The journal Nature Medicine published a major study about a cohort of over 105,000 people followed for 30 years. This is that researchers found.

Source

Correlation isn’t causation. But that’s still interesting.

  • Routhinator@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Fun fact, as someone who suffers from FODMAP related IBS… Almost very “green” item in this list triggers FODMAP reactions, and about half of the red ones are on the safe to eat category.

    TL;DR - damned if I do, damned if I dont.

  • starman2112@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    We don’t need another study explaining that people who eat foods that rich people eat tend to live longer. Do one of these studies but only interviewing people with an income under $20,000 and I’ll take it seriously

  • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    The data for the participants relies on mailed questionnaires for lifestyle and medical status

    Wtf. We already know this isn’t good nutrition science. It’s all too easy for people to misrepresent what they’re eating in surveys

    This sounds like an epidemiological study. What are the listed Relative Risk Increases for mortality they’re trying to claim? Are any above 100%, which is the minimum threshold required to establish causality for epidemiological studies?

    Not only that, the only sources of refined sugars they show here are all listed as healthier than red meat. Really? Refined sugar, the leading cause of diabetes and atherosclerosis isn’t at the bottom of the list?

    This study reeks of bullshit. Which is unfortunately not all that weird in nutrition science ever since the Harvard School of Nutrition got bought out by Coca Cola and sugar lobbies back in the 50’s

    • Avicenna@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      this is telling me that time spent cooking is time taken away from your life (check fast and fried row)

  • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Yea, we’d need to filter out the behavioural angles to clearly identify causal relationships.

    Do people who live longer just happen to start eating differently etc.

    For example, the better I feel, the better I eat. It’s not the bad eating that makes me feel bad - the better eating is a consequence of feeling better.

    I can tell exactly when my diet is going to tank, when my chronic conditions flare. Diet has zero effect on them.

    • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      My booze is plant based. That has to count for something. Fat free, ultra low sodium and frequently served with frozen crushed whole fruit.

      It’s medicinal.

    • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Conversely, it’s surprising to see fruit so high up, while fish and poultry are in the middle. Does this mean only vegetarian people eat healthy? Hardly believable for an omnivorous animal like humans.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        Being an omnivore allows us to get calories from multiple sources, which allows us to live long enough to breed. That’s an evolutionary advantage.

        After the point of breeding and raising children, evolution taps out.

        So something being an evolutionary trait does not mean those traits lead to longevity. But it guarantees we’re good fuckers.

        • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 hours ago

          First off, this chart seems to be rather cherry-picked, with some information just outright wrong. When corrected for body size, the human digestive tract is significantly shorter than herbivores and longer than carnivores. That suggests that we’re omnivores.

          Second, explain how humans have binocular vision, a trait common to every land-based carnivore and omnivore.

        • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Very big caveat: while our primate cousins manage to eat some meat from time to time, it was our domestication of fire more than a million year ago that allowed us to access plenty of calories and nutrients from almost any food, everything was suddenly on the table, and was made easy to chew and digest. We are more omnivorous than the naturally omnivorous animals.

  • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    No way for seafood considering the heavy metal traces.

    Whatever. At least pizza is on the safer side ;)