Quote:
Originally Posted by CFrance
Okay. I thought by TV you meant The Villages!
The two studies--Leisure World and the follow-up 90+ were not trying to emphasize or de-emphasize healthy diet, so the science of nutrition was not really involved. They were looking for any reasons that people lived past 90, and not necessarily diet or no diet. The studies were going on before 60 Minutes did the story.
For that matter, most studies wouldn't be memorable to the public unless they were reported on via TV or internet, or talked about in a book. Most lay people don't subscribe to medical journals and might not otherwise hear about the studies.
|
I often edit my posts after I post them. In this case I realized that I hadn't made a clear statement as far as being memorable. So the statement now reads: "I don't think that study would be memorable to the science of nutrition."
If the science of nutrition wasn't involved then it was de-emphasized, in my opinion.
I like the Seventh Day Adventist study better because it was less ambiguous. The people are vegetarians or vegans (so most likely they are health minded) and they have an average life expectancy of 88. That's 10 years longer than the average for other Americans.
If the people in the "90 plus" study are eating the standard American diet then they must be included in those who live 10 years less on average. So why are people getting excited about the "90 plus" diet? Is it because they see it as giving permission to eat lots of animal protein and all kinds of processed junk foods?