Eating Healthy
Kbankz3
Posts: 1 Member
I’ve been told eat to live not live to eat. What are some pointers that y’all use to eat better?
1
Replies
-
I think we all have different ideas about what healthy eating looks like, and that’s cool. One thing a lot of people agree on is eating more “whole foods” like vegetables, fruits, and legumes. The Mediterranean way of eating is often cited as health-supporting and includes whole foods along with grains and fish.
What kinds of things do you feel would be healthier for you?0 -
Last time I heard that saying, it was a person who was a food snob. So I'm not big on it. I like to enjoy my food for taste, texture, flavor, etc. There's nothing wrong with enjoying "bad" food IF you have calories for it and are still eating well enough to meet your macro/micro requirement.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
It’s how you feel personally and what you want to achieve
I’ve been indulging in afternoon teas,brunches, chocolate you name it and when I put on my outfit last Saturday I was like OMG! I look fat!
I wanna do this for me to say I can do this 
and I’ve already lost 1lb this week with all the scanning and tracking
I’ve found a really good woman on TikTok with lots of recipes she does what you call “takeaways” so lower calorie Chinese foods or homemade versions of mcdonalds
So you don’t have to miss out
I wish you so much luck 😘😘 xx you can do it! 1 -
I’ve been told eat to live not live to eat. What are some pointers that y’all use to eat better?
I love food so I do live to eat and I'm not going to change that. I already ate pretty healthy but my problem was I ate way, way, wayyyyyy too much. For me to eat better I had to start being conscious of portion sizes and how they fit into my calorie goals for the day. If I want to have a heaping plate of chopped up tomatoes and cucumbers, I'm not even going to worry about that. If I want to have a plate of cheese....well then I need to measure it out.4 -
There is a balance of the 21
-
If you hate what you eat, you're not going to be able to stick to a healthy lifestyle for long (in my opinion). However, most seasonings and such have negligible calories so there really isn't a reason to not eat good food, you just may have to learn to cook a little different.
For me, it helped to focus on one meal at a time so I started with breakfast. I realized I was eating things like cereal, toast, english muffins, etc...that are high in carbs. So I started focusing on removing carbs and excess calories, swapping in more protein and veggies, and playing with seasonings. One of my favorite meals for breakfast now is a couple scrambled eggs and a side of roasted mushrooms and zucchini (add in some garlic and herbs and you're going to boost some anti-inflammatories and add lots of flavor).
There is a balance to all things, it just may take you a little practice and experimentation to get there.
1 -
What is "healthy" needs context and dosage. In toxicology the dose is the poison, just getting that out of the way.
Whether a food is healthy or not also needs some context and dosage and lives on a spectrum where actual nutrients are known and the benefits they derive that show some are better than others and some can have a negative impact on an individual basis depending on the persons individual health status and that is the conundrum, simply because we don't have a healthcare system that operates that way and all clinicians are subject to "the standard of care", which is suboptimal on an individual basis and is in place for a population wide benefit only.
As an example of "the standard of care" we could use diabetes to show it's efficacy. In 40 years the standard of care has done nothing to mitigate the increase in diabetes and has only led to more powerful medications, GLP-1, bariatric surgery and the basic lifestyle modification to eat less and move more. Metabolic clinics that work outside of "the standard of care" and specialize on that individual basis all show, every single clinic a significant reduction in IR, diabetes, weight loss, reduced medication, basically a total remission of the disease with most other health markers improved and some considerably and it's been this way for a decade at least, strange contrast really.
If we live on this continuum and consume foods that allow optimal health, then there is no one food that could be considered healthy or not and it's only when we lean or favor those foods that show consistency in the literature with deleteriously effect and show suboptimal results, and as an example UPF and the SAD diet, then we can assess in that context and in those dosages that the more of these food that are in a diet the more suboptimal and unhealthy a person might be, but again that still needs to be addressed on an individual bases.
The nhanes data from I think 2 years ago showed that 88% of the US population had health issues where there was not at least 1 sign of a metabolic dysfunction, which means there's 12% of the population that have potentially optimal health, so not all is lost quite yet. Cheers
0 -
mnhughes22 wrote: »If you hate what you eat, you're not going to be able to stick to a healthy lifestyle for long (in my opinion). However, most seasonings and such have negligible calories so there really isn't a reason to not eat good food, you just may have to learn to cook a little different.
