from the have-a-healthy-sandwich-for-lunch dept.
A low-carb or high-carb diet raises your risk of death, a new study suggests, with people eating the food staple in moderation seeing the greatest benefits to their health.
Less than 40% or more than 70% of your energy -- or calories -- coming from carbohydrates was associated with the greatest risk of mortality. Eating moderate levels between that range offered the best options for a healthy lifespan.
The lowest risk of an early death was seen where carbs made up 50-55% of a person's diet, according to the study published Thursday.
However, the definition of a low-carb diet had some caveats as not all diets were equal.
[...] "On an 'average' 2,000 kcal-a-day intake, a diet of 30% calories from carbs equates to only 150g a day, with sugars (natural or 'added') contributing around 50g of that total. With a mere 100g of complex carb a day to play with, a lower intake of cereals, grains, and starchy vegetables is inevitable," said Catherine Collins, a dietitian with the UK's National Health Service, who was not involved in the study.
[...] The findings "will disappoint those who, from professional experience, will continue to defend their low carb cult, but contributes to the overwhelming body of evidence that supports a balanced approach to caloric intake recommended globally by public health bodies," Collins added.
[...] the researchers recognize that their findings are purely observational at this stage and cannot prove a cause and effect of eating too little or too many carbohydrates. They also highlight that low-carb diets in the West often result in people eating more animal fats and meat, rather than more vegetables, fruit, and grains.
In addition, the findings might be less generalizable to Asian populations where diets are high in carbohydrates, over 60% carbohydrates on average, but people also often consume fish rather than meat, according to the authors.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/health/low-carb-high-carbohydrate-diet-risk-of-death-intl/
Study: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667%2818%2930135-X/fulltext
Does anyone outside of academia consider a 40% carbohydrate diet to be "low-carb"?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:28PM (8 children)
If you look up low carb diet you'll see it refers to a diet of 5-10% carbohydrates:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/low-carb-diet/art-20045831 [mayoclinic.org]
In this study there was no one eating less than 20% carbohydrates, so they excluded the entire group they attempt to draw conclusions about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:39PM (7 children)
Wrong. "Less than 40% or more than 70% of your energy -- or calories -- coming from carbohydrates was associated with the greatest risk of mortality" is the actual conclusion. 20% is less than 40%.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:47PM (2 children)
Check figure 1. They dont have any data for people eating a less than 20% carb diet. So no one on a low carb diet was included.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 20 2018, @12:46AM (1 child)
I skimmed the actual research article. It's unclear whether they had any subjects less than 20%, but the graph implies the amount is small enough to make them statistically insignificant here.
Because I think people are mis-reading this study. Again, I skimmed it quickly, but it doesn't seem to be about "low carb diet" in the sense of Atkins or whatever. It's a general population study. And it seems to have found that for "normal" diets with a mix of carbs, fat, and protein, there was a relative minimum for health risk factors somewhere around 45-50% carbs. It's a U-shaped curve around that -- go lower or higher and relative risk goes up.
They don't seem to be studying or focusing on those who may severely limit carbs deliberately. They're just looking at a typical sample of the general population, and the lowest quintile still had a median carb intake of 37%. So yes, it may be difficult to draw any conclusions from this study about ultra-low carb diets (i.e. diets that deliberately restrict carbs severely). But, it's still a potentially interesting conclusion that among standard mixed diets, there's a U-shaped curve for mortality data with a local minimum for carb consumption. Thus, perhaps eating LOWER carb diets (that are still mixed, not deliberately eating an ultra-low carb intake) may not be healthier and may in fact cause more problems than a moderate diet.
That's still an interesting finding, assuming the methodology is good. ( I have some doubts from skimming but there could be something good here.)
Also, the study does highlight the importance of the kind of source replacements for carbs, which seem to really matter. They point out the for RELATIVELY lower carb intakes, if animal sources are used as replacements for carbs, mortality goes up. But if plant-based sources are used as carb replacements, mortality goes down.
