Nutrition is overrated

Just read the other thread in this NG, "Few diseases are preventable by
changing behavior in midlife ". Should have checked before posting!

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just read the other thread in this NG, "Few diseases are preventable by
changing behavior in midlife ". Should have checked before posting!

That is the flaw in modern medical science in that once a diagnosis is made
then you are put on a different clock or track dependent on that diseases
life expectancy.
The key is to have an ability to screen susceptibility to disease and
prevent it or diminish it's effects when caught early. Genotyping can do
that to a certain extent and the other variables such as environment or
precipitating events will still be out there.
The problem is that the ideal system already exists to some degree and the
results are disappointing. Take diabetes for example where there is a
genetic pattern and people still eat any way they want. When they come down
with diabetes they are unable to lose weight even when told that they may
get rid of the diabetes by doing so.
Your question as whole is so variable in terms of life expectancy that you
will not see a straight pattern. Do you want to live with twenty years of
Alzheimer's vs somebody who dies 10 years earlier of a car accident?
Nutrition is also variable and hard to evaluate because of all the variables
over time. Your nutrition as a baby was different as a child or an adult
etc.

Interesting question.

Maximum life expectancy is limited by our biological make up. Even
excellent nutrition can only go so far to extend it. Then you have to
factor in non-disease related deaths and injuries, like accidents and
violent events.

What you are missing in your equation is quality of life which is
determined by general health, mobility, absence of disease, absence of
pain, etc. Good nutrition has a direct bearing on general health and
many chronic conditions. Good nutrition will minimize chronic
conditions. Poor nutrition will lead to more chronic conditions. By
chronic conditions I mean things like diabetes, heart disease, obesity,
chrohn's, gum disease, etc.

Life expectancy and nutrition does not necessarily have a linear
relationship. Quality of life/health and good nutrition does.

I'd rather live healthy and die at 70 by being shot by a jealous
husband, than live to 100 and be disease ridden for most of my life.

TC

Quoted message said:

I am 29 and eat very healthy, yet compared to an obese alchoholic
smoker, my statistical life expectency is only 15% higher. One would
think if you are putting in 10 times less toxins into your body, your
life expectancy would be 10X greater ? Why is this not so from a
medical standpoint?

I am an engineer and know that a product that sees 10X less severe
applications will typically last 100X longer (there is an exponential
relationship between product stress and product life).

If you factor in your time spent maintaining a healthy lifestyle and
subtract from your life expectancy, you are left with a number that

is

Quoted message said:

even closer to the unhealthy individuals life expectancy. What's the
point of being "fit" and "eating healthy" when the ends simply dont
justify the means?

I realize there are intangible philosophical benefits to a healthy
lifestyle but I am curious to learn why the medical benefits are

hardly

Quoted message said:

worth it? BTW, I just pulled 15% out of the air, so please correct me
if I am wrong!

TC wrote:
:: Interesting question.
::
:: Maximum life expectancy is limited by our biological make up. Even
:: excellent nutrition can only go so far to extend it. Then you have to
:: factor in non-disease related deaths and injuries, like accidents and
:: violent events.
::
:: What you are missing in your equation is quality of life which is
:: determined by general health, mobility, absence of disease, absence
:: of pain, etc. Good nutrition has a direct bearing on general health
:: and many chronic conditions. Good nutrition will minimize chronic
:: conditions. Poor nutrition will lead to more chronic conditions. By
:: chronic conditions I mean things like diabetes, heart disease,
:: obesity, chrohn's, gum disease, etc.
::
:: Life expectancy and nutrition does not necessarily have a linear
:: relationship. Quality of life/health and good nutrition does.
::
:: I'd rather live healthy and die at 70 by being shot by a jealous
:: husband, than live to 100 and be disease ridden for most of my life.

AFAIK, Okinawans have the longest /healthy/ life expectancy in the world. A
diet worth of considering.

--
Juhana

Okinawans have a life expectancy of 81 while USA it is 77. That's only
a 5% difference? Hardly statistically significant when one culture OD's
on double cheesburgers, beer and pizza while the others follows a
strict regiment of fruit, vegatbale and fish in moderation!

Quality of life is another point that TC mentioned, but I am mainly
focused on medical differences.

My guess would be that those who are regarded as having a healthy lifestyle
are doing something just as deadly as the fat drinking smokers. The problem
has just not yet been identified.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am 29 and eat very healthy, yet compared to an obese alchoholic
smoker, my statistical life expectency is only 15% higher. One would
think if you are putting in 10 times less toxins into your body, your
life expectancy would be 10X greater ? Why is this not so from a
medical standpoint?

I am an engineer and know that a product that sees 10X less severe
applications will typically last 100X longer (there is an exponential
relationship between product stress and product life).

If you factor in your time spent maintaining a healthy lifestyle and
subtract from your life expectancy, you are left with a number that is
even closer to the unhealthy individuals life expectancy. What's the
point of being "fit" and "eating healthy" when the ends simply dont
justify the means?

I realize there are intangible philosophical benefits to a healthy
lifestyle but I am curious to learn why the medical benefits are hardly
worth it? BTW, I just pulled 15% out of the air, so please correct me
if I am wrong!

The OP is correct in that there is a missing ingredient, and that is
oxidative stress, via unsaturated fatty acid and oxdized cholesterol
mostly (along with too much iron and not enough antioxidants). But
there is no major study under way to test this, and so one looks to the
biochemistry. Here, the evidence is overwhelming. Just go to
www.pubmed.com and search for lipid peroxidation, oxidative stress,
oxysterols, oxidized cholesterol, and arachidonic, and you'll see what
I mean.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Okinawans have a life expectancy of 81 while USA it is 77. That's
:: only a 5% difference? Hardly statistically significant when one
:: culture OD's on double cheesburgers, beer and pizza while the others
:: follows a strict regiment of fruit, vegatbale and fish in moderation!
::
:: Quality of life is another point that TC mentioned, but I am mainly
:: focused on medical differences.

The difference is greater than 5% if you compare the _healthy_ life. The
Okinawans might have even higher life expectancy if they would have the U.S.
income and the same high budget spent on medical care.

For me a food culture of cheeseburgers, beer, pizza, obesity and wolfing
down one's lunch is a nightmare and it has nothing to do with the quality of
life. I appreciate a food culture of small portions sizes, tasty foods,
refined flavors and eating in a peaceful setting. That is quality of life
for me.

--
Juhana