For me, it helped to focus on one meal at a time so I started with breakfast. I realized I was eating things like cereal, toast, english muffins, etc...that are high in carbs. So I started focusing on removing carbs and excess calories, swapping in more protein and veggies, and playing with seasonings. One of my favorite meals for breakfast now is a couple scrambled eggs and a side of roasted mushrooms and zucchini (add in some garlic and herbs and you're going to boost some anti-inflammatories and add lots of flavor).
There is a balance to all things, it just may take you a little practice and experimentation to get there.
Totally agree with this! Although it’s hard for me when I’m at work…cereal and toast are or were my go to…
But now I’ve had a bacon and egg sandwich this morning and I’m full up…currently preparing dinner
I agree it is about swapping the carby stuff for low carb and low fat 😁😁
0 -
It isn't either "eat to live" or "live to eat" . . . IMO it's about balance. About getting good overall nutrition on average over a day or few. Macros, micros, beneficial phytonutrients, probiotics, prebiotics, other fiber.
There are plenty of tasty foods (IMO) that are nutrient dense. Even some that are more calorie-dense with fewer nutrients can make a nutritional contribution. This is where that "dosage" idea comes in. Exaggerating for effect: Broccoli is a healthy food, really excellent, but obviously it would be nutritionally dumb to eat only broccoli. Context also matters. As an extreme example, a marathoner may need quite a lot of pure sugar to make it through a race; the same eating pattern would be much less beneficial for a couch-sitter.
My personal routine is to have figured out a daily protein minimum (in grams) and a daily fats minimum (ditto). I want to hit or exceed those. (Protein and fats are the essential macronutrients: We have to eat some for best odds of long term good health, because our bodies can't manufacture them out of any other nutrient.) I pay attention to protein completeness (essential amino acids) and bioavailability, i.e., make sure I get plenty from good sources in the mix. I try to include a fair fraction of mono- and polyunsaturated fats (not just saturated fats). I think about getting Omega-3 fats, not just Omega-6s.
In addition, I shoot for a bare minimum of five 80g servings of varied, colorful veggies and fruit daily, but ideally try for10 or more servings (and do get there most days). I have a calorie goal to meet (in maintenance). I eat live-culture probiotic foods daily (yogurt, kefir, miso, raw vinegar, etc.). I don't explicitly consider fiber, because the fruit/veggie servings handle that. I've looked at micronutrients of concern, and the overall routine seems to hit most of those too.
I literally don't care how many carb grams I eat, as long as I get enough fat/protein/fruits'n'veg, and meet my calorie goal. (Retrospectively, from looking at my MFP data, it seems to be 225g or so most days in maintenance.)
That sounds like a lot of details, but it mostly happens automagically, from having gradually remodeled my eating habits, eating foods I like in meals I find practical/satisfying, that get me to those goals without much daily thought. Most of us have patterns, and we can revise those patterns.
In my world, life is too short to eat food I don't enjoy, or least find tolerable/pleasant. (Fortunately, I like a lot of foods.) I want some treats (less nutrient-dense or higher calorie foods) sometimes, so I fit them in sometimes. Many of those also have some useful nutrients.
For me, the above applies to the overwhelming majority of days. Occasionally, I have a meal or day (or occasionally a whole few days on a vacation, if traveling) where I don't worry much about those things. Some of them still happen automagically, some don't. As long as that's rare, it seems fine to me. The majority of my days are going to determine the majority of my outcome.
YMMV, though. What works for one person may not work for others.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »What is "healthy" needs context and dosage. In toxicology the dose is the poison, just getting that out of the way.
Whether a food is healthy or not also needs some context and dosage and lives on a spectrum where actual nutrients are known and the benefits they derive that show some are better than others and some can have a negative impact on an individual basis depending on the persons individual health status and that is the conundrum, simply because we don't have a healthcare system that operates that way and all clinicians are subject to "the standard of care", which is suboptimal on an individual basis and is in place for a population wide benefit only.
As an example of "the standard of care" we could use diabetes to show it's efficacy. In 40 years the standard of care has done nothing to mitigate the increase in diabetes and has only led to more powerful medications, GLP-1, bariatric surgery and the basic lifestyle modification to eat less and move more. Metabolic clinics that work outside of "the standard of care" and specialize on that individual basis all show, every single clinic a significant reduction in IR, diabetes, weight loss, reduced medication, basically a total remission of the disease with most other health markers improved and some considerably and it's been this way for a decade at least, strange contrast really.
