The Blue Zones (which became a business, which was sold to the Seventh Day Adventists, who are vegetarians...) are flawed on many levels. Having lived in Nicaragua, 17km from Costa Rica, I know for a fact that saying that the CR Blue Zone people don't eat much meat is completely bogus. They may eat LESS meat, but the implication that all the people in the Blue Zones are functional vegetarians is not correct. I suspect more of the longevity traits come from not eating seed oils or junk food, eating local, and being active and in the sun often. BZ areas (Japan, Sardinia, etc) where western crap diets have come in have seen huge changes in all the BZ metrics.
I was having some health issues and did a lot of research on BZs, and then the main guy (can't think of his name) came to interview my grandmother, who lived to 106 1/2 and independently until the last 8 mos of her life. (Her grandparents lived into their 90s, her mom to 93 with diabetes, so there's a definite genetic component.) Anyway, he asked her about her lifestyle (very active), then her diet. She said she ate a lot of steak, didn't like seafood, and credited her longevity to having dark chocolate every day of her life (which she legit did). He immediately dismissed her and left soon after, and was, according to her, very rude. So... lots of cherry picking going on.
The studies about poorer health associated with vegetarian diets seem inconclusive...the following points might sound nitpicky, but I think they are glossed over in your summary.
The study about mental health being poorer for those with a meatless diet states in their conclusion "The nature of the association remains unclear" — this sounds like a case of the pithy statistics phrase "correlation does not mean causation". If you can't determine the root cause, then it's quite possible there is another variable at play that is not yet determined.
The second study about Austrian adults, despite their unequivocal conclusion that "adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy...", states in the paragraph about limitations "no statements can be made whether the poorer health in vegetarians in our study is caused by their dietary habit or if they consume this form of diet due to their poorer health status". It seems awfully contradictory that they come to the above conclusion given that they can't clearly define cause and effect.
The Blue Zones (which became a business, which was sold to the Seventh Day Adventists, who are vegetarians...) are flawed on many levels. Having lived in Nicaragua, 17km from Costa Rica, I know for a fact that saying that the CR Blue Zone people don't eat much meat is completely bogus. They may eat LESS meat, but the implication that all the people in the Blue Zones are functional vegetarians is not correct. I suspect more of the longevity traits come from not eating seed oils or junk food, eating local, and being active and in the sun often. BZ areas (Japan, Sardinia, etc) where western crap diets have come in have seen huge changes in all the BZ metrics.
I was having some health issues and did a lot of research on BZs, and then the main guy (can't think of his name) came to interview my grandmother, who lived to 106 1/2 and independently until the last 8 mos of her life. (Her grandparents lived into their 90s, her mom to 93 with diabetes, so there's a definite genetic component.) Anyway, he asked her about her lifestyle (very active), then her diet. She said she ate a lot of steak, didn't like seafood, and credited her longevity to having dark chocolate every day of her life (which she legit did). He immediately dismissed her and left soon after, and was, according to her, very rude. So... lots of cherry picking going on.
What's the optimal balance between regulation and decentralization in the meat industry?
Also, would love for you to talk about raw milk. It seems to be the new health fad.
The studies about poorer health associated with vegetarian diets seem inconclusive...the following points might sound nitpicky, but I think they are glossed over in your summary.
The study about mental health being poorer for those with a meatless diet states in their conclusion "The nature of the association remains unclear" — this sounds like a case of the pithy statistics phrase "correlation does not mean causation". If you can't determine the root cause, then it's quite possible there is another variable at play that is not yet determined.
The second study about Austrian adults, despite their unequivocal conclusion that "adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy...", states in the paragraph about limitations "no statements can be made whether the poorer health in vegetarians in our study is caused by their dietary habit or if they consume this form of diet due to their poorer health status". It seems awfully contradictory that they come to the above conclusion given that they can't clearly define cause and effect.
Anyways, thanks for the interesting reads Justin!