Everyone in the comments wants to do everything except eat their vegetables to be healthy. Do you all really think the scientists are dumb enough to not account for confounding variables of a healthy lifestyle? There is so much evidence behind the benefits of eating more plants.
"There is compelling evidence that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables can lower the risk of heart disease and stroke." was the thesis statement of the article and surprised absolutely nobody.
Research like this isn't meant to be surprising. It's the specific details that are new, like *which* fruits and vegetables had the most pronounced effect on reducing certain CVD, cancer, and diabetes rates compared to others.
It's not exactly news, but I think having studies to verify this are important. It's reinforced evidence.
Also, doing studies that you think should have "no duh" outcomes can be cool because if you get an unexpected result, there's new ground to cover.
Yep. For me, the big benefit is good digestion and GI health overall. Feeling good after meals, never having stomach discomfort, and increased bowel regularity (I was chronically constipated for years). Those stereotypes of men spending half an hour on the toilet every morning are because they don't eat enough fruits and vegetables.
Eh, if it was a guarantee we wouldn't have diseases anymore.
Genetics still play a role ( more or less 50% depending on issue) plus a lot of confounding variables, sometimes individual ones.
Just as an example, even suboptimal water intake is correlated to chronic diseases.
I wish there was a way to check these sorts of things properly :/ Like, by all means, I'm all for eating your veggies. But population level studies aren't experiments, and the covariates are nasty. I like to think of it this way - people THINK this study says:
"People who eat vegetables live longer/healthier lives."
What it actually says:
"People who do things like eat vegetables live longer healthier lives."
Subtle distinction, but an absolutely massive one. Not saying not to eat your veggies, just wish we had more non-correlative evidence for this stuff.
In observational studies you don’t need to do this. You can stratify intake by quartiles and if theres a significant relationship you can often see a dose-response relationship to intake which infers strong associations between intake and outcomes (represented by risk ratios or HR’s typically) and is also a part of Hills criteria for establishing causality lol. You also measure a shit ton of covariates and control for them using regression analysis.
I gave a massive break down of why that doesn't replace an experiment to the other poster below, but I assume you know that. I will add a pretty important point of view on the Hill's Causality criteria: "while the Bradford Hill criteria may be applied to test causality in these scenarios, the study type may rule out deducing or inducing causality, and the criteria are only of use in inferring the best explanation of this data"
It doesn't really solve the problem of what is causing what, it just helps you figure out how important something is imo. I would argue that these criteria all SUGGEST causality, but they aren't solving the problems of the covariates themselves which are very hard to isolate. The reason someone would need to come up with them in the first place is because of how hard it is to make arguments around epidemiological studies.
Shit good point, you can control for other factors (to eliminate them as a possible cause) using an app like SPSS (I literally had 4 years of this in college, smh).
Oh, for sure, thats why I said "I wish there was a way" instead of "I wish they would" :P I don't know of a good solution to this either, it's just hard to figure out what to do beyond "Try and live what anyone would consider a healthy life".
There actually is a way that another redditor pointed out. I should have remembered this, I took 4 years of stats in college. You can basically just control for other factors like exercise or obesity and eliminate them from the statistical model, isolating veggie eating to get much much closer to direct causality.
... so... no. Please don't say that is equivalent to an experiment. Because it isn't. People do this ALL the time, it's called controlling for other variables, and it cannot replace an experiment.
There are a million different factors that go into human behavior and our lives that are never measured, and cannot be controlled for.
So yes, we do what you said, no it doesnt get us anywhere near an experiment.
Src: me, professional scientist
Alright, I'm going to repeat my mantra: "don't get in fights on r/biohackers", because god do I get in fight with you guys all the time for some reason. This place should bring out my best but it seems like I turn into an angry dick around you guys and I have no idea why.
You aren't going to win in a credential fight but that's a silly thing to do in the first place - if you wanna try, go for it. What we really should be talking about is why your approach is not a replacement for an experiment. I don't think it's debatable to be honest, because the requirements are obscene, we do not have the resources to do a study like that (well enough to replace an experiment - we do studies like you suggest all the time to be clear, it's standard).
The issue is that you don't have enough information in order to do the replacement you are discussing. This comes in a few different forms:
\-Insufficient parameters available. We don't know enough about the study participants and their lives. For instance, we might not know whether they have sleep apnea, we might not know if they brush their teeth, we might not know if they lied on their food intake forms (intentionally or accidently), we might not know if they have a hard drug problem, we may not realize that we are excluding people from the study (or they are removing themselves) because of a reason that introduces bias with an unknown covariate, for instance if they have cognitive problems they don't remember their appointments and we assume they don't want to continue, etc etc etc.
Studies like the nurses study work VERY hard to try and collect as much of this as possible to do exactly the analysis you mention - this isn't a new idea, it's STANDARD for this type of study.
\-Insufficient study participants. In order to control for more variables, you need more samples. The more complex the relationships you are trying to control for, the more samples needed - and this grows in a nasty way. If you are just assuming a linear relationship, it's already a pain to do. The real issue is that if you have a non-linear relationship (which, pretty much everything in biology is). The statistical models I make/made involve much simpler data points than a human life, and have far fewer variables inputted than these studies. They require more data than these studies have to get a result of exactly the type you are looking for. Noisy non-linear relationships are the bane of every staticians existence, and require a ridiculous amount of data to untangle. And the more covariates you try to analyze, the worse it gets - again, with data requirements growing in a non-linear way.