If we live on this continuum and consume foods that allow optimal health, then there is no one food that could be considered healthy or not and it's only when we lean or favor those foods that show consistency in the literature with deleteriously effect and show suboptimal results, and as an example UPF and the SAD diet, then we can assess in that context and in those dosages that the more of these food that are in a diet the more suboptimal and unhealthy a person might be, but again that still needs to be addressed on an individual bases.
The nhanes data from I think 2 years ago showed that 88% of the US population had health issues where there was not at least 1 sign of a metabolic dysfunction, which means there's 12% of the population that have potentially optimal health, so not all is lost quite yet. Cheers
88%? That's a pretty wild claim. Maybe 88% of people over 70. Just saying. But outside of that, yeah, you're absolutely right.1 -
You will get a lot of different opinions on this. My opinion on this has changed over the years.
I was having some metabolic health issues and knew for me weight loss needed to be more than just reduced calories. I needed to improve my metabolic health. I found Dr Lustig’s books and he says we need to protect our liver and feed our gut. I started down that path and have had great results. My weight has gone down, my energy has gone up, and my labs have all improved. Yay!!!!
I did not jump all in at once. But over time I have reduced added sugar and increased my fiber. We rarely eat packaged food. But it does happen. I can’t be a “never” kind of person. I am a shoot for a majority of the time and give myself grace the few other times because life happens.
This way of eating doesn’t require as much work to stay under my calorie limit. I feel more full than I ever did before. These are habits I can maintain. And that’s my goal - to improve and then maintain my health.
Those are just my thoughts.3 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »What is "healthy" needs context and dosage. In toxicology the dose is the poison, just getting that out of the way.
Whether a food is healthy or not also needs some context and dosage and lives on a spectrum where actual nutrients are known and the benefits they derive that show some are better than others and some can have a negative impact on an individual basis depending on the persons individual health status and that is the conundrum, simply because we don't have a healthcare system that operates that way and all clinicians are subject to "the standard of care", which is suboptimal on an individual basis and is in place for a population wide benefit only.
As an example of "the standard of care" we could use diabetes to show it's efficacy. In 40 years the standard of care has done nothing to mitigate the increase in diabetes and has only led to more powerful medications, GLP-1, bariatric surgery and the basic lifestyle modification to eat less and move more. Metabolic clinics that work outside of "the standard of care" and specialize on that individual basis all show, every single clinic a significant reduction in IR, diabetes, weight loss, reduced medication, basically a total remission of the disease with most other health markers improved and some considerably and it's been this way for a decade at least, strange contrast really.
If we live on this continuum and consume foods that allow optimal health, then there is no one food that could be considered healthy or not and it's only when we lean or favor those foods that show consistency in the literature with deleteriously effect and show suboptimal results, and as an example UPF and the SAD diet, then we can assess in that context and in those dosages that the more of these food that are in a diet the more suboptimal and unhealthy a person might be, but again that still needs to be addressed on an individual bases.
The nhanes data from I think 2 years ago showed that 88% of the US population had health issues where there was not at least 1 sign of a metabolic dysfunction, which means there's 12% of the population that have potentially optimal health, so not all is lost quite yet. Cheers
88%? That's a pretty wild claim. Maybe 88% of people over 70. Just saying. But outside of that, yeah, you're absolutely right.sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »What is "healthy" needs context and dosage. In toxicology the dose is the poison, just getting that out of the way.
Whether a food is healthy or not also needs some context and dosage and lives on a spectrum where actual nutrients are known and the benefits they derive that show some are better than others and some can have a negative impact on an individual basis depending on the persons individual health status and that is the conundrum, simply because we don't have a healthcare system that operates that way and all clinicians are subject to "the standard of care", which is suboptimal on an individual basis and is in place for a population wide benefit only.
As an example of "the standard of care" we could use diabetes to show it's efficacy. In 40 years the standard of care has done nothing to mitigate the increase in diabetes and has only led to more powerful medications, GLP-1, bariatric surgery and the basic lifestyle modification to eat less and move more. Metabolic clinics that work outside of "the standard of care" and specialize on that individual basis all show, every single clinic a significant reduction in IR, diabetes, weight loss, reduced medication, basically a total remission of the disease with most other health markers improved and some considerably and it's been this way for a decade at least, strange contrast really.
