The journal Nature Medicine published a major study about a cohort of over 105,000 people followed for 30 years. This is that researchers found.
Correlation isn't causation. But that's still interesting.
A major scientific study found this correlation between diet and diseases
25 Comments
wesker@lemmy.sdf.org · 32 pts · 253d
I have a hard time believing this because it is at odds with my own diet and prejudices.
Suck_on_my_Presence@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 253d
This is the full chart from the study
Avicenna@programming.dev · 3 pts · 252d
this is telling me that time spent cooking is time taken away from your life (check fast and fried row)
RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works · 26 pts · 253d
I'm having a hard time believing this list.
Nuts, legumes, fruit juice, coffee, tea, fruit/berries, vegetables are all listed multiple times.
sbv@sh.itjust.works · 31 pts · 253d
The original is in a better format. The thing from OP was extracted... somehow.
RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 253d
Well that makes a lot more sense, thanks.
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 252d
Wtf. We already know this isn't good nutrition science. It's all too easy for people to misrepresent what they're eating in surveys
This sounds like an epidemiological study. What are the listed Relative Risk Increases for mortality they're trying to claim? Are any above 100%, which is the minimum threshold required to establish causality for epidemiological studies?
Not only that, the only sources of refined sugars they show here are all listed as healthier than red meat. Really? Refined sugar, the leading cause of diabetes and atherosclerosis isn't at the bottom of the list?
This study reeks of bullshit. Which is unfortunately not all that weird in nutrition science ever since the Harvard School of Nutrition got bought out by Coca Cola and sugar lobbies back in the 50's
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe · 12 pts · 253d
Yea, we'd need to filter out the behavioural angles to clearly identify causal relationships.
Do people who live longer just happen to start eating differently etc.
For example, the better I feel, the better I eat. It's not the bad eating that makes me feel bad - the better eating is a consequence of feeling better.
I can tell exactly when my diet is going to tank, when my chronic conditions flare. Diet has zero effect on them.
jxk@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 252d
Dark-yellow vegetables? What an odd category
MrMcGasion@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 251d
"Low-energy beverages" sounds like a dumb Trump insult for caffeine-free diet soda.
Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com · 6 pts · 253d
A combination of beer and fast food is neutral. Gotcha!
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 253d
My booze is plant based. That has to count for something. Fat free, ultra low sodium and frequently served with frozen crushed whole fruit.
It's medicinal.
Routhinator@startrek.website · 6 pts · 251d
Fun fact, as someone who suffers from FODMAP related IBS.. Almost very "green" item in this list triggers FODMAP reactions, and about half of the red ones are on the safe to eat category.
TL;DR - damned if I do, damned if I dont.
Sbergon@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 253d
Interesting to see beer that close to foods like fish, soy and tea
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub · 8 pts · 253d
Conversely, it’s surprising to see fruit so high up, while fish and poultry are in the middle. Does this mean only vegetarian people eat healthy? Hardly believable for an omnivorous animal like humans.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 253d
Being an omnivore allows us to get calories from multiple sources, which allows us to live long enough to breed. That's an evolutionary advantage.
After the point of breeding and raising children, evolution taps out.
So something being an evolutionary trait does not mean those traits lead to longevity. But it guarantees we're good fuckers.
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 252d
It seems I need to file a complaint then!
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 252d
I'm not bad in bed. I'm efficient from an evolutionary perspective.
Now give me five minutes and we'll go again.
JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 253d
There's debate on if humans are actually omnivores.
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub · 5 pts · 253d
Very big caveat: while our primate cousins manage to eat some meat from time to time, it was our domestication of fire more than a million year ago that allowed us to access plenty of calories and nutrients from almost any food, everything was suddenly on the table, and was made easy to chew and digest. We are more omnivorous than the naturally omnivorous animals.
starman2112@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 252d
That's really neat but my god is it ugly
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 251d
First off, this chart seems to be rather cherry-picked, with some information just outright wrong. When corrected for body size, the human digestive tract is significantly shorter than herbivores and longer than carnivores. That suggests that we're omnivores.
Second, explain how humans have binocular vision, a trait common to every land-based carnivore and omnivore.
starman2112@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 252d
We don't need another study explaining that people who eat foods that rich people eat tend to live longer. Do one of these studies but only interviewing people with an income under $20,000 and I'll take it seriously
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 252d
No way for seafood considering the heavy metal traces.
Whatever. At least pizza is on the safer side ;)
saltesc@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 253d
Oh good. I like wine and beer.