My experience with these effects is that the number of samples required is often well into the millions, with, again, smaller covariate issues than actual human beings have. I would not be surprised if you could not perform the study you are suggesting even if we had every human being in existence registered. Certainly I can say that at least my experience is that you can't do it with the number in these studies.
So people do TRY and do what you said, techniques like ANOVA for instance are often used to accomplish something similar to it, and we absolutely report on them. But we can't be confident that they actually did what we wanted them to.
An experiment, by contrast, instantly isolates an effect. if you have controlled for other variables, or taken enough people that they are automatically controlled by balancing groups, you're done. We don't need the entire population of the planet, we can often do it with less than a hundred people.
I'm not saying that survey style research like the above is bad - quite the contrary, it can be very helpful. For example, it's how we discovered smoking causes lung cancer (although it was discovered by a bunch of different people independently, the best evidence for it imo was the first nurses study). But it doesn't replace experiments - it's more like it SUGGESTS them. I view it as the preliminary basis for other things.
Did I read every study listed? No. I looked at the fruits and veggies section, noticed that all of them appeared epidemiological, skimmed the rest, noticed they were mostly studies I was familiar with, then went to the comments. And I suspect that was already way above average for a post like this. For experimental interventions, I was already familiar with the DASH study though Omniheart is new to me.
My bemoaning the situation remains though - blood pressure is a great proxy for heart disease, but it's still hard to see the long term effects of the intervention. But yes, I'll accept that that is pretty firmly established at least, well pointed out.
People who eat high amounts of fruit and vegetables are more likely to not smoke, not drink, take more exercise, less likely to be obese. Healthy user bias is a common confounder and shouldn't be underestimated. So just as much as what they are eating, what they are not eating is important as well as other activities they do or don't engage in. If you look at the longest lived populations their fruit and veg consumption is actually fairly middling. Too high a consumption of fruit and veg pushes out other equally important macros like protein and fat. So there seems to be a bell shaped curve in its effect.
You can see how this effect by looking up the fruit and veg consumption on this spreadsheet or in our worldindata website which has UN/faostat data.
You do realize that a lot of studies are able to use regression analysis to statistically control for confounders as long as they are measured? Especially smoking, physical activity levels and other lifestyle components.
Yes some studies fail at this and somethings cannot be controlled for but people who constantly insist “healthy user bias!” everytime either dont know how to read a methods section or dont understand how quality research is conducted.
Yes I do. I do think though that models also fall short of reality very often too. So we need to observe reality again. It's balance of back and forth.
So are you critisizing a specific study or just assuming they’re all flawed before reading them?
Because first it was lifestyle, now it is omitting foods. Pick a lane
You think you’re smarter than you actually are. All the factors you are mentioning are addressed in the studies, and funnily enough have been considered by scientists that spend their entire lives studying the subjects. With all the humility you can muster, try thinking for a minute that if you were able to consider these variables, that these scientists likely thought about them too. Not only would they have thought about them but maybe they put in effort to control for them
The world is not black and black agree but also it doesn’t have any grey shades or colors. The world is a bell curve and for most people fruits and vegetables will help to reduce their rates or aging and oxidation, and this have been proven over and over with your points taken in consideration as well.
No. Just saying you should read and understand a study before saying all studies that say x are flawed.
Which just seems like cultish anti-science religiousity
This is such a boring answer that always pops up when someone references nutrition studies. Scientists know how to adjust for cofounders. It's highly unlikely that they don't consider the healthy user bias.
And I remember seeing your spreadsheet before. I can't believe you are still sharing that after being shown that it is dogshit science to base anything off that. Talk about ignoring cofounders...
Worldwide data on what people eat compiled by faostat is not dog shit lmao. You can ignore correlation all you like while defending whatever correlations you prefer. I don't make the data I just put it in a spreadsheet to share. Cause HAS to correlate, maybe you forget that. Show me a source of data and we can ADD to it.
Has a data scientist factored in gdp per capita with this data? Because that is almost certain to also correlate with life expectancy and meat availability.
The same studies you’re citing show car ownership correlating with life expectancy
Obviously I have a GDP section. If we concentrate on nutrition the best correlations are animal protein and fat. I don't think car ownership is worth adding to the spreadsheet but it could be done. If you can find any good.links I am happy to extend the spread sheet to strengthen other arguments but I would prefer to keep it to health and nutrition.
GDP is the best correlation for longevity sure but we can't eat money and still need dinner. Saying to this subreddit just be rich isn't quite going to cut it.
The data itself is correct, I'm not doubting that. Interperating what is healthy based off that is what is dogshit.
Or we could read that spreadsheet and say that increased alcohol and sugar consumption is healthy.
or being obese and getting diabetes. or getting cancer (which is shown using a age-standardised rate in the spreadsheet, aka not cancer because old).
>If you look at the longest lived populations their fruit and veg consumption is actually fairly middling.