What this study really seems to be saying is that those who still eat a mixed diet but have a LOT of meat, etc. might have worse health outcomes. (Think of the guy who mostly eats giant hunks of steaks, burgers, etc. primarily, with a few french fries and a lot of "green".) But it doesn't see those conclusions for those who eat lower carb diets with lots of plant sources. (Those who eat more "green" and plant-based proteins with less carbs do better - think Mediterranean diet for example.) And it really has little to say at all about deliebrately limiting "low carb" diets that have been a fad in recent decades. But that last one wasn't the point of this study.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 20 2018, @12:49AM
Sorry -- missed a "not." To clarify: For an example of the "bad" lower carb diet I meant steaks, burgers, and "NOT a lot of green."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @07:13PM (3 children)
Irrelevent.
Ketosis and other associated metabolic pathways are hampered by 20+% carb intake and thus misses the very point of the diet. (assuming there are health benefits)
Just enough carbs to stimulate insulin etc, and assumably a bunch of fats/red meat/etc to make up the difference.
This also does not focus on style of diet.
For example: I use 4 days a week daily fasting. I put anti-oxidants, fibre and good oils into my diet as much as humanely possible while keeping protein in the optimal range for a normal person - while limiting bacon/etc. Exercise also.
My kidney disease (the reason I did it), general mental clarity and weight have improved by orders of magnitude using objective measures.
My family have "cured" (i.e. removed symptoms/damage and in one case even need for insulin) their diabetes to boot.
So yeah. Good luck proving that will kill us faster. :)
But I agree: the 20%, pig out on meat, diet will kill you. As will Atkins-style "piggy keto". e.g. That much bacon is bad for you...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 20 2018, @12:15AM
Yeah I'll say, for example, per
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/foods-from-mcdonalds/6220/2 [self.com]
A Big Mac is kinda, sorta, low carb by the paper definition of what low-carb is (which is apparently unique in the field... see later comments) seeing as a mere 32% of its calories come from carbs. In that way, I'm sure a "low carb" diet consisting mostly of Big Macs will likely result in higher mortality. I'm sure there's a lot of really fat nearly dead people eating a "sorta low carb" shitty diet.
As for myself, I'll continue to "risk" a low carb diet made of things like salads, LOL. I chomped some carrots for lunch, they're more likely to kill me by choking than via metabolism, LOL.
Basically the article seems to be a very academic version of the "Supersize Me" movie being used as propaganda against actual healthy diets in favor of the obviously superior alternative of living entirely off pop tarts and hot pockets.
I'd theorize that most of the people dying of obesity are eating really shitty food like two Big Macs per day every day. The medical-industrial complex pushes low-fat high-carb diets as the solution, which mostly is VERY effective at making people even fatter and less healthy and the actual low carb people are pushing a separate low carb alternative.
Another way of phrasing it is there exist lower carb diets that are really shitty (Big Macs) that make people fat, low-fat-high-carb mantra that makes people really fat, and healthy low-carb diets that actually work.
I find it VERY fishy that the low carb people define actual low carb diets by mass, but these guys define it by percentage, which is carefully and intentionally comparing apples to oranges for ... some intentional reason, perhaps to obtain a pre-determined outcome.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday August 20 2018, @12:24AM (1 child)
Haw sheet, just when I started eating lunch again after a long period of fasting until dinner.
I had noticed during previous jobs eating a even a small meal even once a workday (breakfast or lunch, but rarely both) didn't provide much weight loss even though I was working with furious physical labor dealing with a lot of heavy shit. Then I took on a more strict job, and realizing there was no way in hell I was going to have the drive to exercise once I left work, I started using the company gym during all my breaks including my lunch break (which amounted to a full hour per day of gym time). I was in the clean room back then so there was no snacking allowed on the floor.
