Slashdot Mirror


The World's Leading Cause of Death? A Bad Diet (nbc12.com)

An anonymous reader writes: "A bad diet kills more people globally than tobacco," reports Bloomberg, citing a new study funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and published Wednesday in Lancet. The study argues that poor diets led to 11 million deaths in 2017 -- and that more than half of them were caused by just three main dietary factors: low consumption of whole grains, low consumption of fruits, and high intake of sodium.

In fact, bad diets are responsible for more deaths worldwide than any other cause, the researchers concluded. "We found that improvement of diet could potentially prevent one in every five deaths globally."

102 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you eat "whole grains", the body just sees a bunch of sugar.

    If you eat "fruits", the body just sees a bunch of sugar—the worst kind, in fact: fructose.

    Modern Humans didn't evolve on a diet of whole grains or fruits; they at meat and fat. Fat (oil) is the natural energy source for the body, with sugar being a sometime alternative, or required in only very small amounts in the form of glucose (which can be derived from meat protein via gluconeogenesis).

    Meat. Fat. Water. Minerals (including salt).

    That's the proper diet. The Powers that Be are trying to kill you, and they're trying to prop up existing government-subsidized industries.

    1. Re:Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      sugar it is the number killer! end of story.

    2. Re:Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > That's the proper diet
      Bullshit. There's all kinds of conflicting data. Nobody knows what's best. Yes, industry perverted the food pyramid, etc. We know some things are terrible, like megadosing fructose. But meat isn't all roses. Red meat is shown to increase cancer risk... do some research on Neu5Gc. Funny how if we evolved to eat red meat, but we don't have Neu5Gc like most other animals, so have inflammatory responses to it.

      The Mediterranean diet has been shown to be very healthy,,, and it's largely plant-based, looking nothing like what you describe above. .... it's ok though, go back to beating your chest about being a proud meat eater, indifferent to the environmental degradation and animal suffering it causes, and enjoy the colon cancer.

    3. Re:Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you eat "whole grains", the body just sees a bunch of sugar.
      If you eat "fruits", the body just sees a bunch of sugar—the worst kind, in fact: fructose.

      Not quite... You might find this interesting: Sugar: The Bitter Truth (90min)

      Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin.

      The video is a university lecture describing fructose metabolism in great detail and how it's similar to that of alcohol metabolism, without the self-limiting effects of alcohol consumption, and it's affects on blood lipids and fatty liver, etc... Basically, sugar bound up with fiber is (way) less destructive than sugar alone -- i.e., Apple/Orange okay, Apple/Orange Juice not okay.

      In addition, fructose can *only* be metabolized by the liver whereas glucose can be metabolized by every cell in the body. Sugar itself isn't necessarily bad and it's more about what how much, what type and how it's processed and how fast it's processed by the body.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      The Mediterranean diet has been shown to be very healthy,,, and it's largely plant-based
      No, it is not ... they eat beef, pork, lamb ... depending where you are lots of pork and lamb, or lots of beef and lamb ... but they also eat fish. The main difference is pasta, and olive oil and a healthy dose of fish, small breakfast (yes, opposing all other ideas about eating), long lunch and long siesta after lunch, and late evening dinner (yes, opposing all other ideas when and how to eat, and how much).
      Of course, depending where you are, you also have the occasional tapas during the course of the day ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong because the fibre is what makes the difference.

      Modern Humans didn't evolve on a diet of whole grains or fruits

      Of course they did, what a daft thing to say, you think man passed up the opportunity to eat fruit whenever it presented itself?

      What's easier, pluck fruits and eat them or chase some animal around? Do man's teeth look like that of other carnivores?

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    6. Re:Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let's cut to the chase, it is not about what they are eating, it is about what they are not eating. The problem is cheap, crappy junk food, of low nutritional value but loaded up with addictive additives, with total disinterest in health outcomes, profits first. Remember kiddies according to US corporations and the US government, ketchup is a vegetable.

      The worlds leading cause of early death, not food, Junk Food Corporations are the world leading cause of early death, through greed driven indifference.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re: Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go eat a stick. Mediterranean diet is not plant based. Most of the nutrients and calories come from dairy and fish. How do I know it? That's where I'm from.

    8. Re: Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget vegetables. Many illnesses could be prevented by eating greens and root veggies, among others. But you're right, while whole grains (assuming organic non-GMO) are possibly better for you than refined ones, grains can be harmful, especially in quantity, as the starches quickly convert to sugars and the lectins in them can cause gut disorders and inflammation. That food pyramid was bought and paid for by giant agribusiness.

    9. Re:Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Modern Humans didn't evolve on a diet of whole grains or fruits

      Sure we did. In the short term you can see our life expectancy steadily increasing over many years. Compare the health of the modern human to the health of the old at their equivalent life expectancy.

      Mind you it sounds like you're complaining about the latest health issues. The reality is that humans have been eating whole grains and fruits for thousands of year.

    10. Re:Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Your link is wrong ... but who cares.
      Why don't you not just travel there a bit :P

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re: Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by Beowulf878 · · Score: 1

      This is definitely absolute rubbish. You will notice that we are all born and all going to die - it's just a matter of when and how. Even in Western Europe within living memory a lot of people starved to death during the second world war but that sort of consideration never makes it into these reviews...