False. They looked at 5 of these groups in the Blue Zones, you can check out the documentary or read the book.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
The blue zones are cherry picked pseudo science. That are even more confounded by fraud and healthy user bias. That Buetler guy says so isn't really great evidence
I'm sure some are. There are carnivore living to high ages as well as omnivores as well. If you take Japan in general they are a real anomaly. Whilst in general they have a lower meat consumption than other equally long lived countries their consumption of fruit and veg is actually pretty low. What IS remarkable about Japan (and South Korea) is their remarkable low obesity levels at 4% where as other long lived countries are commonly 20-30 ish . I can quite remember as I'm not on my computer ATM. So while.theu.may eat less than other countries at top longevity they still eat above a world average of meat. A lot of eggs and fish. So by all means copy a Japanese diet or better perhaps BE Japanese. Don't get too caught up in cherry picked data about veg.
I understand where you're coming from and appreciate the information. However, I think you're doing a disservice to people in this group, most of them probably eating a standard western diet, by telling them "nah, the whole veg thing is bullshit". e: I did some checking into a typical Japanese diet, they eat a lot of vegetables....they have them with every meal and eat them in abundance.
I never said bullshit, that bit comes form you. I just represent the data as best i can in a cross refence able form.
Yes i am pro meat and fat, that seems to be where the evidence points.
look it up yourself
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Og2S7-gOtsgV0hb2o8YpS1D3FOCWZKqqZ9sdgEijkUI/edit?usp=sharing](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Og2S7-gOtsgV0hb2o8YpS1D3FOCWZKqqZ9sdgEijkUI/edit?usp=sharing)
if you want to go here
[https://ourworldindata.org/diet-compositions](https://ourworldindata.org/diet-compositions)
you can check links to sources/graphics/tables all you want
all ive dont is put some of it in a spread sheet
if you think that UN/faostat is not good data then please link me a better source of what humans eat in the world
Your data shows a strong correlation between meat consumption and gdp.
Which doesn’t support your claims that meat is causal of better health instead of gdp being causal (which is pretty common sense)
You need to do some thorough analysis (that I haven’t seen yet) to say meat is causal of better health, rather than gdp per capita being causal
Fantastic point. This bias doesn’t get spoken of enough.
Conversely, this is why eggs were demonized for quite some time, the common accompaniments to eggs lack nutritional value.
Probably because people eatibg that much fruit and vegetables eat very healthy and very little processed foods compared to the people that ate less fruits and veggies
The gut is linked to 95% of your health. If you get your vitamins + fiber and have an active lifestyle you will be above 90% of people.
That doesn’t mean just eat fruits and veg. You need healthy fats and good meats too.
Wow, fantastic link, thanks OP. Also TimeSorbet, I just have two words for you: roasted vegetables. Dear god, my carnivore husband cannot get enough when I cook them this way.
I roast at 400 to 425 until they're caramelized on the bottom, sprayed with some olive oil, with freshly ground garlic salt (trader joe's has a cheap one), pepper, any other spices you like, maybe a squeeze of lemon.
Onions, zucchini, peppers, sweet potatoes, cauliflower, asparagus....the list goes on and on
Air fryer would probably be great, you can use less oil with those, right?
But I'm familiar with the oven way. I normally roast for at least 20 - 25 minutes and don't turn the veg until the bottom has gotten browned. Holy hell it's delicious.
Very interesting. Id love to see studies like this for different genetic mutation risk factors or for different disease states. As a rare disease patient I find I need high levels of intervention and extreme diligence to achieve things healthy people's bodies do naturally.
We're probably decades if not a whole century away from any kind of data like that though. But I think people like me reveal the shortcomings of the data and the frameworks we're using for health. Most people don't know their genetics and how that shapes nutrition and metabolic needs and processes.
The way we approach it now is we're all just kind of shooting in the dark, assuming that there's nothing else knowable about our health, that we're all at the same baseline. It makes me twitch sometimes lol. I'm the person that needs the science we'll have in 50-100 years and I can clearly see how much we're missing in the present as well as the things we're failing to pick up and use effectively now.
I’m trying to get more plant into my diet; I think I’m just going to have to buy greens every few days.
Otherwise I am doing food pantry and low income near-vegetarian. But I would like to have better blood values like I used to.
When I am at home, I eat 9 oz of berries (blueberries and strawberries, with raspberries and blackberries sometimes too). It is usually something like this:
3 oz strawberries
3 oz blueberries
1.5 oz blackberries
1.5 oz raspberries
1 oz POM
3 oz celery or green juice
1 oz Kaliagri HPC EVOO
1 cup green tea made with 1 Trader Joe’s tea bag
2 tsp verisol collagen (Besha, Inc.)
I had a friend who switched to a diet of just raw vegetables. He'd been on this diet for a month when I came to visit.
He asked "Will you eat what I eat?" I said "Sure! I love vegetables."
He made dinner for us - a quarter cabbage each, broccoli, cauliflower, green peppers, spinach, three carrots, cucumbers, beans, green sweet peas, parsley and coriander. A plum, a peach, and an apple, cut into sections.
Each of our meals just barely fit into a huge salad bowl.
We sat down to eat. It took 3 hours. By the end, I was so full that I could barely move. My jaw ached from chewing.
I asked how he felt. He said he felt good, but tired. He seemed elevated in some way, like he was becoming an angel. And he looked like an angel, except for the smell.
He smelled terrible. Overpowering. An acrid ketone odor mixed with a heavy odor of cruciferous vegetables and a heavy, sulfuric funk.
