Here's what seems blindingly obvious to me from everything I've read: eating a balanced diet, staying fit (strength and cardio), having a healthy social life, are vital for staying healthy as you age.
Then our appetite will take care of itself, and won't require conscious - and ultimately - futile endeavour.
And eating meat's fine (from a health perspective, if not ethical necessarily). We've been eating it for a couple of millions of years.
The behaviour of ancient humans doesn't necessarily indicate what will keep us modern humans healthy into old age, though. Do we even know whether they ate meat everyday?
Personally speaking, I will generally put on too much weight if I follow my appetite and don't count calories or follow some kind of plan. That's true even if I eat "real", home-cooked food.
Humans didn’t exist millions of years ago…
Fat is not bad. We decided it was on the flimsiest of evidence and suspect "plausbility" arguments (eating fat makes you fat, obvs) and the subsequent attempts to prove the hypothesis in large scales studies have come up empty-handed.
> And it does significantly raise risks of various diseases, including cancer.
I significantly doubt that, the evidence, such that it is, is only found in highly confounded epidemiology that does not allow you to make that claim.
> If you’re going to eat it, I’d be very selective about the types and sources you consume.
Fair enough.
> Humans didn’t exist millions of years ago…
Google "how long have humans been eating meat". Not saying it's right, but it contradicts your point.
In the popular imagination we to tend blame journalism for the "one minute x causes cancer, the next minute x cures cancer" style flip-flopping, and I don't doubt some blame is due. However, the underlying science is hopelessly confounded and generates spurious small effects that are probably artefacts of the data than real effects. If this wasn't the case, how do you explain the constant self-contradiction and almost complete equivocality on every issue on these matters.
What is the causal connection you are talking about? I hope not the saturated fat, clogs the arteries, etc, etc. Everyone believed that 50 years ago, no one will in another 100 years. But persuade me; show me the unequivocal science and I'll change my mind. My understanding is that the efforts to show this effect have not worked.
↑ Saturated fats > ↑ LDL > ↑ Cardiovascular Disease
We have mendelian (genetic) studies that attest the causality of this link, ie. people who are naturally born with low LDL have less CVD. Not sure why you think this is not a compelling narrative.
The current theory is that we developed sweating and bipedal walking to be endurance hunters, i.e. running after a prey animal until it is too exhausted to run any further. Tool use and development were also driven in part by hunting (spears, atlatl, bow and arrow, skinning knives etc.). Overall humans are omnivores, as evidenced by tooth layout. Some populations still manage to live on primarily meat-based diets (Inuit), albeit with some difficulties.
The main issue is the amount of meat: Hunting was difficult and dangerous, limiting how much meat we got. Being able to eat meat every day for almost every meal is a recent development and is a major difference to prehistorical diets. Plus, factory-farmed meat is significantly different from free-range animals w.r.t fat, hormone and antibiotics content.
I'm sure there were gathering of berries and plants to fill in between the feast. I mean they were called hunter / gatherers.
Because it ignores the fact that average life expectancy was significantly less than it is today - why would you want to take stone age humans as health role models? In fact average life expectancy almost doubled globally from high 40s to high 70s only very recently - well after we stopped eating meat all the time.
If half your population dies after 60, the lucky ones, and half before 2, your average "around 30 ish" life expectancy isn't particularly predictive.
A version of that argument applies to most things you would buy at a grocery store, e.g. modern apples are a lot sweeter than what our ancestors would've been accustomed to.
Our mouths are too small for the number of teeth we have. A few million years is a lot of time in evolution, but it's still catching up with the invention of cooking.
Is that a general thing?
I was under the impression those of us from the British isles had a problem because of mixed heritage due to repeated invasion: we've managed to inherit a tendency for smaller jaws from southern influences and bigger teeth from north/west Europe.
My grandparents were farmers before farming became industrialized. If you look at how much meat they ate, it's very little compared to current generations.
Plus, what the cows and pigs ate in those days was very different than what they feed them today. I know of a farmer that raises a cow for his own consumption, and that one gets different food than all the rest. That should tell you enough already.
So the 'eat mostly plants' is very relevant for todays generation, even more so than before.
You do not need to see a doctor prior to eating kale
Your doctor is a person who uses WebMD to determine what prescription to write you as quickly as possible. Your doctor is probably unhealthy also.
But then there are the rest, which have various issues like eating crap, overweight, no sports etc. Yet they know fully darn well where it leads to. Either they make some mental bypass like smokers 'it won't happen to me', or they are at peace and enjoy themselves.
Proper knowledge of consequences is not enough to persuade everybody, regardless of their IQ. Also, even healthily folks that are say anxious go sometimes on regretful binging spree when things get tougher.
Ummmm ... maybe. I work in a medical practice, and I don't think the doctor's really have that great an understanding of nutrition. I'm not sure it's even something they study at med-school.
The problem is how to be healthier without it costing too much in terms of effort, pain, sacrifice, etc.
So it will be interesting to track progress in the population who committed to it in the next few years since I think it takes a decade or so for a diet to start exhibiting long-term health effects in a significant sample.
Anecdotally from my small group of 10 friends that I know who committed to it, 3 quit it after a few months because they couldn't give up carbs, 4 still swear by it after a few years, and 3 said that it was causing them health problems around the year mark so they gave it up.
The extreme all meat diet was called "The Atkins Diet" 20 years ago, you might have seen it mentioned on a retro rerun of a tv show.
As with most things, and certainly everything to do with diet, excercise and fashion - there is nothing actually new.
> What is a "balanced" diet?
Eating all the necessary macro and micro nutrients in bounds of callorie requirements.
> What is moderately fit?
Walk for 5km without issue. Do 10 pushups. Do 20 situps. Do 20 squats.