    12. Re: Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

      Nope. We evolved eating nuts. Try again dumbass.

    13. Re:Wrong. Sugar is bad, mkay? by sad_ · · Score: 1

      If you eat "whole grains", the body just sees a bunch of sugar.

      ofcourse, sugar is the bodies fuel & protiens are the building blocks. your brain and muscles run on sugar.
      people should stop their fear of sugar, it just depends on what type of sugar you take in.

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  2. correlation by religionofpeas · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's just a correlation, and on top of that, the numbers are distorted by amount of medical care.

    I really doubt that high sodium is the biggest killer, for example.

    1. Re:correlation by Tranzistors · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On one hand we have study in the Lancet, on the other we have:

      I really doubt that high sodium is the biggest killer, for example.

      I mean, both sides are equally valuable.

    2. Re:correlation by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The longest lifespans are in Japan.

      The highest sodium consumption is in Japan.

      In many other countries, the source of high consumption of sodium is processed foods.

      Consumption of large percentages of diet from processed foods is understood to reduce lifespan.

      I don't know why it isn't more obvious to people that sodium is a confounding variable, not a causal one.

    3. Re: correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the Lancet published Ancel Keys' crappy studies, so there's that.

    4. Re:correlation by religionofpeas · · Score: 1, Troll

      I mean, both sides are equally valuable.

      Agreed. The Lancet study is crap.

      But at least red meat is declared completely safe, so there's that.

    5. Re:correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      FTA: "To reflect the uncertainty of optimal level of intake, we assumed a uniform uncertainty distribution of 20% above and below the mean. [13] For sodium, the evidence supporting the selection of the optimal level of intake was uncertain."

      but later

      FTA:"A small number of dietary risks had a large impact on health outcomes. In 2017, more than half of diet-related deaths and two-thirds of diet-related DALYs [disability-adjusted life-years] were attributable to high intake of sodium (3 million [95% UI 1–5] deaths and 70 million [34–118] DALYs)

      From the WHO: One DALY can be thought of as one lost year of "healthy" life. The sum of these DALYs across the population, or the burden of disease, can be thought of as a measurement of the gap between current health status and an ideal health situation where the entire population lives to an advanced age, free of disease and disability.

    6. Re:correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know why it isn't more obvious to people that sodium is a confounding variable, not a causal one.

      It breaks my heart, because my dad, at 59, just had a stroke (first one). It wasn't a bad stroke, and he is fine. However, now he has to listen to the doctors. And, I just know they aren't giving him a good diet for his heart. They just don't know any better. Drink lots of nutrasweet? No problem. Better stop eating eggs...

    7. Re:correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Processed food peddlers aren't interested in making unprocessed food. Thus fat, salt, etc. get scapegoated.

    8. Re:correlation by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      Artificial sugar is a whole topic in itself, but there's no evidence that it's bad for the heart or increases the risk of stroke. Obesity, high blood pressure, uncontrolled diabetes, and high cholesterol absolutely do though.

      In all reality, there are just a handful of things that get you 95% of the way to optimal health and everything else is tweaking. Those are, in no particular order:

      - Maintain a healthy weight
      - Live an active lifestyle that includes regular cardio and strength training
      - Eat 4+ servings of vegetables and fruits a day
      - Don't smoke
      - Drink alcohol no more than occasionally and no more than 2 at a time

      This goes out the window a little if you have a medical condition. For example, people with CHF and hypertension need to do additional things like strictly control sodium intake, people with celiac disease need to abstain from gluten, people with diabetes need to be more strict about their carb intake, etc.

    9. Re:correlation by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The longest lifespans are in Japan.

      The highest sodium consumption is in Japan.

      In many other countries, the source of high consumption of sodium is processed foods.

      Consumption of large percentages of diet from processed foods is understood to reduce lifespan.

      I don't know why it isn't more obvious to people that sodium is a confounding variable, not a causal one.

      I'm not a doctor or nutritionist, but I think the problem with sodium is it causes health issues for people who are already in poor health.

      For instance, one of the things sodium does is raise your blood pressure, and too high a blood pressure damages your organs over time. And that sodium also needs to be filtered out by your kidneys, which places extra strain on them and can cause additional kidney damage.

      So, if you have low blood pressure and healthy kidneys, like many Japanese do, then sodium probably isn't a problem. But if you have bad kidneys and high blood pressure, like many westerners do, than excess sodium can make your current health issues a lot worse.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    10. Re: correlation by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed.

      Also this doesnt prevent death, the cause just moves to another category when a person dies. Everyone dies after all.

      And in my view the people that live longer don't necessarily live happier lives overall. I'd rather eat what works for me and live however long I live.

      You're focusing on the wrong thing.

      It's not about the choice between a long life and a short life.

      It's about the choice between a healthy life and a sickly life.

      It's not hard to tell which life will be happier.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    11. Re:correlation by DanielTanner · · Score: 1

      I could do my own study and determine that water is the biggest cause of death the world has ever known:

      1. 100% of all people exposed to water will die.
      2. Water is the leading cause of drowning.
      3. Water is one of the primary ingredients in herbicides and pesticides.
      4. 100% of all serial killers, rapists and drug dealers have admitted to drinking water.
      5. Water can be chemically synthesized by burning rocket fuel.
      6. 100% of all dead people have had some interaction with water at some point in their lives.