Counterintuitively, fasting left me more clear-headed and with more energy than eating, and it still does. It shrank my stomach so I ate less when I did eat, so that eating dinner left my stomach full until dinner the next day even with a full day of gym and hard labor. I'm starting to eat during the workday again and wondering if that's actually a good idea. As for the diet, it's a "typical mix" of carbs and meat with no imbalanced "fad" aspect to it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @12:28AM
Parent poster here:
Amen brother. I train fasted also. No negative effects.
I also wait 2 hours or so (when I am hungry) to eat after training. Never felt better.
All that "traditional wisdom" can go fuck itself.
The secret:
- Ketogenic diet
- Good oils, antioxidant rich, anti-inflammatory foods
- Limit the nasty stuff. (e.g. bacon)
- Some resistance training and light cardio
- Daily fasting 2-4 times (for men) a week
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:30PM (3 children)
Besides redefining "low-carb" to suit their purposes, they are also redefining "meat"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @03:43PM (1 child)
*other meats
Fish is considered healthier than most other meats. Maybe not healthier than eating insects.
(Score: 5, Funny) by RandomFactor on Sunday August 19 2018, @04:01PM
Sometimes opinions on what is healthy can be rather...mercurial.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 20 2018, @12:21AM
Perhaps they're Catholics. I always thought "fish is religiously vegetarian" was weird.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @04:20PM (22 children)
We "knew" that red meat was evil for decades, but it was all politically forced bullshit that made us obese. Now they're going after low-carb diets. I'm going to speculate that it's because carbs are extremely cheap and addictive and manufacturers make literal billions off of carbs. Why would they go after high-carb diets too? To look "objective" of course.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @05:17PM (5 children)
That's why the gooks all live so long. Fish heads and rice. No red meat, no white meat, not even fish meat - just fish heads and rice. Maybe cat and rice, on a special holiday, but mostly fish heads and rice.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by requerdanos on Sunday August 19 2018, @05:29PM (4 children)
In the future, I gently recommend that you avoid this style, or if following it anyway, that you take the trouble to follow the more traditional EF formula.
1. Say something insightful and intelligent(-sounding).
2. In a later sentence or paragraph, connect that statement somehow to an ethnic or cultural group and include one or more slurs against that group.
If you use the group-disparaging term right up front, you rob the post of its typical EF punchline.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday August 20 2018, @12:28AM (3 children)
I dunno, there are an awful lot of Vietnamese who gamble and smoke compulsively even if they do eat only fish heads and rice, and it still seems to be a net loss for their health. Fish heads and rice are not a magic bullet for good health.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday August 20 2018, @02:26AM (2 children)
Brilliant.
Someone impersonates EF.
Someone else analyzes EF's average style as a 1,2 combo.
EF replies using a 2,1 combo.
EF and DT, the best part of SN.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday August 20 2018, @02:38AM (1 child)
The hell you talking about, son?
If you want to find out who is or isnt impersonating me, that's their fucking problem, not mine.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday August 20 2018, @03:07AM
Never implied it was.
Son, that's funny, I'm likely as old as you (1959 for the win!)
I'd tell ya to get off my lawn, but I don't have one.....
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:39PM (2 children)
Stay away from sugar and its 10000 different names for it. That we have 'known' for decades.
If it comes in a box in the middle of the store it probably has 10-40g of some sort of sugar in it per serving. If it comes in a jug and is 'fruit juice' stay away from it. It is just disguised sugar.
Most sugar is either apple juice, HFC, or refined sugar. If it is a 'natural' product they will call it 'cane juice' or something silly like that. It is just sugar. Potatoes are also a massive form of sugar. Potatoes are also usually dried out and used a filler.
All of the rest of it. Just eat until you are full. Do not 'stuff' yourself (ie you do not eat a 24oz steak, you have 6-8oz). Have a snack with some sugar a couple of times a week.
