Okinawa - does it work
smithtraciem
Posts: 9 Member
I am wondering in anyone has tried adding Okinawa to a good diet and exercise routine to loose weight. Does Okinawa help?
Thanks!
Tracie
Thanks!
Tracie
0
Replies
-
The... Japanese prefecture?10
-
-
What does it do? Suppresses appetite? Coffee works for me.1
-
Well the website it says it does this: “Okinawa Flat Belly Tonic supports a faster metabolism, burns away excess fat and calories at a rapid rate, maintains healthy digestion and increases reserves of natural energy.“0
-
Yeah no. There is no "magic" elixirs that actually directly burn away fat or increase metabolic rate significant enough.smithtraciem wrote: »Well the website it says it does this: “Okinawa Flat Belly Tonic supports a faster metabolism, burns away excess fat and calories at a rapid rate, maintains healthy digestion and increases reserves of natural energy.“
Won't hurt you, but it STILL comes down to CICO for weight loss. And if you want to keep your metabolic rate up, you do physical exercise that challenges your body.
In short, it's a SCAM.
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
15 -
Thank you for your insight!1
-
When I lived in Okinawa in the 80s, I never saw any fat Okinawans. I'm sure they managed it by diet and exercise.
When I biked to work in the AM I used to see Okinawans doing Tai Chi-like exercises in groups outside workplaces. I remember that in local markets, fruit and vegetables were very affordable and meat was not. I have no recollection about fish.
There was fruit growing at my house - bananas, papaya, etc.
Okinawa is a Blue Zone. You can read about that here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone
"...The people inhabiting Blue Zones share common lifestyle characteristics that contribute to their longevity. The Venn diagram highlights the following six shared characteristics among the people of Okinawa, Sardinia, and Loma Linda Blue Zones:[12] Though not a lifestyle choice, they live as isolated populations with related gene pool.- Family – put ahead of other concerns
- Less smoking
- Semi-vegetarianism – the majority of food consumed is derived from plants
- Constant moderate physical activity – an inseparable part of life
- Social engagement – people of all ages are socially active and integrated into their communities
- Legumes – commonly consumed
8 -
“Flat Belly Tonic” pretty much sums it up for me.6
-
kshama2001 wrote: »When I lived in Okinawa in the 80s, I never saw any fat Okinawans. I'm sure they managed it by diet and exercise.
When I biked to work in the AM I used to see Okinawans doing Tai Chi-like exercises in groups outside workplaces. I remember that in local markets, fruit and vegetables were very affordable and meat was not. I have no recollection about fish.
There was fruit growing at my house - bananas, papaya, etc.
Okinawa is a Blue Zone. You can read about that here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone
"...The people inhabiting Blue Zones share common lifestyle characteristics that contribute to their longevity. The Venn diagram highlights the following six shared characteristics among the people of Okinawa, Sardinia, and Loma Linda Blue Zones:[12] Though not a lifestyle choice, they live as isolated populations with related gene pool.- Family – put ahead of other concerns
- Less smoking
- Semi-vegetarianism – the majority of food consumed is derived from plants
- Constant moderate physical activity – an inseparable part of life
- Social engagement – people of all ages are socially active and integrated into their communities
- Legumes – commonly consumed
kshama2001 wrote: »When I lived in Okinawa in the 80s, I never saw any fat Okinawans. I'm sure they managed it by diet and exercise.
When I biked to work in the AM I used to see Okinawans doing Tai Chi-like exercises in groups outside workplaces. I remember that in local markets, fruit and vegetables were very affordable and meat was not. I have no recollection about fish.
There was fruit growing at my house - bananas, papaya, etc.
Okinawa is a Blue Zone. You can read about that here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone
"...The people inhabiting Blue Zones share common lifestyle characteristics that contribute to their longevity. The Venn diagram highlights the following six shared characteristics among the people of Okinawa, Sardinia, and Loma Linda Blue Zones:[12] Though not a lifestyle choice, they live as isolated populations with related gene pool.- Family – put ahead of other concerns
- Less smoking
- Semi-vegetarianism – the majority of food consumed is derived from plants
- Constant moderate physical activity – an inseparable part of life
- Social engagement – people of all ages are socially active and integrated into their communities
- Legumes – commonly consumed
kshama2001 wrote: »When I lived in Okinawa in the 80s, I never saw any fat Okinawans. I'm sure they managed it by diet and exercise.