      I always wondered how they did studies like this. Do they wait until the person dies then bring them back to life to see if they would live longer another way? Everyone dies in their own time so how do they determine that this death was premature caused by whatever? Do studies like this include healthy eaters that are killed in war? That would certainly bring the statistical numbers down.

    12. Re:correlation by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Most people eat to much sodium ... and it is a main cause for high blood pressure.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:correlation by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The highest sodium consumption is in Japan.
      How do you come to that idea? They don't but salt pots on tables in Japan ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re: correlation by quantaman · · Score: 1

      For me, living a life of fruits and veggies is suffering. Eating tasty, satisfying meats is fulfilling. I'm healthy not sickly based on my regular physicals and blood tests. So what works for me is what I'm doing.

      Well then this doesn't concern you. The major symptom of a bad diet is obesity, if you're not suffering that effect then you're current diet is probably fine.

      But the recommendations didn't say anything about becoming a vegetarian. The only thing you apparently have a problem with is the fruits, but are oranges, mangoes, and strawberries really the definition of suffering?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    15. Re:correlation by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      There are a small number of people with high blood pressure who are really sensitive to sodium. When those people eat a teaspoon of salt, their blood pressure goes up over 15 points. Those people need to avoid sodium, eating it might kill them.

      The vast majority of people who have high blood pressure do not have that response. Their blood pressure only goes up about 2 points from eating a spoon of salt. A 2 point change in blood pressure does not correlate with worse outcomes. It seems to not be enough to matter.

      So the whole blood pressure/salt thing is mostly a lie that is designed to protect a small percentage of patients. I had an RN call me a murderer once for pointing that out, because poor people might not have health care and so they want to lie to everybody about the details so everybody is scared of salt. Crazy stuff.

      They're weird in general about high blood pressure. They know that lowering your BP by 2 points does nothing at all to improve medical outcomes, but they still insist that if a medicine lowers your BP by 2 points, you "need" to take it. Probably for the rest of your life. Whereas really the clinical data says that if they don't lower it by at least 5 points they didn't do shit, and 5 points is in the "barely shit" category. 2 points is "no benefit." And yet, still potential side effects from the medicine. If they had any sense they would recognize ineffective medicine as potentially harmful and discontinue it.

      The reality with high blood pressure is that if you get enough exercise, medical outcomes are much better. And that is independent of if the exercise actually lowers the patient's BP!

    16. Re:correlation by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Look, no. I didn't "come to that idea." It isn't an idea, and I didn't collect the data either.

      Just, no. Stop being credulous of ideas. Look it the fuck up.

      And furthermore, salt shakers are very very rarely a source of excess sodium. The sodium is in your cheesy poofs, it is in your potato chips, it is every food in a western supermarket designed to be cooked in a microwave, etc., etc. Salt shakers put the sodium right on the surface of the food, where it touches your tongue directly. It only takes a little bit to taste excessively salty. If none of your foods had any added sodium at all, and you dumped lots and lots of salt from the shaker onto every meal, you'd be unlikely to exceed the recommended limit.

      Also the processed food has added sweeteners. Because it increases taste-based salt tolerance to mix them. That's why you find so many stupid idiots with really high sodium consumption, who are all like, "I never really eat anything salty. I don't even own a salt shaker."

      I can add more salt to sushi by dipping it in soy sauce than would ever taste good to sprinkle on it.

      And a lot of Japanese desserts are savory, eg., salty.

      Have you ever actually eaten miso soup? It has more salt than yeast! 1 bowl puts you close to the US daily recommendation.

      You're unlikely to even find seaweed salad that isn't salted before packing, for quality. Including the frozen stuff.

    17. Re:correlation by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I eat regularly Japanese food. Except perhaps YOUR miso soup, there is nothing particular salty in the typical dishes.

      Obviously if you eat a salad made from kelp or other sea plants you get more salt.

      As you pointed out processed food often contains to much salt, especially in countries with no regulations on that.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:correlation by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > The longest lifespans are in Japan.

      Specifically, the traditional Okinawa diet. This diet is very low in any kind of animal product, or processed food. I doubt there is any dairy.

      I am not sure about the sodium content of that diet.

    19. Re:correlation by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      How do you come to that idea? They don't but salt pots on tables in Japan ...

      No, but they do "but" a bottle of soya sauce (very salty) on every table.
      And it is heavily used.

    20. Re:correlation by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You're saying a different thing.

      Okinawa is a small part of Japan. Japan as a whole has the longest lifespans in the world. Not just on Okinawa too, but also in the places where the rest of the people live.

      The specific stuff you read about Okinawa and their traditional diet is not going to be the same thing people are talking about when they talk about Japan overall.

    21. Re:correlation by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I only buy traditional organic red miso from Japan, I do not make my own miso. Salt is not going to be the last ingredient. That's a fact.

      If you were eating home made Japanese miso, it is highly likely that it would have even more salt.

      If you're not eating any seaweed salad, I'm not going to be convinced you're eating a Japanese diet. Maybe you merely eat at a Japanese restaurant once in awhile.