Boom that is the 'how i lost 40 pounds' diet. Go enjoy and good luck.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday August 20 2018, @12:26AM (1 child)
Although the human body can turn some forms of starch into sugars, and potato starch is such a starch, that does not mean that potatoes contain any significant amount of sugar. They don't. They are less than 1% [healthline.com] sugar.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Monday August 20 2018, @01:06AM
Potatoes are quite high in potassium. How many of us really get enough?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:55PM (7 children)
I would generalize this by suggesting that healthy diet is not affordable by the majority of the population. My pure speculative estimate is no more than 10% of the Americans and less than 1% worldwide can eat healthy.
That's the main reason propaganda is in such a bad shape on the subject.
If you can afford it, eat well, like our predecessors: meat with raw leafy vegetables and occasional seasonal fruit. Make sure you hunt - run 5-10 miles - before your meal. That's a starting point - one can take it from here.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Monday August 20 2018, @12:25AM (2 children)
It's more than money. Even with no money problems, a healthy diet is still awfully inconvenient compared to junk food. Healthy food spoils faster, and takes more time and effort to store and prepare. Fresh is best, and freezing is second best. Some foods can be sterilized and stored in sealed packets at room temperature for long periods of time, and actually still taste good when prepared. Others such as oatmeal, beans, and rice can be dried, but then they must be soaked in water and for beans especially that can take a long time. After that, the options for preservation really mess with the food. Canning destroys nutrients and deadens flavor. Lots of salt and/or sugar can preserve food, but it can be much too much to be healthy. Like, drying fruit concentrates the sugar they naturally have, and then more sugar may be added to preserve it. Might be 80% sugar by the time it's ready for sale. Other preservatives do other nasty things, like greatly increase the risk for cancer.
To cap it, junk food is usually tastier. Junk food is carefully engineered for taste in ways that subvert our instincts such as our sweet tooth, which served us well when we were hunter gatherers, for the goal of selling more product and our health be damned. Even when the base food isn't junk, commercial preparations can add so much sugar, salt, and fat you might as well be eating candy bars. Those instant oatmeal "just add water" packets that already have tons of sugar and salt included are a great example of the very sort of bogus "healthy" food that are completely ruined by all the added crap.
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday August 20 2018, @02:01AM (1 child)
Agree. A working man needs a housewife who spends most of her life doing home chores. If they both work, they need "help" - old style full time multiple person service that does not exists in America any more. There is no way we can eat healthy on liberal agenda, sorry.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday August 20 2018, @02:40AM
Conservative and Liberal agendas have both combined to bring us to this point. The political show is just that, a show. DT has made a big show of overturning BO's policies, but no one overturns the really bad ones that brought us to this point because the destination is the same on both sides. The parties cultural differences are the show, but both parties overspend and expand the government. We heard 'fiscal responsibility' for eight fucking years only to see it go silent after DT's victory, followed by another insane deficit.
The shitshow of culture wars to distract us from the reality that doesn't change administration to administration.
If we're at each others throats over culture, we aren't paying attention to the man behind the curtain.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 20 2018, @12:37AM (1 child)
I find its a very cheap diet, although its like arguing with urbanites who can't afford a kitchen that cooking is much cheaper than eating all meals at restaurants like some urbanites do. Or another funny myth that uber is cheaper than owning your own car because its always cheaper to have a middleman driver and a middleman corporation between you and your transport LOL.
I can buy about four heads of lettuce for about the cost of one frozen pizza, although it takes a lot longer to cook a frozen pizza and its less convenient than "slop it on a plate with a nice vinaigrette" which is my lazy cheap man in a hurry lunch. I can "cook" a crappy salad faster than most people can drive to a fast food drive thru. Of course a really tasty salad will take a bit longer, but its still pretty fast.
Three pounds of frozen stir fry veggies and a half pound steak sliced thin will set me back maybe $2/person. I can wok that up in just a little longer than the oven takes to heat up to pizza temps. I assure you my teen kids can each easily eat a $6/person frozen pizza in one sitting, so its maybe 3x cheaper to cook better faster food in this example. The modern sauces and rice are pure carb and I skip those.
