101–110 of 242 posts
I suspect the reason is simple - we distrust shellfish preparation, and take extra care.
With salads ... I mean yesterday I tipped a bag of salad into a bowl, stuck some dressing on an ate it.
Either salad bag makers are going to go the extra mile with "Washed in frozen nitrogen by astronauts for your safety" or the industry is dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just keep in mind that epidemiology is fundamentally not able to tell you anything about positive causation. In this case, individuals who eat more that 5 servings of fruits and vegetables probably also exhibit a whole host of behaviors that contribute to this outcome. Essentially, they are not a representative sample of the population at large, but rather a sub-group who is "healthful" in a whole bunch of ways.
I fully concede this (and jacobolus's) point. I'm not a health researcher either, so don't take my word for any of this. Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard. Some clinical studies do exist, but they are usually looking over shorter terms and at heart disease risk factors rather than mortality. These show simil…
But it is the only diet research that can actually generate knowledge.
The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies that measured outcomes after 6-8 weeks. If you assume an average lifespan of 70 years, the longest study represented ~1/450th of a human lifespan. And, as you mention, they only measure what we think are valid indicators, not actual outcomes! And the third study may control for all of the things you mention, but it doesn't control for the other foods the study participants ate!
Really the only piece of information that you need to know regarding red meat is that public health messaging for the last 50 years has been that people should limit red meat intake. And it was successful. According to this[0], red meat consumption has decreased from 133lbs per person in 1965 to 107lbs per person in 2016. But it is during this exact same time period that the obesity epidemic came into existence. So, perhaps red meat is marginally bad for you, but it is almost certainly not cause of all of the various afflictions that we think are caused in some way by our diets.
[0]: https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/st...
Keep things in perspective though. That article mentions 3,000 people per year die from food poisoning, and leafy vegetables are the cause of 1/4 of that, or 750 deaths/year. However, heart disease alone causes 610,000 deaths per year ( https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm ). "Individuals who ate more than 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per had roughly a 20 percent lower risk of coronary heart disease" ( h…
The safety heuristics cant be delegated to a larger system as one doesn't exists so individual households maintain this knowledge and many of them turn into habitual preference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just cook your leafy vegetables so both risks are reduced.
Honestly, whatever form of cooking gets you to eat them is probably the best preparation. Some nutrients in some vegetables are diminished by cooking ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-3841... for example). Some are also enhanced. For example: lycopene from tomatoes. Overall, it seemed to me that cooking often harms nutrition more than it helps.
It's not clear that this is relevant to heart disease. Vitamin C, for example, is degraded by heat, but has no role in preventing heart disease. "Antioxidants" is the smoke signal of the woo practitioner.
>Overall, it seemed to me that cooking often harms nutrition more than it helps.
This is such a common and annoying myth that I need to call it out as such. Humans literally evolved to eat cooked food.
http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_142929513.pdf
http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/10/19/sqb.2009...
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/16498
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/12770
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
Also, lycopene is not a "nutrient".
Hydroponic lettuce is simply the easiest thing I've grown. I'm surprised I don't see it mentioned more often. I bought an Agrobrite 4 bulb T5 light on Amazon that runs 216watts. The math works out to $15/month if running 16 hours a day. It takes about 2-3 weeks for the 9 seeds to start, but I was swimming in lettuce in no time. It tastes excellent too. Search for Jeb Gardner on youtube for some entertaining lettuce v…
It's mixed type greens, mustards, lettuce etc. Cut when leaves are about the size of the business part of a spoon. Cut it so it comes back and you can get 3 or 4 cuttings per planting. Plant it successively (i.e every week or two plant another section) so it's constantly available.
Faster to harvest, more sustained harvest, and it tastes better than lettuce because you can put little greens like collards and arugula in the mix. Indoors you'd avoid the insect troubles that plague these tiny greens outside as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet most of these products have a label that explicitly says "Ready to eat!".
It likely means they don't need to be cooked and not that they don't need to be washed. We don't wash strawberries we pick, but we wash those that we buy (even if they are ready to eat).
Of course, it is intended to mislead. People see "triple washed", the bag is sealed, they think they are getting convenience and safety, but they are not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully concede this (and jacobolus's) point. I'm not a health researcher either, so don't take my word for any of this. Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard. Some clinical studies do exist, but they are usually looking over shorter terms and at heart disease risk factors rather than mortality. These show simil…
> Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard. But it is the only diet research that can actually generate knowledge. The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies that measured outcomes after 6-8 weeks . If you assume an average lifespan of 70 years, the longest study represented ~1/450th o…
Red meat consumption is on the rise: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/have-a-me...
Keep things in perspective though. That article mentions 3,000 people per year die from food poisoning, and leafy vegetables are the cause of 1/4 of that, or 750 deaths/year. However, heart disease alone causes 610,000 deaths per year ( https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm ). "Individuals who ate more than 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per had roughly a 20 percent lower risk of coronary heart disease" ( h…
Just keep in mind that epidemiology is fundamentally not able to tell you anything about positive causation. In this case, individuals who eat more that 5 servings of fruits and vegetables probably also exhibit a whole host of behaviors that contribute to this outcome. Essentially, they are not a representative sample of the population at large, but rather a sub-group who is "healthful" in a whole bunch of ways.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
There are many other short term studies that support this fully. You may not want to believe red meat consumption is indicative of negative health indicators, but most notable cardiologists in the field fully support the position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully concede this (and jacobolus's) point. I'm not a health researcher either, so don't take my word for any of this. Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard. Some clinical studies do exist, but they are usually looking over shorter terms and at heart disease risk factors rather than mortality. These show simil…
> Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard. But it is the only diet research that can actually generate knowledge. The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies that measured outcomes after 6-8 weeks . If you assume an average lifespan of 70 years, the longest study represented ~1/450th o…
> The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies that measured outcomes after 6-8 weeks. If you assume an average lifespan of 70 years, the longest study represented ~1/450th of a human lifespan. And, as you mention, they only measure what we think are valid indicators, not actual outcomes! And the third study may control for all of the things you mention, but it doesn't control for the other foods the study participants ate!
I fully agree with everything you wrote about the science here.
However, many of the epidemiological studies are over very large populations and time periods, so it's not as though the body of evidence consists of a 6-8 week studies. And honestly the fact that the effects are so strong in such a short period of time strengthen the argument in some ways.
> Really the only piece of information that you need to know regarding red meat is that public health messaging for the last 50 years has been that people should limit red meat intake. And it was successful. According to this, red meat consumption has decreased from 133lbs per person in 1965 to 107lbs per person in 2016. But it is during this exact same time period that the obesity epidemic came into existence. So, perhaps red meat is marginally bad for you, but it is almost certainly not cause of all of the various afflictions that we think are caused in some way by our diets.
Interesting response. I never claimed that meat was bad, only that leafy vegetables were good. I find it almost incredible that your argument against the nutritional value of leafy vegetables is that there aren't enough double blind clinical trials, and then your defense of red meat uses a time correlation that doesn't adjust for any confounding variables at all. It also cites a document from an meat industry group. If you look at USDA numbers (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per...), overall meat consumption has been consistently and slowly rising, however beef is being replaced with chicken, so yes red meat consumption is declining.