      Salt is main preservative in Japanese foods like miso paste. If it didn't have salt, it would not even exist as a food. You don't have miso soup without first having miso paste. It is salty. Maybe your restaurant just serves you really weak, watery miso? With no seaweed?!?!

      It may be that the only Japanese food without salt is green tea.

  3. Timing matters, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'll add that you should be eating fewer meals a day, too.

    Digestion is a dirty, industrial process. You want there to be ample time for your body build up and then tear down that process, and clear away the inflammatory byproducts; at night, when you're sleeping, you want your body putting energy into rebuilding, not digesting.

    So, eat at most 2 meals a day, mostly in the middle of the day (e.g., a late lunch and/or and early dinner), and then fast until meal-time the next day; if you're powering yourself by fat rather than by sugar (and thereby keeping your insulin levels relatively low), you'll find that you're never really hungry, anyway.

    That's what makes sense for a human: Eating basic food that is readily available in animals, and not being hungry the rest of the time.

  4. I don't think so... by qzzpjs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The correct answer is time. Doesn't matter what you eat, you're not going to escape it...

    1. Re:I don't think so... by qzzpjs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm saying that everyone is going to die some day. It doesn't matter what you eat, how you exercise, etc. You could be the healthiest eater in the world and you're still going to die at some point. You might last a few more years than others but you're not going to stop it by changing your diet.

      Articles like this try and give you the idea that if you do this or that, you're going to prevent your death. This one actually says a better diet will prevent 1 in 5 deaths globally. I'm pretty sure all 5 out of 5 are going to die at some point. It's just a matter of time.

      Maybe if the article gave a chart of life expectencies of people based on diets or lifestyles it might be more accurate. But claiming that your death will be prevented is just wrong.

    2. Re:I don't think so... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      "prevent one in every five deaths" meaning eat well and be immortal?

      So many issues with this...

    3. Re:I don't think so... by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      No! Read the article, there's this quote:

      "We found that improvement of diet could potentially prevent one in every five deaths globally."

      All you need to do is change your diet and your death will be prevented! If you're one of the lucky five, I guess.

      (Seriously, it's hard to trust the statistics ability of a researcher who is that fuzzy with their language.)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:I don't think so... by fazig · · Score: 1

      They way you phrased it here it's akin to saying that our sun will eventually turn into a red giant and kill all life on our planet. So do whatever here on Earth, I guess.
      To most of us time frames still matter.

      For example based on my current enjoyment of life and the prospect of staying mentally healthy, I'd much rather live to see my 80th birthday and die by the cause of "time", than to kick it at 50 because of some cardiopulmonary disease or diabetes.

    5. Re:I don't think so... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I agree. Nobody should seriously talk about saving lives or preventing death. The most that you can ever hope to accomplish is to delay death a little longer.

      The only truly meaningful things to consider are the expected change in life expectancy, and in quality of life.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:I don't think so... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The correct answer is time. Doesn't matter what you eat, you're not going to escape it...

      Or breathing. Every single person who has ever died was an habitual breather.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re:I don't think so... by fazig · · Score: 1

      Thanks to the definition of "death" and rhetoric you can just say that the primary cause of death is life itself.
      Or like some of my more cynical cohorts like to say and being the title of an eastern European drama: "Life as a Fatal Sexually Transmitted Disease".

  5. Seems questionable .... by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean -- even if I happily accept that a poor diet is the leading cause of premature death? They claim that low consumption of fruits is one of the major problems. One of the first things I hear from dieticians trying to solve obesity problems is to curb one's intake of fruit juices, because they contain so much natural sugar and calories.

    I'm sure the fruits themselves are better for you than drinking fruit juice ... but even so? What part of a balanced diet is so contingent on eating fruit? It seems to me you could get most of the same vitamin and mineral benefits from a good selection of vegetables - not to mention all the "vitamin fortified" products out there like our cereals.

    1. Re:Seems questionable .... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      One of the first things I hear from dieticians trying to solve obesity problems is to curb one's intake of fruit juices

      There's a dramatic difference between fruit and fruit juice.

      I'm sure the fruits themselves are better for you than drinking fruit juice

      They aren't even comparable.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Seems questionable .... by Can'tNot · · Score: 1

      We tend to look at diets in terms of excluding bad foods, so when they talk about eating more of something it might help to consider what that replaces. So in other words, if you're eating more fruit then you're eating that instead of something else. Other than vegetables, there aren't many foods which are less calorie dense than fruit. Meaning that eating more fruit would likely result in eating fewer calories in total. Almost any baked goods, pastas, meats, and such are all more calorie dense than most fruit. Exceptions for dried fruit, and possibly bananas.

      You stay away from fruit juices because you lose all the fiber that way, and the fiber helps make you feel full. Also, you can absentmindedly drink an awful lot.

    3. Re:Seems questionable .... by Can'tNot · · Score: 1

      This post aggravates me, there are too many short sentences.

    4. Re:Seems questionable .... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I mean -- even if I happily accept that a poor diet is the leading cause of premature death? They claim that low consumption of fruits is one of the major problems. One of the first things I hear from dieticians trying to solve obesity problems is to curb one's intake of fruit juices, because they contain so much natural sugar and calories.