Most of the counterexamples will revolve around true but meaningless anecdotes, yes I did spend like $120 on beef tenderloin for the Christmas party, and sous vide it and broiled it to perfection, but that fed a lot of people and I'm well aware I was optimizing for taste not low cost (or, perhaps, health) But it sure tasted good. And the counterexample of me lighting $20 bills on fire for the hell of it will of course be starving college students who can only afford 99 cent ramen. Well, OK, that might even be true, but that proves nothing.
Also WRT "seasonal fruit" your body has not evolved to store vit C unlike many other animals, so I wouldn't go "Seasonal" on citrus unless you like scurvy. On the other hand you don't need OJ every meal or every day. I figure I drink about one Lime-aid or similar juice per week as a nice very unhealthy high carb treat.
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday August 20 2018, @01:57AM
I totally agree with your strategy and I do a similar one. However, people are different and some are more sensitive to junk than others (myself included). Consider that steaks you mentioned are grown on some serious shit; lettuce is even worse. For some folks the switch is good enough but for some it has to be deeper.
Also, if everybody switch to even what you described, there will be not enough food around by a significant figure.
Meantime we can enjoy the ride.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Monday August 20 2018, @03:11AM (1 child)
Running 5-10 miles every day is going to be hard on your body. Recovery from any intense exercise takes more than a day, and if you aren't recovering fully, you're doing damage.
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday August 21 2018, @12:04AM
Well, I said take it from there)))
But to your point - agree - one needs a reasonable schedule.
When I had the luxury of working from home, my schedule for a week was: an intense hike in the woods before the "office" for 2 hours - 4 days, weights lifting - 3 days, and one run. That's week days. On weekends I either went skiing or hiking depending on the season. If for two days, I'd skip Friday's activities.
I am a rather "mature" man) but it worked wonders for me.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @10:53PM (4 children)
We didin't "know" or know that red meat was a problem at any point, it was an unfounded claim that was made for quite a while, but the claim never made any sense and wasn't consistent with eating habits that cover most regions. Sure, there were some places where people didn't eat a lot of red meat, but there were also places where the only ate meat because that was the only available food source.
The only things we know for certain are that chemicals should be kept to a minimum and that we should be eating a varied diet of meat, fruit and vegetables. And it's a good idea to have periods during the month where you don't eat anything at all for a good 24 hours just to help your body clear out the excess and remember how to properly manage blood glucose levels.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday August 20 2018, @01:10AM (3 children)
While this is a common belief, it can only be espoused in ignorance of what a chemical [thoughtco.com] is, or that all food [theconversation.com] is made up of various chemicals and nothing else, or that cooking [seriouseats.com] is a largely [lardbucket.org] chemical [bbc.co.uk] process.
Select your chemicals carefully, perhaps, but that's just a restatement of advice to select your foods carefully, and advice in that area is certainly observed to vary.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday August 20 2018, @02:58AM (1 child)
I'm sure he was referring to the artificial preservatives, flavor and color enhancements.
While probably not true on FB, on here I think the majority tend to know that all life is chemical reaction.
Speaking of which, got to finish grilling a 2" piece of carcinogenic delight with a homemade Carolina Reaper sauce.
Enjoy your time here, eat well, be active and remember, the leading cause of death is birth!
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday August 20 2018, @11:21AM
And someone else is sure that it refers to refined sugars, and someone else is sure that it refers vaguely to processed foods as opposed to fresh. Etc. At best such an insipid statement serves as a meaningless Rorschach test for the reader's prejudices--and that's the nicest thing you can say about it.
If you keep chemicals to a minimum, you die. If you want to keep only selected chemicals to a minimum, you have to specify which ones.
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday August 21 2018, @12:14AM
That's the most typical BS in the business.
The issue is that we do not know (and unlikely to ever know) what combinations of chemicals are good or bad for us.
Hence the strategy. If a cow ate some and is still alive we eat cow - good.
If the cow ate grass that was still alive - even better.
If the grass have been alive at the place for 1000 years and no cow died - perfect.
Any industrial chemical added should be tested on the chemist's children for 10 fucking generations before allowed into the diet.