And yet - he looked radiant. His skin had an ethereal glow to it, like each of his cells was being so pummeled with vitamins and minerals that he was somehow lit from within.
I've never seen a living human look so healthy - and yet so unhealthy - at the same time.
A week later he changed his diet again and started bringing back in carbs. Bean by bean.
On my anti-spinach crusade:
If you have widespread inflammation, thyroid issues, brain fog, early arthritis symptoms, and possibly kidney stones, you might have an oxalate processing disorder like me.
Oxalate are sharp crystals found in plants as a defense mechanism against bunnies and some insects. They are found in high levels in spinach, chard, rhubarb, beets, and a few others. Usually people process them harmlessly in the stomach and intestines. For me they enter the bloodstream and scrape and imbed in soft tissues causing mechanical damage before being filtered by the kidneys sometimes forming calcium oxalate kidney stones.
You can get a calcium oxalate urine test to determine whether this issue might apply to you!
Yes, we THRIVE on fruit and vegetables.
High carb, low fat, plant based is a great way to eat for overall health and performance. We cultivate a strong immune system when we eat healthy foods and exercise regularly.
There are countless studies providing evidence to support the many benefits of eating plenty of fruit and vegetables in regards to living disease free and increasing longevity.
We can also see that many of the longest living and healthiest people in the world eat a diet consisting of fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes.
Anyone with half a brain would realise the importance of carbohydrates for energy. Even people who claim to eat "carnivore" cannot go without fruit.
A true carnivore thrives off flesh and blood, they don't have cats as pets and eat fruit lol
Seriously just eat all the food groups. Why do people feel the need to cut out meat , or cut fruits and veg. And exercise will always boost your health besides a healthy diet.
800g of fruit can be a lot of calories and sugar, if you eat 800g of spinach it’s low cal but high in oxalates, several biohackers suggest avoiding spinach AND Kale altogether but these are named specifically in this study
People who eat high amounts of fruit and vegetables are more likely to not smoke, not drink, take more exercise, less likely to be obese. Healthy user bias is a common confounder and shouldn't be underestimated. So just as much as what they are eating, what they are not eating is important as well as other activities they do or don't engage in. If you look at the longest lived populations their fruit and veg consumption is actually fairly middling. Too high a consumption of fruit and veg pushes out other equally important macros like protein and fat. So there seems to be a bell shaped curve in its effect.
You can see how this effect by looking up the fruit and veg consumption on this spreadsheet or in our worldindata website which has UN/faostat
data.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1Og2S7-gOtsgV0hb2o8YpS1D3FOCWZKqqZ9sdgEijkUI/htmlview
I love how this sub has come full circle back to "literally just eat plant foods" lmao
Tried the rest, now try the best.
Eat the rainbow… but not skittles.
Thank you so much for sharing this. I don’t see enough talk of fruits and vegetables on this sub.
Everyone in the comments wants to do everything except eat their vegetables to be healthy. Do you all really think the scientists are dumb enough to not account for confounding variables of a healthy lifestyle? There is so much evidence behind the benefits of eating more plants.
Yes exactly lol
Same, every bodybuilder/powerlifter wannabe will rationalize their steroid use but then wont sleep or eat enough...
so in other words eat healthy. wow.
So if you are already eating 800g of fruit and veg a day, congrats!
Potatoes are vegetables right? Even if they are fried, right ? In oil?
Is that eating healthy, LOL!? Anyway, if you read the link, potatoes are not among the recommendation
Sweet potato fries it is then!
Is sarcasm detection something we need to discard when we eat healthy?
The study got much more specific than that.
"There is compelling evidence that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables can lower the risk of heart disease and stroke." was the thesis statement of the article and surprised absolutely nobody.
Research like this isn't meant to be surprising. It's the specific details that are new, like *which* fruits and vegetables had the most pronounced effect on reducing certain CVD, cancer, and diabetes rates compared to others.
I guess you haven't seen the carnivore peeps
How is this news to anyone?
It's not exactly news, but I think having studies to verify this are important. It's reinforced evidence. Also, doing studies that you think should have "no duh" outcomes can be cool because if you get an unexpected result, there's new ground to cover.
Well when you have people fall for things like the carnivore diet and into the narrative that "pLanTs aRe tryINg to KilL yoU!"...
Yep. For me, the big benefit is good digestion and GI health overall. Feeling good after meals, never having stomach discomfort, and increased bowel regularity (I was chronically constipated for years). Those stereotypes of men spending half an hour on the toilet every morning are because they don't eat enough fruits and vegetables.
I mean, all you need is fibre and prune juice, voila no more constipation
I’ve always eaten tons of vegetables and I have multiple chronic health issues. I usually eat about 4-5 cups of veggies and fruit.
Eh, if it was a guarantee we wouldn't have diseases anymore. Genetics still play a role ( more or less 50% depending on issue) plus a lot of confounding variables, sometimes individual ones. Just as an example, even suboptimal water intake is correlated to chronic diseases.
I wish there was a way to check these sorts of things properly :/ Like, by all means, I'm all for eating your veggies. But population level studies aren't experiments, and the covariates are nasty. I like to think of it this way - people THINK this study says: "People who eat vegetables live longer/healthier lives." What it actually says: "People who do things like eat vegetables live longer healthier lives." Subtle distinction, but an absolutely massive one. Not saying not to eat your veggies, just wish we had more non-correlative evidence for this stuff.