      Fruit juice is basically just flavoured sugar water, it's better than pop, but not much.

      The fruits themselves also have a lot of fibre and other pulpy bits that don't really juice that well. This is what makes a fruit so much more satiating than a fruit juice.

      I'm sure the fruits themselves are better for you than drinking fruit juice ... but even so? What part of a balanced diet is so contingent on eating fruit? It seems to me you could get most of the same vitamin and mineral benefits from a good selection of vegetables - not to mention all the "vitamin fortified" products out there like our cereals.

      The benefit of all those vitamins is probably overblown, we generally get all the vitamins we need from our diet.

      The advantage of fruits is they're tastier than vegetables but still pretty healthy. Is it healthier to snack on a carrot instead of an orange? Probably. But you might actually snack on an orange. If you plan to only snack on raw carrotes you're more likely to grab a chocolate bar.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:Seems questionable .... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      They claim that low consumption of fruits is one of the major problems. One of the first things I hear from dieticians trying to solve obesity problems is to curb one's intake of fruit juices, because they contain so much natural sugar and calories.

      Do you ever juice? Fruits contain sugar and many contain lots of fiber and healthy vitamins as well. Now go sit at the dinner table and eat 5 apples at once. Hard to do right? Filling fiber prevents you from over indulging on concentrated sugars. It takes 5 apples to fill up that glass when you put it in a juicer...

      Fruit juice if not diluted or drank with a balanced meal including something with fibre is actually quite bad for you. Whole fruits on the other hand are quite healthy.

      Now depending on the vegetable you're in a better position. You juice a water melon you're not drinking much more than you're eating. Same with cucumber. However carrot juice... again, a whole bunch of carrots in each glass combined with high levels of sugar and low water content.

  6. Re: Sounds like propaganda to me... by Edward+Nardella · · Score: 2

    My grandmother smoked a pack a day since she was 14 and lived to be a hundred, guess everyone should start smoking.

    --
    My sig doesn't address Anons, sigs aren't visible to them.
  7. Re: Did starting to smoke make her healthier? by Edward+Nardella · · Score: 1

    Actually it isn't, it is just a fancy way to say "your use of anecdotal evidence is flawed".

    --
    My sig doesn't address Anons, sigs aren't visible to them.
  8. Re:So? We need more people to die! by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    America wasn't one of the countries in the "bad" zones. Proper health care and moderate consumption of all foods is needed. Obese people die a few years earlier than normal, or slightly overweight ones. They commit suicide by food.

  9. Re:56 million aborted babies might disagree. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    No, pretty sure that they don't disagree. They haven't even read the study.

  10. Malnution leading cause of diet caused deaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The leading cause of death due to diet is malnutrition
    1 in every 6 people on Earth don’t get enough food to live a healthy life. 36 million/yr people will die of hunger!
    http://www.theworldcounts.com/counters/global_hunger_statistics/how_many_people_die_from_hunger_each_year

  11. What a convincing rebuttal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You must have been the captain of the debate team.

  12. Better list? by markdavis · · Score: 2

    >"more than half of them were caused by just three main dietary factors: low consumption of whole grains, low consumption of fruits, and high intake of sodium."

    Interesting. Because from everything I have learned, those would not be the main three, especially as presented. I would say my top 5 issues, at least with the typical American diet, would be:

    1) High consumption of simple carbohydrates (especially sugar)
    2) High consumption of fried and overly processed foods
    3) Low consumption of whole grains and fiber-rich foods
    4) Low consumption of a variety of fresh vegetables
    5) Over-consumption, in general (too many calories)

    Fruit can be a good part of a varied diet (if in moderation, and WHOLE, not processed, and certainly not juice) but that wouldn't even make my "most important" list. Nor would sodium.

    1. Re:Better list? by captbollocks · · Score: 1

      If you ate just fruit you would kill those 5, except for the vegetables bullet point. Good luck with trying to consume too many calories by eating fruit alone.

    2. Re:Better list? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"If you ate just fruit you would kill those 5, except for the vegetables bullet point. Good luck with trying to consume too many calories by eating fruit alone."

      Most fruit is full of fructose- a simple sugar/carbohydrate. In moderation, that is fine, since it is partially regulated by the fiber and pectin in whole fruit. But if you "ate just fruit" you would be very malnourished from lack of proteins and other important nutrients not available in fruit. (I don't think you meant exactly what you wrote, or it can be read in more ways that you expected :) ).

      In my list, I was pointing out low consumption of fruit in a diet is probably not terribly important compared to the other 5 things I mentioned, certainly not in a "top 3" list.

    3. Re:Better list? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Fruit can be a good part of a varied diet (if in moderation, and WHOLE, not processed, and certainly not juice) but that wouldn't even make my "most important" list. Nor would sodium.

      If your assumptions contradict research, you should seriously reconsider your assumptions.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Better list? by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

      Every one of your points pales in comparison to the last, over consumption of kcal. Being overweight or obese is reversing the life expectancy in the US severely.