Yes, it is not affordable for the 99% percent of the population, but some can afford it and they should.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @04:58PM
if you arn't living, you can't die.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @05:14PM (1 child)
Eating at the soup kitchen has always been healthy - except, maybe it's not so healthy. I've lost thirty pounds in the past few months. Now I'm hearing that they are doing low-carb diets. I got up this morning, and weighed again. Yep, I've lost thirty pounds. I looked behind me, and, no, it wasn't there. I think I'll start eating at another charity house. I've heard the Salvation Army does high carb diets. Maybe I can eat one day at the SA, and eat the next day at the soup kitchen. Things should balance out that way. I really do love the food at the soup kitchen, I don't want to give it up! Besides, that's where all my friends eat, when we're not dining. Dining is reserved for Taco Bell. Maybe I'll make some new friends at the Salvation Army. And, maybe not. I don't make friends easily - most people just think I'm some kind of kook. Oh well, YOLO, right? I'm bicycling over to the the SA to see what's on the menu. And, on the plus side, maybe they'll be impressed with my IT skills. Maybe I can hack their systems with an installation of McAfee or something nefarious. MWAHHH-HA-HAAA!
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by requerdanos on Sunday August 19 2018, @05:30PM
Well-done.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @06:16PM
People are generally on low-carb diets because they are diabetic, trying to fight cancer, or obese and trying to lose weight.
People are generally on high-carb diets because they have metabolic problems.
Just a thought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 19 2018, @07:00PM (6 children)
I've never understood the common obsession with living as long as possible. I can see the medical profession being that way, since it's their job to prevent death whenever they can. But so many people seem to make it their lives' work to simply stay alive, and nothing else. Perhaps it's an American thing?
I admit my viewpoint is probably skewed, as when I was born the doctors said I probably wouldn't make it to adulthood. I'm over 50 now (thank you, technology), but the idea of living into my 90s or something just doesn't interest me that much. I'd rather enjoy all that tasty food that's bad for me while I'm alive, then eschew all but the most healthy mush and then make it to 90 only to be warehoused in some waiting-for-death place and eating oh so healthy gruel and bean sprouts all the time.
Yes, this is mostly the "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die" point of view, but we're all going to die eventually anyway.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Sunday August 19 2018, @07:32PM (4 children)
That's a strange strawman - many people love life and love what they are doing and love the people they spend time with and want to get as much time doing those things and being with those people as possible - from there you draw the conclusion that they want to "simply stay alive and nothing else"?
It's amazing to me what lengths people will go to to express judgment towards those who want to live longer. If you don't want to live long, you certainly don't have to! But if you have to be judgmental about the way other people live their lives in order to feel better about your decision, you might consider that maybe you are making a mistake.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 20 2018, @12:20AM (1 child)
I don't know that it's a complete strawman. Have a look at stats dealing the medical professional and life-prolonging care vs. quality of life.
In recent years, there finally are more physicians willing to talk seriously to terminal patients about quality of life over quantity, ultimately talking about hospice care at the end rather than extraordinary measures. And there are lots of people who spend lots of time worrying about quantity of life too -- it's not just physicians.
Obviously it's a trade-off: if you are very unhealthy, your quality of life may begin to suffer earlier. But obsessing about health all the time while giving up "unhealthy" things that allow you to enjoy life can also be taken to an extreme.
My particular opinion is more of the "moderation in all things" concept, but others may draw their personal line closer to "enjoy over worrying about longevity" or closer to "health above all." That's their (and your) choice. But the idea that SOME folks get obsessed with health or quantity over quality of life is not a strawman. Maybe it's not your practice, but it is the opinion of some.
And, I'd say, it's much more usual for the "health-nut" side to be openly judgmental about the other side than the reverse. I've rarely heard a fat person complain about the skinny folks around them or what they do to exercise, etc. -- but the reverse is definitely quite common.