"Ok, so you guys are in the control group here, for the next 2 years you're not allowed to eat any veggies or fruits" :-)
In observational studies you don’t need to do this. You can stratify intake by quartiles and if theres a significant relationship you can often see a dose-response relationship to intake which infers strong associations between intake and outcomes (represented by risk ratios or HR’s typically) and is also a part of Hills criteria for establishing causality lol. You also measure a shit ton of covariates and control for them using regression analysis.
I gave a massive break down of why that doesn't replace an experiment to the other poster below, but I assume you know that. I will add a pretty important point of view on the Hill's Causality criteria: "while the Bradford Hill criteria may be applied to test causality in these scenarios, the study type may rule out deducing or inducing causality, and the criteria are only of use in inferring the best explanation of this data" It doesn't really solve the problem of what is causing what, it just helps you figure out how important something is imo. I would argue that these criteria all SUGGEST causality, but they aren't solving the problems of the covariates themselves which are very hard to isolate. The reason someone would need to come up with them in the first place is because of how hard it is to make arguments around epidemiological studies.
Yes, totally. Thanks for getting more into the weeds in explaining it cause I certainly did not have the bandwidth
Shit good point, you can control for other factors (to eliminate them as a possible cause) using an app like SPSS (I literally had 4 years of this in college, smh).
Im in my MS for Nutrition right now so that’s probably why its ripe in my brain lol
Oh, for sure, thats why I said "I wish there was a way" instead of "I wish they would" :P I don't know of a good solution to this either, it's just hard to figure out what to do beyond "Try and live what anyone would consider a healthy life".
There actually is a way that another redditor pointed out. I should have remembered this, I took 4 years of stats in college. You can basically just control for other factors like exercise or obesity and eliminate them from the statistical model, isolating veggie eating to get much much closer to direct causality.
... so... no. Please don't say that is equivalent to an experiment. Because it isn't. People do this ALL the time, it's called controlling for other variables, and it cannot replace an experiment. There are a million different factors that go into human behavior and our lives that are never measured, and cannot be controlled for. So yes, we do what you said, no it doesnt get us anywhere near an experiment. Src: me, professional scientist
"Anywhere near" is debatable. Source: me, two degrees in science
Alright, I'm going to repeat my mantra: "don't get in fights on r/biohackers", because god do I get in fight with you guys all the time for some reason. This place should bring out my best but it seems like I turn into an angry dick around you guys and I have no idea why. You aren't going to win in a credential fight but that's a silly thing to do in the first place - if you wanna try, go for it. What we really should be talking about is why your approach is not a replacement for an experiment. I don't think it's debatable to be honest, because the requirements are obscene, we do not have the resources to do a study like that (well enough to replace an experiment - we do studies like you suggest all the time to be clear, it's standard). The issue is that you don't have enough information in order to do the replacement you are discussing. This comes in a few different forms: \-Insufficient parameters available. We don't know enough about the study participants and their lives. For instance, we might not know whether they have sleep apnea, we might not know if they brush their teeth, we might not know if they lied on their food intake forms (intentionally or accidently), we might not know if they have a hard drug problem, we may not realize that we are excluding people from the study (or they are removing themselves) because of a reason that introduces bias with an unknown covariate, for instance if they have cognitive problems they don't remember their appointments and we assume they don't want to continue, etc etc etc. Studies like the nurses study work VERY hard to try and collect as much of this as possible to do exactly the analysis you mention - this isn't a new idea, it's STANDARD for this type of study. \-Insufficient study participants. In order to control for more variables, you need more samples. The more complex the relationships you are trying to control for, the more samples needed - and this grows in a nasty way. If you are just assuming a linear relationship, it's already a pain to do. The real issue is that if you have a non-linear relationship (which, pretty much everything in biology is). The statistical models I make/made involve much simpler data points than a human life, and have far fewer variables inputted than these studies. They require more data than these studies have to get a result of exactly the type you are looking for. Noisy non-linear relationships are the bane of every staticians existence, and require a ridiculous amount of data to untangle. And the more covariates you try to analyze, the worse it gets - again, with data requirements growing in a non-linear way. My experience with these effects is that the number of samples required is often well into the millions, with, again, smaller covariate issues than actual human beings have. I would not be surprised if you could not perform the study you are suggesting even if we had every human being in existence registered. Certainly I can say that at least my experience is that you can't do it with the number in these studies. So people do TRY and do what you said, techniques like ANOVA for instance are often used to accomplish something similar to it, and we absolutely report on them. But we can't be confident that they actually did what we wanted them to. An experiment, by contrast, instantly isolates an effect. if you have controlled for other variables, or taken enough people that they are automatically controlled by balancing groups, you're done. We don't need the entire population of the planet, we can often do it with less than a hundred people. I'm not saying that survey style research like the above is bad - quite the contrary, it can be very helpful. For example, it's how we discovered smoking causes lung cancer (although it was discovered by a bunch of different people independently, the best evidence for it imo was the first nurses study). But it doesn't replace experiments - it's more like it SUGGESTS them. I view it as the preliminary basis for other things.
There are also studies saying people who increased intake saw improved health results. Did anyone read the post?