  13. Did they say that smoking is not as bad as eating? by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 1

    I have a hard time believing that smoking a pack-a-day is less bad than having white bread every day, even white bread with a McPatty on it. I think they said that bad diet kills more people than smoking, which might be true, but for an individual I'm pretty sure tobacco smoke is worse.

  14. Re: Dude. He literally capitalized "FOR ME". by Edward+Nardella · · Score: 1

    Oh okay, the post was off topic then.

    --
    My sig doesn't address Anons, sigs aren't visible to them.
  15. All you need is .... by captbollocks · · Score: 1

    Potatoes and milk. Potatoes have everything except vit. D & E I think, and milk has those, potatoes have everything else.

  16. Re:Did they say that smoking is not as bad as eati by captbollocks · · Score: 1

    everyone eats, not everyone smokes.

  17. That should be âoedeferâ, not âoepr by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

    Unless diet is waaaaay more powerful than previously studied:
    We found that improvement of diet could potentially prevent one in every five deaths globally.
    Should be:
    We found that improvement of diet could potentially DEFER one in every five deaths globally.

  18. Eating healthy and exercise are TOO HARD by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most people would rather have a limb amputated rather than exercise regularly, just like most people won't keep track of what they eat or how many calories it is because if they knew how bad they were screwiing up they'd feel guilty for eating all that shitty food -- and they'd rather stay in denial so they can keep eating things they like, and screw what happens to them later. Broken cookies have no calories, LOL! Then add food companies and fast food into the mix and you get people addicted to cheap shitty unhealthy food that is designed to be addictive so you buy more and more of it, and healthy food in comparison tastes like shit to them because it's not full of sugar and fat.

    1. Re:Eating healthy and exercise are TOO HARD by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Most people would rather have a limb amputated rather than exercise regularly

      I'd just do anything to lose weight -- except diet and exercise.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    2. Re:Eating healthy and exercise are TOO HARD by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

      addictive

      Its not addictive.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

    3. Re:Eating healthy and exercise are TOO HARD by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You've massively missed the point on a social level.

      Overwork + burnout in the west lead to lack of suitable exercise. Lack of facilities and city design that emphasis driving a car 100m down the road because of a lack of footpath contribute as well. People wouldn't rather amputate their limb, they necessarily work their assess off and then lack the motivation to do anything. You don't need need to go to crossfit every day to stay fit either.

      Likewise you missed the point on food. In countries where obesity and heart disease are prevalent the main problem is lack of access to healthy food. People aren't addicted to horribly tasting shit, they just can't find anything else in the supermarket. You can see these stark differences in supermarket layout between countries where people are generally healthy and where people aren't. The food desert is a real thing and there's a reason why wealthier people eat healthier meals in the USA, a trend that generally doesn't exist in Western Europe.

  19. Um, lots of folks enjoy excersise by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    when they're not working 50+ hours a week and taking care of kids the remaining hours.

    As a people we're massively overworked. We use soda & junk food for the quick bursts of energy needed to get through the day. This has been and is getting worse because while food is widely available good paying jobs are not.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Um, lots of folks enjoy excersise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I dropped twenty pounds when I retired, just from the reduction in stress. I'm slowly ramping up the exercise, and this is from a person who never exercised in any way at all, because now I have TIME. I'm not exercising to lose weight (I'm retired, who gives a fuck at this point), but just because I feel a bit better, and because it fills the time.

      No, my diet isn't the best, but I'm not trying to be an Olympic athlete so I'm not going to eat like one. There's always some mythical best diet (which keeps changing) which no one is actually eating, which is used to make everyone feel guilty that they're experiencing some pleasure when they eat something. To hell with all that. I'll eat what I like, exercise a bit, and no matter what I'm still going to die.

      We don't get to stay young, we don't get to stay healthy, we don't get to stay alive. Deal with it.

    2. Re:Um, lots of folks enjoy excersise by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Diet is more important than exercise for controlling body composition and total bodyweight, but as I've already stated the vast majority of people can't be bothered to track calories and macronutrients, cut out garbage foods too high in sugars and fat (before you EVEN say it: YES, you NEED dietary fat -- just not as much as most people eat!) and *eat at a deficit* to actually lose weight. Either make the committment to do whatever you have to do to get where you want to be and *make it work* or don't complain about being fat.

    3. Re:Um, lots of folks enjoy excersise by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      The two biggest things people need to change to lose weight is to reduce carbohydrate intake (especially sugar) and reduce overall calorie intake. Secondarily most people don't seem to get enough high quality protein and get too much overall fat intake.

    4. Re:Um, lots of folks enjoy excersise by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You don't need much protein.
      E.g. as a rule of thumb if you want to gain weight as in muscles, for every X kg you already weight, the body can roughly convert X grams a day into muscles. Provided you train hard enough.
      In other words: if you only want to stay fit the amount of protein you need is close to zero.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Um, lots of folks enjoy excersise by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      You have a source for that? No you don't, because it's a load of bullshit. Americans watch an average of 5 hours of TV per day and the only reason they're fat is because they're lazy and eat too much.

    6. Re:Um, lots of folks enjoy excersise by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No, my diet isn't the best, but I'm not trying to be an Olympic athlete so I'm not going to eat like one.

      Your diet is almost certainly better than many Olympic athletes. e.g. the guy that won gold at five consecutive olympics was on 7000 calories a day, resulting in type 2 diabetes.