If we live on this continuum and consume foods that allow optimal health, then there is no one food that could be considered healthy or not and it's only when we lean or favor those foods that show consistency in the literature with deleteriously effect and show suboptimal results, and as an example UPF and the SAD diet, then we can assess in that context and in those dosages that the more of these food that are in a diet the more suboptimal and unhealthy a person might be, but again that still needs to be addressed on an individual bases.
The nhanes data from I think 2 years ago showed that 88% of the US population had health issues where there was not at least 1 sign of a metabolic dysfunction, which means there's 12% of the population that have potentially optimal health, so not all is lost quite yet. Cheers
88%? That's a pretty wild claim. Maybe 88% of people over 70. Just saying. But outside of that, yeah, you're absolutely right.
Here's Healthline's basic editorial on the study which also links to the actual study. It was from 2016 actually and not 2 years ago.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/47621817#Comment_47621817
https://liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/met.2018.0105
0 -
@sollyn23l2 here is the link for the healthlline article that was missed in the above post.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-does-it-mean-to-be-metabolically-healthy
I’m not willing to look through lieberpub to find the referred to document.
Cheers, h.2 -
estimated the proportion of American adults with optimal cardiometabolic health, using different guidelines.
Methods: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009–2016 were analyzed (n = 8721).
Using the most recent guidelines, metabolic health was defined as having optimal levels of waist circumference (WC <102/88 cm for men/women), glucose (fasting glucose <100 mg/dL and hemoglobin A1c <5.7%), blood pressure (systolic <120 and diastolic <80 mmHg), triglycerides (<150 mg/dL), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (≥40/50 mg/dL for men/women), and not taking any related medication.
Results: Changing from ATP III (Adult Treatment Panel III) guidelines to more recent cut points decreased the proportion of metabolically healthy Americans from 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.3–21.5) to 12.2% (95% CI: 10.9–13.6).
Dropping WC from the definition increased the percentage of adults with optimal metabolic health to 17.6%.
Characteristics associated with greater prevalence of metabolic health were female gender, youth, more education, never smoking, practicing vigorous physical activity, and low body mass index. Less than one-third of normal weight adults were metabolically healthy and the prevalence decreased to 8.0% and 0.5% in overweight and obese individuals, respectively.
Conclusions: Prevalence of metabolic health in American adults is alarmingly low, even in normal weight individuals. The large number of people not achieving optimal levels of risk factors, even in low-risk groups, has serious implications for public health.
102cm = 40.147" for men and 88cm = 34.646" for women
2 -
Yeah, just a couple of points with PAC888 post, and thanks for posting that. Waist circumference (WC) is probably one of the better indicators of metabolic health simply because the more you have the more visceral fat a person has with fatty liver (NAFLD) a given if a person has too much and visceral fat being the endocrine organ that it is, is pumping out high levels of inflammation that have very deleterious effects downstream all over the body. For example in the US diabetes makes up around 10% of the population and in India and China for example the threshold for WC is less, and for good reason. Diabetes makes up 11-12% of the population while overall weight is much less and that's a hard one to get our heads around, not anywhere near as obese but metabolically worse off, so it's confusing on the surface and most people have only scratched the surface on nutrition in the general sense. Cheers.
Also just touching on a couple of the metabolic markers that make up what healthy metabolic health may look like. A1C for example is a very crude and antiquated marker for blood glucose imo and others simple because this indicates how much sugar is clinging on to red blood cells over a 3 month period and when A1C is in the mid 5's the process of pancreatic beta cell degradation has been going on a very long time, years for most people and at 5.5 a Dr. is giving that signal as normal. Standard of care doesn't require or actually promote other strategies for various logistical complications, nevertheless A1C is not great indicator of metabolic health and is similarly compared to total cholesterol (TC) where that is as well, a crude marker of cardiovascular health but unfortunately was picked 50 years ago as the cause of heart disease.
Another marker that I and many people feel is too high is "fasting triglycerides" where 150 is considered in the normal range and 151 is high. The problem with this is when trigs are in that range generally HDL is in the lower range and WC is generally elevated indicating metabolic inflammation. Increasing triglycerides are for all intents and purposes a result of the liver being overwhelmed and not being able to use the fructose and that immediate energy and is stored there through de novo lipogenesis from a sugar molecule to a fat molecule as a triglyceride and is also the immergence of NAFLD that the medical community had never seen until the late 80's. Personally I think a triglyceride marker of 100 is better simply like A1C when we're at what would be considered acceptable is probably too high with much metabolic dysfunction all ready taking place and it basically indicates that "standard of care" is addressing the symptom without addressing the root cause. Cheers.
