http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magaz ... ml?hp&_r=2&
One of the things that struck me was the importance they placed on regular social contact. I always wonder if that applies to introverts too.
The Island Where People Forget to Die
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Like the article, just wish they could resist the urge to draw their own conclusions; ie: trying to force everything into vegetarian and/or establishment low calorie/low fat context. Glad they got the blurb from Taubes about how the variable could be either present or absent.
>20% reduction in heart disease from taking daily naps, wow... Not good for me, I've felt too wired to take naps for over a year!
>20% reduction in heart disease from taking daily naps, wow... Not good for me, I've felt too wired to take naps for over a year!
Wow! Even more fascinating stuff. I think there's a lot of things that might have gone into that, ranging from psychological to the healthier local food he would have eaten on Ikaria.
Actually the "not caring what time it is" is a rather common thing in tropical areas. Nobody can be bothered to get up early or push themselves a lot in areas where it's super hot. I hear business meetings in the middle east are the exact same way.
I think if we ever manage to get an ERE city together, it should be just as laid back as that.
Actually the "not caring what time it is" is a rather common thing in tropical areas. Nobody can be bothered to get up early or push themselves a lot in areas where it's super hot. I hear business meetings in the middle east are the exact same way.
I think if we ever manage to get an ERE city together, it should be just as laid back as that.
Very interesting! One glaringly absent variable is any form of rigorous training or "hard knocks"
Like @JohnnyH, I don't do naps, so I will have to cherrypick the other variables to achieve a long life. As I see it, coffee, sex and lentils should make up for any deficit.
I would take the social contact line with a grain of salt; it's probably self-serving propaganda put out by the busybodies. Nothing to stop them, since on a small island it's much more difficult to kill them, which creates a sort of Galapagos island for social pests
Like @JohnnyH, I don't do naps, so I will have to cherrypick the other variables to achieve a long life. As I see it, coffee, sex and lentils should make up for any deficit.
I would take the social contact line with a grain of salt; it's probably self-serving propaganda put out by the busybodies. Nothing to stop them, since on a small island it's much more difficult to kill them, which creates a sort of Galapagos island for social pests
Hm, I recall a television show where they followed Italian people that adhered to their livestile as in Italy (frequent get-togethers for large dinners of the typical italian olive oil / vegetable / little meat sort) and how in that same community younger people picked up the "Western" eating and socializing habits and how the bypass rates shot up due to this. It´s a few years back, so no certains source rests in my memory.
EDIT: I think as a saviour for the introverts: it´s also about how much these people enjoy their current affairs - so less contact for those that enjoy lesser contact and more contact for the others. Just not no or next to no contact for long times.
EDIT: I think as a saviour for the introverts: it´s also about how much these people enjoy their current affairs - so less contact for those that enjoy lesser contact and more contact for the others. Just not no or next to no contact for long times.
lol, the coffee, sex and lentils are only a small part of the equation. Naps are actually good for your mental health as well, improve your rate of learning new things and reduce your chances of dementia. 
I think the main things it boils down to are:
A: A friendly, supportive, laid back community.
B: Keeping busy with your hobbies and work no matter how old you get. Note that they're never in a hurry to do anything, however.
and
C: Eating natural, healthy, unpoisoned food. High nutrient contents in food also help with improving health, and far better to do it in the soil rather than taking them in pills. Store bought lentils full of pesticides don't really count for that, though. Growing your own garden is bonus points, though, since it's a relaxing and rewarding activity in and of itself.
If you read the whole article you'd see that they did eat meat about 5 times per month, mainly pork and fish, so it's not like they were pushing vegetarianism. Actually in the early 1900s the American diet was similar in that regard; meat is expensive and was more an item for the "sunday roast" and special events.
Meat is more available today in low-quality form thanks to factory farms. The main reason meat is "bad for you" today is because the animals in factory conditions are extremely unhealthy as well, often dying from heart attacks and other organ failures which they then pass on to us. Dairy is the exact same way; a healthy cow or goat eating a natural diet will produce healthy milk, whereas a factory cow will produce only poison. Same with eggs, and so on.
One other thing, there's no way that the goat's milk they eat is pasteurized. Pasteurization really ruins any nutritional value that milk might have to offer.
I think the main things it boils down to are:
A: A friendly, supportive, laid back community.
B: Keeping busy with your hobbies and work no matter how old you get. Note that they're never in a hurry to do anything, however.
and
C: Eating natural, healthy, unpoisoned food. High nutrient contents in food also help with improving health, and far better to do it in the soil rather than taking them in pills. Store bought lentils full of pesticides don't really count for that, though. Growing your own garden is bonus points, though, since it's a relaxing and rewarding activity in and of itself.
If you read the whole article you'd see that they did eat meat about 5 times per month, mainly pork and fish, so it's not like they were pushing vegetarianism. Actually in the early 1900s the American diet was similar in that regard; meat is expensive and was more an item for the "sunday roast" and special events.