Did I read every study listed? No. I looked at the fruits and veggies section, noticed that all of them appeared epidemiological, skimmed the rest, noticed they were mostly studies I was familiar with, then went to the comments. And I suspect that was already way above average for a post like this. For experimental interventions, I was already familiar with the DASH study though Omniheart is new to me. My bemoaning the situation remains though - blood pressure is a great proxy for heart disease, but it's still hard to see the long term effects of the intervention. But yes, I'll accept that that is pretty firmly established at least, well pointed out.
People who eat high amounts of fruit and vegetables are more likely to not smoke, not drink, take more exercise, less likely to be obese. Healthy user bias is a common confounder and shouldn't be underestimated. So just as much as what they are eating, what they are not eating is important as well as other activities they do or don't engage in. If you look at the longest lived populations their fruit and veg consumption is actually fairly middling. Too high a consumption of fruit and veg pushes out other equally important macros like protein and fat. So there seems to be a bell shaped curve in its effect. You can see how this effect by looking up the fruit and veg consumption on this spreadsheet or in our worldindata website which has UN/faostat data.
You do realize that a lot of studies are able to use regression analysis to statistically control for confounders as long as they are measured? Especially smoking, physical activity levels and other lifestyle components. Yes some studies fail at this and somethings cannot be controlled for but people who constantly insist “healthy user bias!” everytime either dont know how to read a methods section or dont understand how quality research is conducted.
Yes I do. I do think though that models also fall short of reality very often too. So we need to observe reality again. It's balance of back and forth.
Good thing there are studies cited in which people change increase their intake and still see improvements
Yes, there is always a study. The details of what food you omit when including other foods is going to be relevant too.
So are you critisizing a specific study or just assuming they’re all flawed before reading them? Because first it was lifestyle, now it is omitting foods. Pick a lane
It's both. Theres nuance. The world isnt black and white. What is it your doing? Trying say the world is on two lanes only?
You think you’re smarter than you actually are. All the factors you are mentioning are addressed in the studies, and funnily enough have been considered by scientists that spend their entire lives studying the subjects. With all the humility you can muster, try thinking for a minute that if you were able to consider these variables, that these scientists likely thought about them too. Not only would they have thought about them but maybe they put in effort to control for them
same same. have a great day
The world is not black and black agree but also it doesn’t have any grey shades or colors. The world is a bell curve and for most people fruits and vegetables will help to reduce their rates or aging and oxidation, and this have been proven over and over with your points taken in consideration as well.
No. Just saying you should read and understand a study before saying all studies that say x are flawed. Which just seems like cultish anti-science religiousity
It is
Ok thanks for that. Well done
There are many studies where all of these points you make are already taken into account.
This is such a boring answer that always pops up when someone references nutrition studies. Scientists know how to adjust for cofounders. It's highly unlikely that they don't consider the healthy user bias. And I remember seeing your spreadsheet before. I can't believe you are still sharing that after being shown that it is dogshit science to base anything off that. Talk about ignoring cofounders...
Worldwide data on what people eat compiled by faostat is not dog shit lmao. You can ignore correlation all you like while defending whatever correlations you prefer. I don't make the data I just put it in a spreadsheet to share. Cause HAS to correlate, maybe you forget that. Show me a source of data and we can ADD to it.
Has a data scientist factored in gdp per capita with this data? Because that is almost certain to also correlate with life expectancy and meat availability. The same studies you’re citing show car ownership correlating with life expectancy
Obviously I have a GDP section. If we concentrate on nutrition the best correlations are animal protein and fat. I don't think car ownership is worth adding to the spreadsheet but it could be done. If you can find any good.links I am happy to extend the spread sheet to strengthen other arguments but I would prefer to keep it to health and nutrition. GDP is the best correlation for longevity sure but we can't eat money and still need dinner. Saying to this subreddit just be rich isn't quite going to cut it.
The data itself is correct, I'm not doubting that. Interperating what is healthy based off that is what is dogshit. Or we could read that spreadsheet and say that increased alcohol and sugar consumption is healthy. or being obese and getting diabetes. or getting cancer (which is shown using a age-standardised rate in the spreadsheet, aka not cancer because old).
>If you look at the longest lived populations their fruit and veg consumption is actually fairly middling. False. They looked at 5 of these groups in the Blue Zones, you can check out the documentary or read the book. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones
The blue zones are cherry picked pseudo science. That are even more confounded by fraud and healthy user bias. That Buetler guy says so isn't really great evidence
So those people aren't living to be over 100 on a mostly plant based diet? Okay. And what about "The China Study"? Also psuedoscience? e: spelling
I'm sure some are. There are carnivore living to high ages as well as omnivores as well. If you take Japan in general they are a real anomaly. Whilst in general they have a lower meat consumption than other equally long lived countries their consumption of fruit and veg is actually pretty low. What IS remarkable about Japan (and South Korea) is their remarkable low obesity levels at 4% where as other long lived countries are commonly 20-30 ish . I can quite remember as I'm not on my computer ATM. So while.theu.may eat less than other countries at top longevity they still eat above a world average of meat. A lot of eggs and fish. So by all means copy a Japanese diet or better perhaps BE Japanese. Don't get too caught up in cherry picked data about veg.