  20. Once you put on weight it is permanatly harder by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    to lose it. That's because your body creates fat cells when you gain weight but does not destroy them when you lose it, they just shrink.

    So a few high stress years (say when your kids are born and both you and the wife work full time because one income hasn't been enough to afford a family since before Reagan was president) and you've just permanently made it harder to stay fit.

    Add in the health problems that come with getting older (worse sleep being the big one) and you just can't burn as many calories as you used to, making it harder to keep the weight off.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Once you put on weight it is permanatly harder by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Uh, NO. I was way over 300 pounds at one point in my life, close to 320, and now I'm under 200 and on a bike racing team. I know exactly how to control my bodyfat percentage and the only hard thing about it is being a little hungry for a few weeks if I need to lose a few pounds. Most people just won't do what's necessary to actually control their body composition and overall weight because it's just not worth it to them to go to the trouble.

    2. Re:Once you put on weight it is permanatly harder by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I gain weight eating a single meal a day and no snacks, nothing to drink except water and black coffee.

      I dropped to four meals a week and didn't lose weight. Being hungry is easy.

    3. Re:Once you put on weight it is permanatly harder by sad_ · · Score: 1

      to lose it. That's because your body creates fat cells when you gain weight but does not destroy them when you lose it, they just shrink.

      not sure, do you have a source. i read a study once (sorry, couldn't find the source atm), but it said the body just has a fixed amount of fat cells, which expand/shrink depending. there was no creation of new fat cells going on.

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  21. That's not true. Keytones are a thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Also, MCTs are probably the most easily digested form of stored energy, which is why they are a popular addition to coffee.

    Fiber is rough on the delicate digestive tract; in contrast, fat induces the production of bile, which coats and protects the digestive tract.

    Fats do not result in an increase in blood sugar; they also produce a really small bump in insulin levels as a result. That is key to good health: Keeping insulin levels relatively low and consistent. Fat and sugar are not the same thing; fat is not merely another way to store sugar. This idea that sugar is the main fuel and that fat is some secondary system is nonsense; the main fuel is fat, and sugar is meant for specialized uses in addition to being a secondary fuel in the absence of a good source of dietary fat.

    Your body has 2 energy paths, one for sugar and one for fat, and they actually don't play together that well; if you want to be and feel healthy, then you need to switch your metabolism to fat.

    1. Re:That's not true. Keytones are a thing. by SNRatio · · Score: 1

      Blither blather. Sources that compare all cause mortality rates between different diets?

  22. They can prevent death? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Great, no more dying! How do they do that exactly?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  23. Sugar spikes insulin, wreaks havoc on hunger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A consistently high level of insulin due to regular spikes from a sugar-based diet eventually make it difficult for your body to access fat reserves or to process dietary fat ("insulin resistance"). The sugar pathways also result in greater degrees of inflammation. The result is that under a long-term sugar-based diet, the body sends improper hunger signals when blood sugar drops, rather than just accessing fat to smooth things out, and so people are always peckish and always feeling like crap. Being hungry and grumpy all the time is not an evolutionary advantage; it's an illness.

  24. Re: Sounds like propaganda to me... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    So she smoked away two racing yachts?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  25. Re:Did they say that smoking is not as bad as eati by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 1

    What I said.
    Once a friend pointed out that nutritionists had just said that coffee is bad for you, again. On even years they find that coffee is good for you.
    Smoking? Bad
    Fat, nitrates and sugar? Bad
    Which is worse? Why bother

  26. Leading cause of death is... by GrBear · · Score: 1

    The leading cause of death is being born.

    Everyone is going to die, may as well enjoy your time alive as even the best diet isn't going to change the fact that you're on a clock.

  27. Re: "Dumb faggot" suggests "proper diet" lol... no by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    He played bassoon in High School.

  28. Nobody ever gets out of here alive by aberglas · · Score: 1

    As a religious friend often reminds me.

  29. Gates Foundation = Eugenics Front by sursurrus · · Score: 1

    Lots of anecdotal stories about the Gates foundation seeming to inject people in Africa with mystery pharmaceuticals in the guise of vaccines and malaria treatment. Hard to really judge without firsthand knowledge, and especially because the theory as to motive is that the Gates foundation is a front for Eugenics.

    But this dietary advice is diametrically opposite what the overwhelming weight of modern research... independent modern research not paid for by food companies that is... suggests

    Whole grains are metabolically little different from processed refined grains. "Whole grain" is one of the most misleading pieces of dietary propaganda there is, probably topping "2% milk" and "natural flavor" in terms of harm it has caused society. Modern genetically hybridized wheat contains a witches brew of genes from other plants - producing proteins that our bodies have not evolved to digest. Celiac disease is just the tip of the iceberg, a great deal of research suggests that Wheat Germ Agglutin, Gluten, and many other substances found in wheat promote belly fat, leaky gut, obesity, arthritis, diabetes and death.

    Books such as Wheat Belly and The Plant Paradox suggest that Whole grain bread raises blood sugar more than even refined white sugar, promoting insulin resistance. "Fruit" is also, unfortunately, not so good for you. Bananas and oranges, unless consumed in extreme moderation, promote the growth of harmful yeasts and gut dysbiosis (See "Clean" by A. Junger). Most fruit has been bred to produce sugar levels far in excess of those found in the while. Apparently the sweet taste alone can promote weight gain and obesity, as in evolutionary history fresh fruit was only available once a year, and so the body is keyed to gorge on it and store fat for the winter. No doubt some pencil neck keyboard warrior will try to debunk this with his PhD from Google University -- Big Food, incorporated has done everything it can to attack these results, but there's a curious phenomenon of those who have gone gluten and grain free and have had the bulk of their health problems disappear.

    Others have a modified version of Stockholm syndrome -- the inability to believe that the mainstream authorities are not only systematically wrong, but have clear financial incentives to maintain the deception. It is hard to swallow just how monstrous is the state of food and our bodies in the developed western world.

    The only healthy diet is one that is high in vegetables. Many of these keto diets and advocates are essentially straw men in the debate as they advocate absurd levels of protein intake that shifts the focus away from the danger of grain to the benefit of high protein consumption.

  30. Re:Sounds like propaganda to me... by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Humans have been subsisting on wheat since before the dawn of recorded history!

    They've been eating raw eggs all that time too, but I'm not convinced it's a good idea.

    I like bread so I'm going to keep eating it, but "people always ate wheat" isn't exactly a scientific analysis.

  31. mediterrean diet has been debuked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/w...

    Basically Mediterranean diet was bunk all along.

  32. Re:Let's talk mental health by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Fuck them veterans, right! What did they do for us? Oh, that's right they only keep us safe from terrorism.

    While the US military do many good and useful things, I'm not sure you can make that particular claim.

    Admittedly it's not as laughable as the person that proclaimed US troops are "willing to take a bullet for freedom" but nonetheless US military actions abroad are a leading cause of anti-US terrorism.

  33. kidding ourselves by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

    Diet is a lot like religion. People believe in it because it gives them comfort to believe they can control what happens to them just by making different choices of what to eat. It probably makes no difference whatsoever what you get calories from. For every theory there is conflicting evidence.

    Every time we are certain we understand the perfect diet we find out we were very very wrong. All we know for sure is that if you stop eating you will die, but as for what type of food is 'healthier' or 'better' in some way we still don't really know and it is not hard to see why.

    Just look at the posts here. Everyone has a different theory and they are 100% certain that if they just eat a certain way they will have a better, happier, longer life. Just like believing in the right supernatural entity. Paul Theroux wrote about this in his novel Millroy the Magician.

    Nothing has changed. People don't want to be powerless. They long for power and pretending that they have power just from what they choose to put in their gob is very reassuring even though there is little to no basis for the warm and fuzzy virtuous feeling they get from 'eating right'. We are omnivores. We evolved over thousands of years eating whatever we could find. Lots of people live long and healthy lives eating whatever tastes good or whatever they can afford without worshipping any particular diet guru.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  34. Re: So? We need more people to die! by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

    I don't give a shit when they die. I care about spending hundreds of thousands of dollar trying to save thier fat greasy asses for ten years before they do. They will never pay for that. I and the other healthy productive people who don't need "Healthcare" and drugs to limp along will. These people are making really bad choices and socializing the costs.

  35. Re: So, THIS WEEK carbs are Good? by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

    Whole grains are not carbs dumbass. Think seeds and nuts. Plant meat.

  36. Re: Sounds like propaganda to me... by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

    I stopped eating meat because of animal protien studies that were shown to turn cancer on and off at will in the presence of certain toxins. Doesn't prove red meat is bad but I'm not taking anymore chances. After I stopped eating meat and adopted a proper vegetarian diet my performance shot through the roof (respiration during intense excersize) and I have to eat a lot of damn cookies before I start gaining any weight, and it drops immediately upon resuming a pure diet. I do not eat any processed foods and most of my bread intake is made from sprouted grains or is whole grain. Lots of leafy greens wrapped in sprouted grain wraps flavored in vegan sauces. Can't remember my last insulin spike or constipation. Just came off a whole winter season of zero excersize and immediately started setting personal records (strava, bike) and have not gained any weight since last season despite sitting around the house playing video games and baking cookies and brownies. I live like a king and feel like superman.

  37. Re: Sounds like propaganda to me... by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah. No beer for two years now.

  38. Japanese eat shitloads of carbs by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    in the form of rice. Reducing "Carb Intake" works for Americans because it forces us to stop eating cake, cookies, drinking soda, etc. The quality of the protein isn't what makes atkins work. I knew a dirt poor guy who got buff eating potted meat (if you're trying to put on muscle you need meat, and if you're poor that stuff is cheap since it's basically sanitized dog food).

    What's needed to keep weight off is less stress or more stress. The Japanese do it with a fuck ton of social pressure. Look up some articles on how they stay thin. Being fat gets you a ton of shit in Japan. Not the mild fat shaming we do here but actual social pressure.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  39. Vegetarian diet may up cancer, heart disease risk by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Scientists found evidence that a vegetarian diet has led to a mutation that may make people more susceptible to inflammation, and by association, increased risk of heart disease and colon cancer.
    https://indianexpress.com/arti...