Meat is more available today in low-quality form thanks to factory farms. The main reason meat is "bad for you" today is because the animals in factory conditions are extremely unhealthy as well, often dying from heart attacks and other organ failures which they then pass on to us. Dairy is the exact same way; a healthy cow or goat eating a natural diet will produce healthy milk, whereas a factory cow will produce only poison. Same with eggs, and so on.
One other thing, there's no way that the goat's milk they eat is pasteurized. Pasteurization really ruins any nutritional value that milk might have to offer.
You guys know there is a whole website about this stuff: http://www.bluezones.com/
And a YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/LongevityBl ... eos?view=0
It's kind of an "industry" for Dan Buettner, but its pretty well done.
And a YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/LongevityBl ... eos?view=0
It's kind of an "industry" for Dan Buettner, but its pretty well done.
Bigato, the china study was debunked years ago. Look at the actual stats in the back of the book - they paint a much different picture than the author chose to report on.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-ch ... or-fallac/
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-ch ... or-fallac/
-
ICouldBeTheWalrus
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:00 am
I saw this article yesterday too.
One of the things that I find particularly notable about these things is that we (well, the typical busy person from the highly industrialized world) tend to latch on to the ideas of "what's the magic thing that they eat that makes them so healthy?" or "what thing in my current diet must I give up?" While there may be such factors, it's particularly interesting how we (once again, not the ERE we, the audience of the article) tend to think that it's impossible to live a life free from rigid scheduling, the treadmill of consumerism, or other artificial sources of stress in the typical modern workplace. Most people don't even consider that possibly the harmful factor is how they conduct their lives, because they're unwilling to change that factor.
One of the things that I find particularly notable about these things is that we (well, the typical busy person from the highly industrialized world) tend to latch on to the ideas of "what's the magic thing that they eat that makes them so healthy?" or "what thing in my current diet must I give up?" While there may be such factors, it's particularly interesting how we (once again, not the ERE we, the audience of the article) tend to think that it's impossible to live a life free from rigid scheduling, the treadmill of consumerism, or other artificial sources of stress in the typical modern workplace. Most people don't even consider that possibly the harmful factor is how they conduct their lives, because they're unwilling to change that factor.
@bigato: The China Study is interesting, but I don't think it addresses my previous point about unhealthy animals making unhealthy food products. Factory farming of animals in China is as bad or worse than factory farming in the US. Bird flu, swine flu and SARS all came from China as a direct result of those practices. It also stands as somewhat of a contradiction, or at least not the dominating factor, in comparison to the Ikarian diet. After re-reading a bit of that article I see that they ate fish twice per week and non-fish meat about once per week, along with goat's milk probably daily whenever the goats are producing.
Still, Americans eat meat generally 2-3 times per day, which is around 7 times as much overall.
@Walrus & Felix: Yup
. I've seen a lot of people, mostly middle and upper middle class, who schedule themselves to death. The theme of running your kids through some exhausting (both for children and parents) and activity filled schedule is pervasive in the media and mainstream culture. Since most of those activities are unproductive and cost money, it also teaches them to consume at the same time. Add to that the hateful, competitive popularity contest attitude that school promotes and you're all set for a lifetime of taking prescription drugs and working someone else's schedule followed by a heart attack right after you become eligible for social security.
Still, Americans eat meat generally 2-3 times per day, which is around 7 times as much overall.
@Walrus & Felix: Yup
. I've seen a lot of people, mostly middle and upper middle class, who schedule themselves to death. The theme of running your kids through some exhausting (both for children and parents) and activity filled schedule is pervasive in the media and mainstream culture. Since most of those activities are unproductive and cost money, it also teaches them to consume at the same time. Add to that the hateful, competitive popularity contest attitude that school promotes and you're all set for a lifetime of taking prescription drugs and working someone else's schedule followed by a heart attack right after you become eligible for social security.There are some serious questions about the conclusions drawn from The China Study. The site below suggests that the study actually shows that wheat may be the negative, not meat.
http://rawfoodsos.com/
Nice article Jenny.
http://rawfoodsos.com/
Nice article Jenny.
I've only read what was available publicly, which was only the basic overview of everything and the overall findings. I suppose even if the study covered mostly people using "traditional" farming techniques I would still not become a vegetarian. Screw that ;P.
At any rate that would be at the bottom of my reading list, after Blue Zones. Neither are a terribly high priority at the moment. I've still got 3.5 books I have yet to finish, and another 6 lined up after that, including 4 on psychology, the ERE book and a book on soil mineralization and reading a soil test.
At any rate that would be at the bottom of my reading list, after Blue Zones. Neither are a terribly high priority at the moment. I've still got 3.5 books I have yet to finish, and another 6 lined up after that, including 4 on psychology, the ERE book and a book on soil mineralization and reading a soil test.
Gary Taubes, who was interviewed in the OP, said this about the China Study:
TAUBES: Forty seconds, OK. The quick question is the China Study is - well, it's a collaboration between Cornell, Oxford University and Chinese universities that looked at diet versus disease (unintelligible) counties in China. It is actually not true. This is one of the amazing - the China Study has become sort of the bible of the vegan diet movement. And it's actually not true. If you look at the raw data in the China Study, there is no relationship between animal protein and cancer - animal protein consumption and cancer mortality in that study. Anything more than that, I'd be happy to talk about the China Study for minutes to hours. That's all I can say.
source: http://www.npr.org/2012/07/03/156207145 ... -a-calorie
TAUBES: Forty seconds, OK. The quick question is the China Study is - well, it's a collaboration between Cornell, Oxford University and Chinese universities that looked at diet versus disease (unintelligible) counties in China. It is actually not true. This is one of the amazing - the China Study has become sort of the bible of the vegan diet movement. And it's actually not true. If you look at the raw data in the China Study, there is no relationship between animal protein and cancer - animal protein consumption and cancer mortality in that study. Anything more than that, I'd be happy to talk about the China Study for minutes to hours. That's all I can say.
source: http://www.npr.org/2012/07/03/156207145 ... -a-calorie
I'm posting this again (it appears to be posted when I look on this computer, but when I use another it doesn't show up...odd):
There are some serious questions about the conclusions drawn from The China Study. The site below (extraordinary detail) suggests that the study actually shows that wheat may be the negative, not meat.
http://rawfoodsos.com/
Nice article Jenny.
There are some serious questions about the conclusions drawn from The China Study. The site below (extraordinary detail) suggests that the study actually shows that wheat may be the negative, not meat.
http://rawfoodsos.com/
Nice article Jenny.
Erm, I decided to look into that a bit more, and there are other problems with his study, apparently. In his experiments with rats the only "animal protein" that was tested was casein from milk. He generalized this to all "animal protein" without actually testing it. 20% of dietary calories coming from milk protein alone is quite a lot.
Also of note, further studies found that a more varied vegetable protein source behaved exactly the same as casein if they contained the same amino acids, and a protein deficient diet was found to increase the acute toxicity of aflatoxin as a counterbalance to the reduction in cancer..
His actual epidemic studies on humans seem to have even more problems, and none of the results which he touted as "significant" were actually statistically significant. For that matter, animal protein only had a 3% measured effect on cancer, whereas carbohydrates had a 23% correlation, however neither of those were statistically significant.
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
EDIT: Campbell actually made a reply to that review, however at least the way I read it he did not address even one of the issues brought against the ways in which his studies were conducted. He just makes some foggy comment about how "you can still derive practical wisdom from it even if the science isn't clear cut". He does, however, take the liberty to make attacks against the critic's personal motives and his organizational relationships (the Weston A. Price foundation.. which I respect to a fair degree btw).
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/camp ... sponse.htm
I can't find it in me to respect any "scientist" who won't justify his own methodology.
Another critique of The China Study:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-ch ... or-fallac/
A critique of his animal studies:
http://westonaprice.org/blogs/the-curio ... ancer.html
Also of note, further studies found that a more varied vegetable protein source behaved exactly the same as casein if they contained the same amino acids, and a protein deficient diet was found to increase the acute toxicity of aflatoxin as a counterbalance to the reduction in cancer..
His actual epidemic studies on humans seem to have even more problems, and none of the results which he touted as "significant" were actually statistically significant. For that matter, animal protein only had a 3% measured effect on cancer, whereas carbohydrates had a 23% correlation, however neither of those were statistically significant.
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
EDIT: Campbell actually made a reply to that review, however at least the way I read it he did not address even one of the issues brought against the ways in which his studies were conducted. He just makes some foggy comment about how "you can still derive practical wisdom from it even if the science isn't clear cut". He does, however, take the liberty to make attacks against the critic's personal motives and his organizational relationships (the Weston A. Price foundation.. which I respect to a fair degree btw).
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/camp ... sponse.htm
I can't find it in me to respect any "scientist" who won't justify his own methodology.
Another critique of The China Study:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-ch ... or-fallac/
A critique of his animal studies:
http://westonaprice.org/blogs/the-curio ... ancer.html
Bigato: the China study was observed, not controlled. So there was no start/stopping of Cancer... Basically, the data had to be manipulated (adding a 3rd variable; cholesterol) to suggest a cancer/meat link. The data is fine, but the conclusions are garbage used to promote vegetarianism.
http://freetheanimal.com/2010/07/t-coli ... dited.html
Also, I do not see the fallacy... Virtually all processed food is laden with highly highly glycemic carbohydrates. American diet is dominated by these. Are you suggesting Americans aren't eating very many carbs or something? Not sure what you're getting at.
http://freetheanimal.com/2010/07/t-coli ... dited.html
Also, I do not see the fallacy... Virtually all processed food is laden with highly highly glycemic carbohydrates. American diet is dominated by these. Are you suggesting Americans aren't eating very many carbs or something? Not sure what you're getting at.
JohnnyH, the link you provided is a critique of the China Study by Denise Minger who at the time of writing was a 23 year old - I kid you not - professional Sock Puppeteer (according to her facebook page) who calls herself a low-carb expert. As far as I can tell she has no nutrition training whatsoever. She is cute as a button though.