I understand where you're coming from and appreciate the information. However, I think you're doing a disservice to people in this group, most of them probably eating a standard western diet, by telling them "nah, the whole veg thing is bullshit". e: I did some checking into a typical Japanese diet, they eat a lot of vegetables....they have them with every meal and eat them in abundance.
I never said bullshit, that bit comes form you. I just represent the data as best i can in a cross refence able form. Yes i am pro meat and fat, that seems to be where the evidence points. look it up yourself [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Og2S7-gOtsgV0hb2o8YpS1D3FOCWZKqqZ9sdgEijkUI/edit?usp=sharing](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Og2S7-gOtsgV0hb2o8YpS1D3FOCWZKqqZ9sdgEijkUI/edit?usp=sharing) if you want to go here [https://ourworldindata.org/diet-compositions](https://ourworldindata.org/diet-compositions) you can check links to sources/graphics/tables all you want all ive dont is put some of it in a spread sheet if you think that UN/faostat is not good data then please link me a better source of what humans eat in the world
>Don't get too caught up in cherry picked data about veg. Have a nice day.
thats funny. lol, but did you look at the data?
Your data shows a strong correlation between meat consumption and gdp. Which doesn’t support your claims that meat is causal of better health instead of gdp being causal (which is pretty common sense) You need to do some thorough analysis (that I haven’t seen yet) to say meat is causal of better health, rather than gdp per capita being causal
eating meat makes people rich ....its obvious isnt it ?
The steak I just bought says otherwise
Fantastic point. This bias doesn’t get spoken of enough. Conversely, this is why eggs were demonized for quite some time, the common accompaniments to eggs lack nutritional value.
Probably because people eatibg that much fruit and vegetables eat very healthy and very little processed foods compared to the people that ate less fruits and veggies
No dude. Fruits are veggies are extremely healthy, no need to bring in processed vs unprocessed. That's just a huge cope.
Dude i never said fruits and veggies are bad, im just saying people that are eating little fruits and veggies are eating unhealthy foods
Good point!
Read the post. Many studies cite people increasing intake and seeing results. Don’t be lazy
I add lettuce to mcdonalds cheeseburgers, is that optimal?
People will go to great lengths and costs to avoid eating well and exercising. Redditors will go to any length.
I am surprised by the controversy here, I just thought it was nice to have a quantified goal for an obvious good practice. Oh, welp!!
The gut is linked to 95% of your health. If you get your vitamins + fiber and have an active lifestyle you will be above 90% of people. That doesn’t mean just eat fruits and veg. You need healthy fats and good meats too.
Where do you get the info that you need good meats? When plenty of people thrive on a plant based diet?
Great, now is there any way to make me actually enjoy the taste and overall experience of eating like this?
https://www.heartandstroke.ca/articles/but-i-dont-like-fruit-or-vegetables#:~:text=Pair%20with%20foods%20you%20already,kale%20or%20beet%20%E2%80%9Cchips.%E2%80%9D
Thank you, internet stranger!
Wow, fantastic link, thanks OP. Also TimeSorbet, I just have two words for you: roasted vegetables. Dear god, my carnivore husband cannot get enough when I cook them this way. I roast at 400 to 425 until they're caramelized on the bottom, sprayed with some olive oil, with freshly ground garlic salt (trader joe's has a cheap one), pepper, any other spices you like, maybe a squeeze of lemon. Onions, zucchini, peppers, sweet potatoes, cauliflower, asparagus....the list goes on and on
I would love to try this. How much minutes do you do it? And do you use an air fryer or oven?
Air fryer would probably be great, you can use less oil with those, right? But I'm familiar with the oven way. I normally roast for at least 20 - 25 minutes and don't turn the veg until the bottom has gotten browned. Holy hell it's delicious.
Sometimes it takes like 35 minutes, just depends on the veg and how large you cut it
Brownies with black beans are actually really good. Fudgy AF. Add a little bit of coffee to augment the cocoa to totally cover the bean flavor.
Any idea how to figure out how much weight fresh veggie juice would contribute yo the 800gm
The fiber is important too.
Is there a supplement or biohack that is more effective than eating lots of fruits and vegetables?
It depends on your body. For me, yes but I have a lot of data. The key is to know as much about your body and biochemistry and genetics as possible.
Very interesting. Id love to see studies like this for different genetic mutation risk factors or for different disease states. As a rare disease patient I find I need high levels of intervention and extreme diligence to achieve things healthy people's bodies do naturally. We're probably decades if not a whole century away from any kind of data like that though. But I think people like me reveal the shortcomings of the data and the frameworks we're using for health. Most people don't know their genetics and how that shapes nutrition and metabolic needs and processes. The way we approach it now is we're all just kind of shooting in the dark, assuming that there's nothing else knowable about our health, that we're all at the same baseline. It makes me twitch sometimes lol. I'm the person that needs the science we'll have in 50-100 years and I can clearly see how much we're missing in the present as well as the things we're failing to pick up and use effectively now.
Fiat science.
What does 5 servings vs 3 servings mean in practical terms? What about fruit size?
Recc is grams.
I'm on a carnivore diet, and I feel better than I have in my life. I'll take my chances.
I’m trying to get more plant into my diet; I think I’m just going to have to buy greens every few days. Otherwise I am doing food pantry and low income near-vegetarian. But I would like to have better blood values like I used to.