Personally I don't care what people do. It's their life, and they can make their own choices.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 20 2018, @12:42AM
My smoker ancestor/relatives look and live at 60 roughly like my non-smoker ancestor/relatives at 80, so ...
For another example find some 40 year old women, the sun-tan chix look like they're wearing motorcycle leathers whereas the non-tan chix look young (maybe a little droopy). 20-30 years of UV will destroy anything, polymer, skin, anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @01:32AM (1 child)
I did not intend it as a strawman. As I said, I know my view is probably warped -- that's why I asked! This is one of those things where if you try to talk about it in person with someone, they either think you're very strange or they think you want to kill yourself and they call the authorities on you.
I, honestly, don't understand why people want to live IF they're going to be warehoused in an old folk's home to die. That's the situation I was talking about. If your life is filled with song, wine, and dancing girls, more power to you. Sometimes a question really is an honest question, not an attempt to attack some position or idea.
This is why I stay an AC. I don't appear to have a very good track record at communicating with other people anyway. I should probably just stop trying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @05:39AM
> This is why I stay an AC. I don't appear to have a very good track record at communicating with other people anyway. I should probably just stop trying.
Stay an AC, and try to communicate clearly/well, but care more about the community that your discourse fosters (and records for posterity). You gain; your communication will improve from the focused practice, and from when we give you cues to improve. We gain; when you contribute ideas that are different or interesting, and aren't hate/spew/spam, you enrich our common knowledge, even if we disagree with your conclusions or premises.
Eg. I disagree about your statement that you should "just stop trying."
One perspective from the mass whom you implied you wish to impact positively.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday August 19 2018, @08:37PM
This study and others are just grasping at straws, shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic, etc. when it comes to lifespan. A true anti-aging approach involves repairing the damage caused by aging, to the degree of restoring/maintaining youth. Depending on how it's implemented, this may have the effect of reducing medical profession revenues, since comprehensive anti-aging would be proactive, preventative medicine that would reduce the large costs associated with end-of-life care. The balance would shift to dealing with traumatic injuries such as car accidents and gunshot wounds, although self-driving cars could reduce the first and a decline in violence could take care of the second. I'm guessing you would be much more interested in living to 90 if you could be about as healthy as you were 10 years ago, and have a youthful appearance to match. Perhaps the required advancements will be delivered and widely available within our lifetimes. Who knows.
That being said, aside from "lifespan", there's also "healthspan". Certainly you could eat steaks and bacon doughnut cheeseburgers daily if you wish, but that would most likely lead to obesity. At some point, 10 or 20 years down the line, maybe you will become diabetic or unable to move much without a walker or wheelchair. If that happens and you aren't resolved to kill yourself or work really hard on having a heart attack and going untreated, then you will live out the rest of your days with reduced mobility, possibly reduced independence, more pain, constantly out of breath, etc. Is this a more desirable outcome than cutting down portion sizes and eating healthy most of the time? I doubt it.
Moreover, there are plenty of dishes that you can make that are both healthy and tasty. At least in my opinion. Try making some stuff from here [101cookbooks.com]. And in your retirement years (assuming you do retire), you should have plenty of time with which to open a random recipe and maybe spend 1-2 hours cooking. If the time expenditure seems like a lot, you can double or triple some recipes and just fridge/freeze portions for later.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @02:19AM
Too much or too little of anything is bad for you.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @09:22AM
Hardly an unbiased opinion, is it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday August 25 2018, @01:32AM
Speaking from experience here (and down to 157 lb at this morning's weigh-in!), a crock pot is *really* helpful for both cheap and healthy cooking. The best part is that you can just cut a bunch of stuff up in the evening, throw it in the pot in the morning, slam the lid on, go about your business, and by suppertime it's ready.
I've made basic but delicious curries, soups, and stews this way, which go really well with the whole-wheat bread I tend to bake. You can also make bone broth by throwing in water, bones, herbs/spices to taste, and letting it run 12-18 hours. It takes time, planning, and discipline, but there's something magical about home cooking.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...