0 -
I take that saying literal. I believe there are some people who don't think about food all the time. They actually have to think about eating. They eat ..so they can stay alive and live.
Me? I think about food all the time. Food is a wonder and a pleasure in life. Heck yeah.. i live to eat. Even when i'm dieting. i'm eateing tasty stuff people!0 -
I don't eliminate anything I like to eat, and I don't force myself to eat anything I don't like. Everything in my diet is something I enjoy.0
-
(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.
0 -
(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. cheers1 -
As a food addict, particularly a carb/sugar addict, I have had to change my perspective to make a lasting change.
I used to think it was important to enjoy food but I realized my life revolved around that-- any activity you brought up was somehow linked to the food. It's a holiday-- I must have my traditional faves. It's a party, where are the chips? We're going camping, I'm packing the cooler. Going to the movies? Yay popcorn & soda. Etc. Hanging out with a friend? Let's go grab a super sugar bomb coffee. Any activity and I was just always thinking about food and the possibilities of what food was gonna make the activity better.
Well that attitude got me up to almost 400 lbs and a host of health problems. Enjoying food too much made it impossible to keep on a plan and eat right.
So now I just remind myself food isn't entertainment, it doesn't matter what I eat as long as it's nourishing. It's not that I don't like my food anymore-- I still eat stuff I like. I just don't make loving it the goal and remind myself to get my entertainment and fulfillment and fun elsewhere.4 -
neanderthin 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.1 -
neanderthin 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
Here we go. Those are not Blue Zones. Blue zones are defined as populations with the highest rates of living to 100 – or becoming centenarians – and the highest middle-age life expectancies.
Why you went off-topic about Twinkie’s, Oreos, and Chips, I’m not sure. I stated what the Blue Zones eat, and they do not include those things and include less than 5% meat. And, I shouldn’t have to mention this because it’s not about you, but I have nothing against Keto. I knew one of you would take Blue Zones as a personal attack, and here we are. No one said you sinned except you. I know the world can be a complicated place but it would be a little bit better if we could all laugh at ourselves from time to time. If someone made a crack at OMAD, I’d probably be like, yeah lol it’s definitely not for everyone 😂. Not everything has to be a debate, ya know? I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Back on topic. For anyone interested in each locations diet defined as a Blue Zone you can see it here:
Also, and this is important, they are not just defined by their diet but also how they live their lives, hence- Do you Eat to Live or Live to Eat? This is how they do that OP.
I personally don’t follow a specific food diet, for full disclosure. I just found the docu-series and the way they live their lives really beautiful and interesting, and relevant to the OP. Probably because it’s just simple and obvious things we all can do better at everyday. I love that.1 -
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, cheers1
-
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?1 -
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. imo1 -
Virtue signalling has become a popular putdown for anyone who appears to hold a belief but doesn’t act on it.
At its most basic, virtue signalling is often described as the act of pretending to be virtuous rather than having genuine passion for an issue.
More specifically, users of the term are often targeting people who seem to take relish in being outraged or partaking in activism on behalf of a demographic or cause with which they are not directly associated. This can encompass actions ranging from the personal – such as a man attending a woman’s march to the public, such as a multinational oil firm pledging to fight climate change.
Had to look into what you were saying exactly. Interesting you already created this opinion so quickly. That’s absolutely your prerogative.1 -
Interesting retort. Well I'm glad you at least got something out of my post. cheers1
-
Sir, I respect your opinion and choice for yourself, but you’re condescending, overconfident, and comment in an oversimplified manner, which is the unfortunate definition of mansplaining. As I mentioned, it’s your prerogative to do as you wish. I hope that you can get something out of my post other than a knee jerk reaction to debate about keto. I’m not taking keto away from you.4
-
I was never debating keto. It's not the blue zones 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. It was the fact that it doesn't translate well for most of the world and I hoping for a more nuanced conversation than you describing what virtue signaling really means, that's it, nothing more and because that didn't happen you describe my comments as mansplaining, wow, ok, if that makes you feel better, fine, after all I'm a man, right, lol. Cheers 3
-
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: »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.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions