are like that, generally - needing to feel like our mode is somehow objectively best, evaluating evidence after that through some cognitive biases, reacting emotionally and defensively, etc.

I don't think or ever never said it was a plot. Sardinian centenarian's apparently eat more added sugar than extra virgin olive oil on a % basis, really? Sardinia's total fat consumption is around 35%, I just looked it up and suspect it's from dairy and don't suspect the families are removing the fat for health reasons or removing all the fat from their livestock products and with only 2% from added fat, which I don't believe for a second, they use a lot of olive oil. Consistency and clarification would be nice touch in these questionnaires. It would be nice if total calories from each group was represented as well including all animal products when compared to all plant food as an example and what spin would the media put on blue zones then? It's just interesting that as a meat eater (animal products) that the narrative for a plant based diet gets noisier every year and the "blue zones" come up as some undeniable proof for longevity where like I've mentioned, it's a little more complicated than that. Someone has to defend and support animal products and I'm all in, lol. Cheers

And that's a somewhat more nuanced critique to spark the nuanced discussion you said you'd like to see. Specific critique will influence rational people more than the rhetoric I bolded in the previous, though that's just my opinion.

That nuanced discussion still belongs in Debate Club, IMO, not on the thread of some new person who's looking for starting advice about healthy eating.

neanderthin

Thanks Ann for your instinctual responses. Cheers.

neanderthin

sollyn23l2 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

ddsb1111 wrote: »

(Bear with me here) I just finished watching that Netflix series "Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones". For reference, Blue Zones are geographic areas with lower rates of chronic diseases and a longer life expectancy. Diet, fasting, exercise, family, and fun are factors associated with Blue Zones. Italy, Greece, Japan, Costa Rica, and the US have a Blue Zone and they’re known to have the longest life spans in the world. Basically, the docu-series investigates how and why they’re so unique so we can learn and all live longer and happier lives.

Anyway, my point is, the expression you posted, and your follow up question on how to eat better, sums up what the series is all about. Maybe give it a watch?

Interesting fact if you skip it, all of the locations got 5% or less of their calories from meat. People in Blue Zones typically eat a 95% plant-based diet that’s rich in legumes, whole grains, vegetables and nuts. Yep, pasta, bread, and honey was definitely on the menu. I bet the Keto evangelists are going to be furious lol.

I wonder if it isn't a little more complicated that just diet. I would have to say, it is. People of Hong Kong who live long lives and are said to live the longest of any country in the world also happen to consume the most animal products in the world and that includes the USA.

Any diet where whole natural and unprocessed foods make up the vast majority of a diet regardless of the calories from animal products or not, seem to be successful in reversing the diseases from the overconsumption of other plant foods like refined carbohydrates, sugar, and seed oils that have created (UPF) and inflicted the many diseases of people and countries that have embraced those particular foods. Low carb, ketogenic diets and ones that are any whole food and mostly unrefined seem to be working in the context where the reversal and improved health markers are the typical outcome, then by default, extend ones health span and lifespan.

If Americans and that includes Canadians et al actually liked and embraced more fruit and vegetables consumption then maybe things could have been different. Unfortunately over the last 50 years or so fruit and vegetables have basically flat lined and haven't increased over time at all. Choice is a double edged sword, there's twinkies, oreo cookies and lays potato chips then there's broccoli, one really really makes people feel wonderful and happy happy while the other people have been spitting out since childhood. I like broccoli but I also like meat, forgive me for I have sinned, and low carb lol. cheers

Agreed, for sure. But I also think social attitudes towards food plays a big part too. For example, my family didn't have a huge amount of money growing up. But.... my Dad loved artichokes. Twice a year he would splurge, spend $4 per artichoke, we would cook 2 artichokes, and eat them. Artichokes were a "special" treat food. And to this day, I love artichokes.

Sorry I missed this post. Yeah growing up we looked forward to the seasonal differences and were picking veg for months but the one veg we really looked fwd to was our asparagus, and it was the only time of the year we ever ate asparagus and to this day I only eat asparagus during it's growing season. Tomatoes, chili peppers, zucchini's and their blossoms, they were a treat and a few others, yeah I miss a garden since selling my property and living smaller, lol. Cheers