> What is the definition of a healthy social life?
Dont let work be your whole life. To many people free time pretty much boils down to having dinner and going to bed. Instead engage more in socializing outdoors.
Squats are often considered one of the most challenging exercises, as my physiotherapist points out. It's easy to underestimate them – I did 70 squats once and ended up straining my back.
The key to a proper squat is maintaining stable back support throughout the entire movement. This principle isn't just crucial for squats; it's fundamental for all heavy weightlifting exercises. It's also incredibly relevant to everyday tasks like doing laundry or cleaning, as these activities often involve similar lifting motions.
This concept is known as maintaining stability in the sagittal plane. However, it's equally important to focus on coronal and axial support, strength, and pain-free movement.
It's worth noting that exercises like situps and pushups, often seen as simpler, can also be performed incorrectly by beginners.
Regarding diet, it's an even more complex topic. Nutrition needs can vary greatly from person to person, and a one-size-fits-all approach is rarely effective. It's essential to consider individual differences and specific circumstances when discussing dietary advice.
The others aren't and are person dependent.
Does it? There are some things that are obvious to anyone paying attention. We can tease out details ad nauseum but what is the point in that if you can get 95% of the way there just by being sensible.
What's sensible? How many workouts per week? What kind? What food to eat? How much of each?
Good health doesn't have to be an exact science. Forgoing processed foods, forgoing too many calories, and taking a daily walk is sufficient for the average person. The questions you are asking here only matter at the extremes (professional athletes, et. al.), not to the average person.
But have it your way in the mire of pedantry you've carved out for yourself.
and sleep
can reduce cancer / heart disease / stroke / lung disease / early death / every other known ailment risk by X0%
Perhaps getting fit and eating right lead to more regular ejaculations by more easily encountering sexual partners ?
You gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers in this racket.
[0] https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.104...
This is almost always omitted when it comes to health advice I feel it is one of the most important factors. Loneliness kills!
Does a balanced diet include fast food? How much ultra-processed food? How many carbs? Do we need to change the above answers with age or when someone is diabetic or has high blood pressure?
Thus, even though almost everyone will agree with the balanced diet statement from the outset, what constitutes a balanced diet will yield a diversity of answers.
There seems to be some confusion here. "Balanced" means balanced in terms of micro and macro-nutrients that the body needs. Not balanced in the ratios of ultra-processed junk food and healthy food.
Your interpretation is yours but how would your interpretation account for research on ultra processed food.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed...
The answer to that is simple: No.
A balanced diet is a healthy mix of essential nutrients. Highly processes foods rich in fat or sugar are not part of it [1]. Most advisories merely acknowledge that a large part of the population doesn't want to stop eating this stuff completely. But the real goal should always be zero.
[1] https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-guidelines-and-fo...
Thus leading to my initial point, a balanced and healthy diet are too ambiguous.
> The Eatwell Guide shows how much of what we eat overall should come from each food group to achieve a healthy, balanced diet.
> You do not need to achieve this balance with every meal, but try to get the balance right over a day or even a week.
It does if you know what you are looking for. "Highly processed" is not strictly well defined, but commonly understood as foods with large amounts of added salt, fat and sugar. That's exactly the category of food they talk about in the article as unnecessary for our diet and which should be consumed as little as possible.
> The answer to that is simple: No
Registered healthcare professionals - dietitians - disagree with you, and do so pretty strongly.
* eat as little and never drink: sugar, alcohol
* seek: stuff that feeds you and your gut biome and doesn't cause diarrhea (aka avoid ultra-processed food)
* bonus: at least once a week: fish, salad, nuts, fruits
Sure, thats not nuanced. But the message is simple: If you eat/drink sugar, alcohol or processed foods, then your body will degrade faster and your biological organism will run on pain, inflammation and fatigue.
i thought you want to eat nuts and fruits daily?
omg shut up, this sort of contrarian semantic shit doesn't make you look smart like you intend. everybody knows that fast food isn't a good component of diet. everybody knows how they can improve their very unique and individualized diet. it's like telling a smoker that cigarettes are bad for you.
Some call a balanced diet 80% healthy and 20% unhealthy.
For example the link below is saying that fastfood could be part of a healthy diet.
https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/fast_food_can_be_healthy
Edit: Healthy/balanced those terms are quite loaded are not specified as such we could both agree that healthy and balanced diet is good. Yet both us could have a wildy different interpretations on what that would entail.
The goal was to start a discussion and get different viewpoints. And they could all be true.
My hypothesis is that stress is the real killed. This might be survivorship bias, but I often see people that are above average old, smoking. That's why I think that perhaps the reduction of stress that smoking provides, could be more beneficial than the negative side. We do know that nicotine does have a neuroprotective effect and smoking does include a specific way of breathing.
I'm not saying smoking is good or that anyone should smoke. But I do think it's worth investigating.
I personally try to avoid stress whenever possible, of course, within reason.
it's quite a sample bias, because those who you see smoking are likely quite healthy and thus is _able_ to smoke to old age (or won a genetic lottery to be able to withstand smoking).
What you need to count is how many people smoke, and then the % of them dying earlier than those who don't. Otherwise, sample bias will give you the wrong conclusions, esp. if this bias is affirming your own world view.
> Those who you see exercising are likely quite healthy and thus _able_ to exercise to old age (or won a genetic lottery to be able to withstand a lot of exercising).
> What you need to count is how many people try to exercise, and then the % of them dying earlier than those who don't
TLDW; the curve of risk/mortality vs amount of exercise is a u-shaped curve, which means if you _don't_ exercise, you also die earlier, and if exercised _too much_ , you also die earlier.
The more control you can exert over your response, the better.