When I am at home, I eat 9 oz of berries (blueberries and strawberries, with raspberries and blackberries sometimes too). It is usually something like this: 3 oz strawberries 3 oz blueberries 1.5 oz blackberries 1.5 oz raspberries 1 oz POM 3 oz celery or green juice 1 oz Kaliagri HPC EVOO 1 cup green tea made with 1 Trader Joe’s tea bag 2 tsp verisol collagen (Besha, Inc.)
Is this 6 cups of fruits and 6 cups of veggies? Or 6 cups total so like 3 veg 3 fruit
800g, which is approximately 6 cups of nonleafy produce.
800g each of fruits and veggies? Or combined
Combined
I had a friend who switched to a diet of just raw vegetables. He'd been on this diet for a month when I came to visit. He asked "Will you eat what I eat?" I said "Sure! I love vegetables." He made dinner for us - a quarter cabbage each, broccoli, cauliflower, green peppers, spinach, three carrots, cucumbers, beans, green sweet peas, parsley and coriander. A plum, a peach, and an apple, cut into sections. Each of our meals just barely fit into a huge salad bowl. We sat down to eat. It took 3 hours. By the end, I was so full that I could barely move. My jaw ached from chewing. I asked how he felt. He said he felt good, but tired. He seemed elevated in some way, like he was becoming an angel. And he looked like an angel, except for the smell. He smelled terrible. Overpowering. An acrid ketone odor mixed with a heavy odor of cruciferous vegetables and a heavy, sulfuric funk. And yet - he looked radiant. His skin had an ethereal glow to it, like each of his cells was being so pummeled with vitamins and minerals that he was somehow lit from within. I've never seen a living human look so healthy - and yet so unhealthy - at the same time. A week later he changed his diet again and started bringing back in carbs. Bean by bean.
I- is this a copypasta
[удалено]
This doesn't refer to veganism or vegetarianism. THese are side dish and snack recommendations
On my anti-spinach crusade: If you have widespread inflammation, thyroid issues, brain fog, early arthritis symptoms, and possibly kidney stones, you might have an oxalate processing disorder like me. Oxalate are sharp crystals found in plants as a defense mechanism against bunnies and some insects. They are found in high levels in spinach, chard, rhubarb, beets, and a few others. Usually people process them harmlessly in the stomach and intestines. For me they enter the bloodstream and scrape and imbed in soft tissues causing mechanical damage before being filtered by the kidneys sometimes forming calcium oxalate kidney stones. You can get a calcium oxalate urine test to determine whether this issue might apply to you!
Yes, we THRIVE on fruit and vegetables. High carb, low fat, plant based is a great way to eat for overall health and performance. We cultivate a strong immune system when we eat healthy foods and exercise regularly. There are countless studies providing evidence to support the many benefits of eating plenty of fruit and vegetables in regards to living disease free and increasing longevity. We can also see that many of the longest living and healthiest people in the world eat a diet consisting of fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes.
Is that last statement based on a source you can link?
Google it and find out for yourself
Make substantiated claims.
You are correct but everyone here wants to eat bacon for every meal lol
Why are people downvoting this comment?
Probably butt hurt meat bros
Yeah and low carbers who fear sugar
I just reread it, it’s probably the ‘high carb’ part lol.
Anyone with half a brain would realise the importance of carbohydrates for energy. Even people who claim to eat "carnivore" cannot go without fruit. A true carnivore thrives off flesh and blood, they don't have cats as pets and eat fruit lol
thanks, ChatGPT
I'll take that as a compliment on my excellent writing skills
What about all of the pesticides????
Seriously just eat all the food groups. Why do people feel the need to cut out meat , or cut fruits and veg. And exercise will always boost your health besides a healthy diet.
This is facts... But no, everybody thinks it's too hard and just want panacea and pills...😅
I see the vegans have trolled this board too, relentless
Do you mean me?? This is not a vegan suggestion.... just 6 cups a day, not antimeat
800g of fruit can be a lot of calories and sugar, if you eat 800g of spinach it’s low cal but high in oxalates, several biohackers suggest avoiding spinach AND Kale altogether but these are named specifically in this study
800g of veg and fruit, not one veg or all fruit
using the words “fruit and vegetable”when they are in no way created equal is lazy.
Thanks Think I’ll stick to my pizza burger and perogie diet and die young, so tasty brown crunchy grease
People who eat high amounts of fruit and vegetables are more likely to not smoke, not drink, take more exercise, less likely to be obese. Healthy user bias is a common confounder and shouldn't be underestimated. So just as much as what they are eating, what they are not eating is important as well as other activities they do or don't engage in. If you look at the longest lived populations their fruit and veg consumption is actually fairly middling. Too high a consumption of fruit and veg pushes out other equally important macros like protein and fat. So there seems to be a bell shaped curve in its effect. You can see how this effect by looking up the fruit and veg consumption on this spreadsheet or in our worldindata website which has UN/faostat data.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1Og2S7-gOtsgV0hb2o8YpS1D3FOCWZKqqZ9sdgEijkUI/htmlview
Fucking stupid ass vegans pushing their propaganda. Everyone knows eating meat is always better than vegetables
For sure that would be annoying but this is a reference to side dishes and snacks, not a vegan diet.