When I biked to work in the AM I used to see Okinawans doing Tai Chi-like exercises in groups outside workplaces. I remember that in local markets, fruit and vegetables were very affordable and meat was not. I have no recollection about fish.
There was fruit growing at my house - bananas, papaya, etc.
Okinawa is a Blue Zone. You can read about that here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone
"...The people inhabiting Blue Zones share common lifestyle characteristics that contribute to their longevity. The Venn diagram highlights the following six shared characteristics among the people of Okinawa, Sardinia, and Loma Linda Blue Zones:[12] Though not a lifestyle choice, they live as isolated populations with related gene pool.- Family – put ahead of other concerns
- Less smoking
- Semi-vegetarianism – the majority of food consumed is derived from plants
- Constant moderate physical activity – an inseparable part of life
- Social engagement – people of all ages are socially active and integrated into their communities
- Legumes – commonly consumed
Thank you for this! I really appreciate it!1 -
I am surprised that the key factor was not mentioned; caloric restriction for life.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17986602/1 -
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.0 -
smithtraciem wrote: »I am wondering in anyone has tried adding Okinawa to a good diet and exercise routine to loose weight. Does Okinawa help?
Thanks!
Tracie
Tracie, after researching your post, this is the only thing that comes to mind.
https://youtu.be/mBcY3W5WgNU 4 -
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."0 -
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)?
1 -
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.5 -
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)?
Quite a bit of research coming out in the microbiome space, yes. Metabolites that are produced with heavy plant diets with less animal products. What most of the big drug companies are actually focused on is producing those same metabolites that most can get through diet into drug or pill form, because, well, people have a really hard time accepting that big *kitten* cheeseburgers and pizza might not be great for you.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/533836-healthy-plant-based-diet-linked-to-good-microbes
The "Blue Zones" all have plant heavy diets as a common theme. And we're not talking Impossible Burgers either.1 -
MikePfirrman 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)?
Quite a bit of research coming out in the microbiome space, yes. Metabolites that are produced with heavy plant diets with less animal products. What most of the big drug companies are actually focused on is producing those same metabolites that most can get through diet into drug or pill form, because, well, people have a really hard time accepting that big *kitten* cheeseburgers and pizza might not be great for you.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/533836-healthy-plant-based-diet-linked-to-good-microbes
The "Blue Zones" all have plant heavy diets as a common theme. And we're not talking Impossible Burgers either.
That isn't the question I was asking, though: It's pretty obvious that most people in the US (speaking statistically) eat dramatically lower amounts of veggies and fruits than even mainstream nutrition sources recommend (the 5 servings thing). I understand that eating more plants is believed to improve quality of gut microbiome, and that diverse gut microbiome seems to be correlated with better health outcomes. (Personally, I suspect 5 servings is too low.)
The question is whether eating animal-sourced foods is in itself negative in some way, vs. most of the beneficial effect being from eating more (adequate amount/diversity of) plants.
Perhaps the study answers that: It's paywalled. Neither the abstract nor the article seem to answer that.
Statistically, it seems like we have a population that's heavy on processed and animal-sourced foods, low on plant foods in less-processed forms; and a smaller population that's more nearly plant-based with less-processed foods (with that latter likely to have better health markers, statistically speaking). I'm not sure what segment of the population eats (say) meat daily in multiple reasonable portions, and also gets a boatload of diverse plant foods; and I'm not sure to what extent that kind of group has been studied as a distinct pattern, when it comes to microbiome diversity or general health.
2 -
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.1 -
@AnnPT77 -- here's a good podcast by the guy that most consider the foremost authority in the US on the Human Microbiome (and one of the 3 founders of the Human Microbiome Project -- I follow all three pretty closely).
If you're asking is there's 100% definitive proof that eating animal products isn't good for your microbiome, no, there's not 100% proof, but the absolute preponderance of the correlational relationships between a heavy plant based diet and good health are so overwhelming that it's essentially considered a forgone conclusion by every respected scientist in the field currently. And that makes sense when you think about it. Are we to lock people up for 2 or 5 years and feed them exactly what we want them to eat to come to a conclusive decision? That's impossible. So we do the next best thing. We monitor folks who self report what they eat and periodically do an analysis of how their gut health is, which with AI and rapid DNA sequencing, we are learning more and more rapidly, every day.
https://thequantifiedbody.net/human-microbiome-health-dr-rob-knight/0 -
what does the tiny island in japan have to do with weight loss? Mr Miyagi diet program? Wax on wax off?1
-
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions