The Island Where People Forget to Die

Simple living, extreme early retirement, becoming and being wealthy, wisdom, praxis, personal growth,...
User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6520
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Post by Ego »

Don't worry, you're covered.



Haplo
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:43 pm

Post by Haplo »

Apparently wheat is also bad :P. In the China Study II data, even after counting for any possible confounding factors, wheat eaters had a substantially higher rates of heart diseases than rice eaters, while rice was fairly protective in the opposite direction.
There's not enough data to tell whether it was because they used white flour or what it is about wheat that might be responsible, but it's interesting to note that whole wheat bread weight for weight has a glycemic load 2-3 times higher than boiled brown rice. In fact, in that regard wheat bread and donuts are surprisingly nearly identical.
Also, I don't think there are enough examples of blue zones to indemnify cow's milk or any other specific dietary element just by looking at that data alone. They have a lot of lifestyle choices that are different from everyone else that go beyond diet and may complicate things. The 7th day adventists don't drink alcohol* or eat any meat, for example, but they get more colon cancer than mormons who do both in moderation.
I bet home grown red wine is delicious :X.
EDIT:*


JohnnyH
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: Rockies

Post by JohnnyH »

"My current mood :)" lol! That comment deserves some kind of award, jenny!
@Haplo: I think I remember reading that the correlation was nearly .7 heart disease and wheat(!)... It is almost hopelessly complex, like Bigato says. We only have one life and it's too short to effective isolate enough variables... Taking out highly glycemic carbohydrates produced the shockingly dramatic results in my own life.
Maybe it does come down to faith and bias... Personally, I'm willing to risk a few years off my lifespan to enjoy alcohol, meat and to a less much lesser extent milk, sugar and even wheat (in small doses;).


Haplo
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:43 pm

Post by Haplo »

0.32 for wheat I think, with -0.24 for rice.
Also, "I do occasionally get milk from a local Jersey cow. In the spring it is orange and amazingly delicious..."
Bastard. No cows here :P. My understanding is that cheddar cheese was originally made orange by the sort of high quality milk you speak of, and the yolks of free range eggs are also characteristically dark orange, and sometimes even red/purple from the antioxidants in the wild stuff they eat.
I def agree that it's impractical and probably impossible to isolate every good and bad diet factor. I think a bit more data drudging may give me a pretty good idea overall though ;P.
It seems plant proteins (ie grains, legumes, nuts etc), due to the fact that they're directly reproductive they tend to contain toxins/antinutrients like lectins and phytic acid to discourage animal predation. ie the reason you have to soak beans 6 hours and dump the water before actually cooking them. In CSII there was a trend for people who got most of their protein from plants to have higher cancer rates (0.47) than those who got their protein from animal sources (-0.31).
Another thing, there are at least a few things that are widely known to be beneficial. Things like extra-virgin olive oil (I usually mix it with butter), tea (up to 3 glasses per week, white tea is best), red wine (1-3 glasses per day, local is best) and cocoa (more = better).
One last thing I thought was interesting, in traditional inuit cultures, they consider lean meat (ie rabbit, chicken) to be "starvation foods" because people eating a diet of rabbits were known to get sick and to never feel satisfied no matter how much they ate, which they called "rabbit starvation". They preferred whole moose slathered with moose back fat, or walrus meat slathered with blubber, etc, and historical data says they were (much) healthier than they are now on a western diet. The plains indians were similar, eating bison jerky with bison fat dressing (pemmican).
In at least two of the blue zones (Ikaria, Okinawa) the most commonly consumed non-fish meat is pork, which is fatty, rather than lean meat like chicken. Theory is that you can't absorb sufficient fat-soluble vitamins without eating enough fat that contains them (or eat fat along with the things that contain them). Makes sense to me anyway :P.


JohnnyH
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: Rockies

Post by JohnnyH »

"The more we learn, the more we see how much we don't know. The world is a complex place, there's no escaping that. And yet there's a big party of reality that we will never be able to know enough. That's not frustrating, that's exciting! Some things are really very complicated for us to understand and investigate on our own. Think climate change, weather prediction and others."

I agree 100% with everything in this statement... I disagree with that we have to outsource mastery to experts, be it climate wizards or be it plumbers. If you want to understand you usually can. That said, I have family in advanced physics and mathematics and I usually just take their word for it... But, I'm usually not that interested. ;)

Especially in the case of this study; it is based mostly off a simple questionaire and the rest blood tests. I find it all straight forward and feel my understanding is more than great enough to form my own conclusions.
[me: If I want to figure something out, then I will...]

"Maybe not so much :-)"

I might keep trying until I'm dead, but I don't accept failure until I give up. :) Not saying that hasn't happened, but I most often succeed in measurable terms.
"No, they are only less attractive."

But you did imply her being young and pretty had something to do with my acceptance of their argument!... I didn't even look at the picture (or think about gender of name) until someone brought it up.
"Surprise, I'm not. [vegetarian]"

Ok, but I still derive from this statement, "I really wish I could be wrong because I love meat." that you have some negative associations with the consumption of meat. No? If yes, why?
Why is all conversation trolling? I care about the truth and have nothing personal invested... I want to live a long and full life, not "win" some argument on the internet with strangers.
Most people who live to middle age die past the age expectency. Therefore, a death as early as 64 seems freakishly early to me. Even when you add rural China to the mix... But that is another one of those hopelessly complex intertwined variables.


Haplo
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:43 pm

Post by Haplo »

I should point out that we also eat a lot of domesticated leafy greens like spinach and kale that are high in oxalic acid, another toxin/antinutrient with a strong chelating capacity.
In small amounts these toxins don't produce a noticeable effect, but in large/chronic amounts they can give you kidney stones and mineral deficiencies.
Catechins in tea, which have other beneficial effects, also behave the same way. I have no idea why red wine and cocoa don't show the same use-benefit curve as tea, though, given that they contain very similar antioxidants.
Finally, what Dr.Campbell said, and I quote directly from an excerpt from his book:

"In fact, dietary protein proved to be so powerful in its effect that we could turn on and off cancer growth simply by changing the level consumed"
This much is true, more or less. In one of the studies I listed, they mentioned specifically that "a diet with more protein than is necessary for healthy growth" did in fact increase liver cancer growth.
However, he then goes on to say:

"We found that not all proteins had this effect. What protein consistently and strongly promoted cancer? Casein, which makes up 87% of cow's milk protein, promoted all stages of the cancer process. What type of protein did not promote cancer, even at high levels of intake? The safe proteins were from plants, including wheat and soy."
Very little of this has any truth to it whatsoever. Soy protein was not tested in that experiment, only wheat vs casein. He claims that wheat "did not promote cancer" but that's not really true, either, it just took a higher dosage**. Also, when they added lysine to the wheat protein, which is deficient in it, the wheat enhanced cancer growth just as much as the casein. "All stages of cancer" is wrong too, as a high protein diet clearly showed protection against the toxic effects of aflatoxin during the actual dosage, which is the first stage of cancer formation (or was in that experiment).
It isn't necessary for me to understand all the mechanisms of liver cancer promotion and growth to deduce that much. If it was, then I would have taken the time to dig up the relevant information, and in either case I'm not all that interested. I've already studied skin cancer enough to get the basic insult->inflammation->mutation->growth pattern.
EDIT: **I was going to double check that point, but found out the full text for that study isn't available that I can find. They mentioned that a high-wheat-protein diet was inhibitive or at least didn't promote cancer, so that much I was wrong about. Even so, the rest of the points still stand, as wheat+soy would give the same protein combination which was shown as cancer promoting. Otherwise, getting all of your dietary protein from wheat would leave you with numerous deficiencies (not least of which in essential amino acids) and poor health overall.


Radamisto
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:18 pm

Post by Radamisto »

If anyone wants to retire to a peaceful island in the Med, I would recommend Malta (Gozo to be precise). No tax on foreign income for resident foreigners, as long as that income stays abroad. Lovely climate. Natural food. Picturesque countryside. Very good healthcare. Everyone speaks English, which also is the official language. I've been living here for 20 months now and just love it!


Haplo
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:43 pm

Post by Haplo »

@bigato: My point is that just because something is domesticated or commonly eaten does not mean that it is free of toxins or that it is healthy.
Honestly I'm tired of arguing with you. You have yet to respond to any of the evidence I've provided except to refer back to Campbell's book and to demand that I should become an expert on liver cancer (as if any cancer is completely understood, and as if Campbell himself were a cancer researcher; he isn't) or to read every reference and reference of references that Campbell referred to in his book. I've already seen quite a few and they don't support his statements.
I don't know why you need meat, dairy and cholesterol to be death-dealing boogiemen, or why you should feel it necessary to guilt and doom yourself over something which you admittedly eat (maybe you're a 7th day adventist?). Campbell's book doesn't even constitute a peer-reviewed study, and any criticisms of his book are generally censored in favor of interested parties. Seriously though, did you read through every reference and linked reference of every study in the book before you decided that it was all true? If you demand that much as disproof, then I would expect you to apply the same rigor to believe it in the first place.


Haplo
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:43 pm

Post by Haplo »

You are the one saying that the content of the book is flawed without even reading it.
I read the first 7 pages, and found them to be biased and not representative of the actual data. Should I expect the entire rest of the book to be filled with wonderfully impartial science?
The burden of proof is on you.
Clearly you don't understand burden of proof.
For me, the trust I have on the references, credentials and institution behind it
The conclusions of his references don't match the conclusions he draws in the book. His credentials would be more impressive (but not a good reason to uncritically believe anything) if he had written the book in his professional capacity, which he didn't. Oxford and Cornell were involved in the actual data collection, sure, but "The China Study" book was not published as a journal, review, or even as a textbook. It's just a diet book, and anything written in it is unrelated to Cornell and Oxford, besides maybe the words "Cornell" and "Oxford" which do appear in the contents of the book itself.
summed with my personal experience, are enough for me for now.
I thought you ate meat, so how can you even claim any experience with a vegan diet? If you change more than one thing in your diet how do you know what individual elements help or harm?
At any rate you seem to be good at tossing out references to purist vegan sites. I saw a scary post on 30bananas yesterday where a bunch of people were encouraging some lady to trust a vegan diet to cure her cancer. Nobody there ever mentions all the big name vegans who have died from cancer or a heart attack at unimpressive ages, but they're more than happy to risk someone else's life to prove their point.


bike_the_world
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:09 pm

Post by bike_the_world »

Nothing like an anecdote ('n' of 1 study) to deepen the rift on this thread, so here are some personal numbers (fresh from the doctors office today!). Exactly 6 months ago I was running at 6'2" tall, 220 lbs (exactly 100 kg). My cholesterol was 'under control' thanks to 20mg simvastatin per day and total cholesterol at 174 mg/dL, HDL at 46 mg/dL, LDL at 108 mg/dL. A year before that I was same weight but values were 267, 42, and 170 respectively. Not good. Am/was a hard core carni/omnivore and have no iron in the fire to convert anyone to any particular lifestyle/diet. Really. But, I dislike being tied to big pharma in the form of a daily drug so having seen the movie: "Forks over Knives" on Netflix (basically: a Caldwell Esselstyn / T. Colin Campbell synopsis) I decided to drop the statins and eat only whole foods/plant-based diet for 6 months (specifically, no extra oils/fats, no starches, nothing from a source with a face). Have just finished the task.
What is amazing is my parameters are actually lower now than when I was on the statins! The doctor was floored and was wondering about the unfilled scripts. He is convinced, though acknowledges the diet is pretty extreme for most folks.
My current situation:
Weight: 189 lbs

Height: 6’2”

BP: 112/78

Total cholesterol: 167 mg/dL

HDL Cholesterol: 50 mg/dL

LDL Cholesterol: 98 mg/dL
The total and LDL cholesterol are about 10-15 mg/dL lower than when I was on statins and my body weight is down from 220 lbs when I started the ration in April.
Other than there are few options when traveling on business for food in restaurants and when eating with others one gets strange questions it is actually quite a decent way to eat.
One wonders how the pharmaceutical companies and American Heart Association have kept this solution to high cholesterol under wraps for so long. It seems like even the statins are so-called ‘lifestyle’ drugs that allow people to continue unhealthy choices.
I know. Talking about diet is the same as religion and politics. But, it s pretty clear we can all try something at least once (life can be one long series of experiments...).


Haplo
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:43 pm

Post by Haplo »

Do you mean it's too complex or something?

"Too complex" is rather subjective. Too complex to figure out what is beneficial or not based completely on personal experience, yeah. Too complex to figure out given vast amounts of data from epidemiological studies, I think not.
Do you mean they were voicing their opinions on nutrition and science without having the credentials, knowledge nor skills for such? What a bunch of losers. Wait, that sounds familiar...

There's a huge difference between saying "this diet or this food is healthy and that diet or that food is less so, or even harmful" and saying "if you try this vegan diet it will definitely cure your cancer".
With the former, sure I might be wrong. Oh well? All 4 of the blue zones not counting loma linda all ate at least some meat (seventh day adventists more often than not eat meat too, but I discount them for other reasons), so chances are it won't kill anyone outright.
With the latter, that's giving medical advice to someone with a life threatening condition. If someone specifically wants nothing to do with the big pharma nuclear-scale chemo drugs, I could certainly understand that, but giving any advice to that effect without a hefty disclaimer is unethical. Saying that it will "definitely cure your cancer" is both dishonest and unethical, as there are plenty of vegans on various diets who have all died of cancer.


bike_the_world
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:09 pm

Post by bike_the_world »

Yes, avoiding all that stuff though a couple recipes call for molasses of one form or another so figure it is OK. Whole grains and brown rice are OK I believe. No white flour, no sugar, no cooking with oils (vegetable broth). It really is a great diet when feeding oneself at home and decent grocery stores nearby. No need to fret the 'five a day' rule. More like '25 a day' for fruits and veggies.
I should also mention I am very active physically and haven't noticed any energy shortage like what one gets on first two week of Atkins/South Beach. No bonks on long rides, etc.


bike_the_world
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:09 pm

Post by bike_the_world »

Not at all. Not on the Forks over Knives anyway. But, perhaps the 2-3 weeks when we transitioned before the official start date of April 1 (e.g., clearing out the pantry of the meats, dairy, etc) served to lessen the effect.


Haplo
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:43 pm

Post by Haplo »

@bike: Whether or not "high" cholesterol is actually harmful is debatable, but eating vegetarian will definitely lower your cholesterol, and eating natural unrefined foods will lower other negative factors like triglycerides and insulin. The only conclusion I can draw from your story is that your cholesterol went down and that made your doctors happy.
I'm not really a fan of either south beach or atkins. I have yet to see a diet that places any importance on glycemic load, and most of those types of diets restrict one thing or another to extreme levels that are unnecessary. Some of the research on Atkins found the same benefits with pure Atkins as with a similar diet but with a modest amount of carbs added back in. I kinda like Paleo, although I think a lot of the omissions in paleo are excessive too.


bike_the_world
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:09 pm

Post by bike_the_world »

Maybe I'll try that one (Paleo) next. I still have a few years left!


guitarplayer
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:43 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: The Island Where People Forget to Die

Post by guitarplayer »

Ooops, I am pulling a @Stahlmann here.

However, find the article great. I'm from he EU, could move to that Island tomorrow and jump right into the lifestyle!

chenda
Posts: 3517
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: The Island Where People Forget to Die

Post by chenda »

guitarplayer wrote:
Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:27 am
Ooops, I am pulling a @Stahlmann here.

However, find the article great. I'm from he EU, could move to that Island tomorrow and jump right into the lifestyle!
Do it!! :)

guitarplayer
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:43 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: The Island Where People Forget to Die

Post by guitarplayer »

I take it back, looked up and there aren't any helpx or workaway opportunities, so would need to first go with camping gear and just query people if they need any help in exchange for staying with them. This would likely work I think. I wouldn't like to just go there, rent a room and be holidaying.

In Sardinia which is another of the blue zones looks like there are some 1Euro derelict houses in that region where the centenarians reside.

But I am left wondering, to what extent moving there would be missing the boat, so to what extent what has worked for current centenarians was there when they were my age but not anymore.

I used to share a flat with a guy from Sardinia, maybe it's time to catch up with him.

ETA: looks like the Okinawa's youth is not as healthy as their grandparents anymore.

WFJ
Posts: 416
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:32 am

Re: The Island Where People Forget to Die

Post by WFJ »

Stats critiques (also no solutions as one would likely win a Nobel Prize for providing a solution to these).
1 out of 10/50/100 randomly selected stepwise regression with select all data from all public sources will result in some significant relationship at the 10%/5%/1% level. There is also an issue of "Survivorship bias" in any death study, especially in rural China (See Wald).

Regarding the Island data, one could only gleam any general health tips for a long life/some health outcome if twins or siblings were randomly separated at birth and raised in alternative locations (unlikely to be approved) with alternative diet/healthcare/everything and do a ttest on age of death or other health variables between these matched pairs. One could just as easily explain the long life results with genetics vs diet/environment/political affiliation Coke vs Pepsi consumption (anything) if one has a large enough sample.

In general, studies and stats are horrifically misused in public discourse. I've failed (at the 1% significance level) attempting to explain that studies don't "prove" a relationship, at best they indicate some relationship has a 1%/5%/10% chance of being random and a 99%/95%/99% change of not being random. With an alphabet of control variables, survivorship biases, and publication bias (there is not a journal of statistically insignificant ________ (all fields)) most general consumption studies are not more than exercises in data mining and demonstrate the difficulty in selecting a control group.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6520
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The Island Where People Forget to Die

Post by Ego »

IG Nobel winner for debunking Blue Zones data.

https://theconversation.com/the-data-on ... man-239023
I started getting interested in this topic when I debunked a couple of papers in Nature and Science about extreme ageing in the 2010s. In general, the claims about how long people are living mostly don’t stack up. I’ve tracked down 80% of the people aged over 110 in the world (the other 20% are from countries you can’t meaningfully analyse). Of those, almost none have a birth certificate. In the US there are over 500 of these people; seven have a birth certificate. Even worse, only about 10% have a death certificate.
The same goes for all the other blue zones. Eurostat keeps track of life expectancy in Sardinia, the Italian blue zone, and Ikaria in Greece. When the agency first started keeping records in 1990, Sardinia had the 51st highest old-age life expectancy in Europe out of 128 regions, and Ikaria was 109th. It’s amazing the cognitive dissonance going on. With the Greeks, by my estimates at least 72% of centenarians were dead, missing or essentially pension-fraud cases.
NPR conveniently fails to mention the term Blue Zones in their coverage of the debunking. They were responsible for popularizing the Blue Zones industry that grew from the book.

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/13/nx-s1-51 ... bel-awards

Post Reply