The ones I mentioned, except for my maternal grandfather, were from a "family tree" that is not yet complete. So I can only talk about my grandparents who grew up in Italy. Growing up in small towns of about 500 people, they lived close to nature. They didn't have radio, TV, stove or refrigerator. And, of course, there were no cars. If you had a mule, you were considered wealthy.

What they did have (In Sicily, Italy) was lots of fresh vegetables that they grew in their own gardens. Every family had a few chickens so they had a few eggs but not too many. Eating chicken once in a while was a big treat. A lot of families had a goat to. I suppose for milk and goat cheese but that wouldn't have been a lot. Once in a great while they would have goat meat and shared it with family. My father told me that there were orange trees and wheat fields. And food was cooked in a fireplace.

So the diet was simple, from nature, and didn't include a lot of the processing that is so common today.

Thanks for asking. :wave:

Cooking food over an open fire is not supposed to be good for you and now you are told to avoid a lot of barbecued meat as it is a carcinogen.

I think that all of those things that you mentioned are valid reasons that would contribute to a healthy life. I think people should eat a variety of food and particularly of different colors, that is the easiest way to think of it. Not as much meat as we used too and more vegetables and fruits, but still, STILL, cancer and bad things can happen to us.

Long life is not the prize for being virtuous. Wonderful medicines now exist that help us live longer and more healthily. Antibiotics and blood pressure medicines and medicine that lowers our cholesterol (which in many cases is caused by a genetic factor, rather than a diet factor) and a whole plethora of medicines are helping us live longer lives.

Diet and exercise are two very important factors in living a healthy life.
Choose a good physician, trained at a place you respect and do what he/she tells you to do is also very good advice.

Good post. Most of what you say I agree with. No matter how healthy someone tries to be, something can always happen. And if something bad does happen, of course drugs should be considered as an option. But I think of drugs as a last resort if all of my attempts to be healthy fail. I know from experience that my system won't tolerate drugs very well. I believe I would be known as a "slow processor". For example, even a little caffeine each day seems to add up in my system. Anyway, here's some information I prepared just for you. See what you think of it:

"Health Expectancy Versus Life Expectancy"

The above heading comes from page 327 of the book, "The Okinawa Program". (2001 edition) Under that heading the authors explain that health expectancy is more important than life expectancy. Who among us would want to live 10 or 15 extra years in "decrepitude or dementia"?

At the time the book was published in 2001, Okinawans had a life expectancy of 81.2 and Americans had a life expectancy of 76.8. Not only was their life expectancy greater, but their "health expectancy" was greater too. They had less cancer, for example, and thus fewer deaths from cancer.

Yearly cancer deaths per 100,000 people:

........................OKinawa................U.S .
Breast:...................6....................... 33

Ovarian...................3....................... .7

Prostate..................4....................... .28

Colon.......................8..................... ...19

USF's Dr. Petersen has said that our health survey results will be compared with other groups. Will we be compared to other groups in the U.S. who have taken the same test? I think so, but what will that prove? Not much, in my opinion. We need to find a way to compare ourselves with the best in the world: Okinawans! To settle for less would be wimpy, in my opinion.

Again I ask, have you been to Okinawa to actually see for yourself? Are the people there as mentally healthy and happy as we here in The Vilages are. In today's world a study done ten years ago is already outdated. All the studies are good and moslty valid, but until you see the reality of it all, it's just facts and figures on a page.

From what I understand they didn't barbecue. At least not indoors. I think they had a big pot for boiling and steaming. I don't have all the details because I never thought to ask about it.

No, I have not been to Okinawa to see for myself. When we are compared with a group somewhere in the U.S., will you go there to see for yourself? What will you see? Will you go door to door asking people if they took part in the survey? Will you demand to know how long ago the survey was done? Will you tell Dr. Peterson that it's no good unless it's a fresh survey?

If you are really interested in learning about it, I would suggest reading the book. It was based on a 25 year study and I think there is an updated version. It may still be ongoing for all I know. I'm in a "NIH AARP Diet And Health Study" and it's been ongoing since 1995. It started with 500,000 of us and will keep going as long as we are still living.

There are other good long term studies that are more recent and we could be compared to them as well. One is The China Study which went on for over 20 years. I haven't been there either. I believe it was funded by the NIH.

The problem with comparing studies in the U.S. is that there are no significant differences between one city and another or one small town and another. We have all moved around so much that we are culturally homogeneous. We all watch the same TV programs, see the same movies, eat the same foods at home, go to the same chain restaurants etc.. If it's a retirement community, they will have club houses, golf, tennis, baseball etc..

What if we are slightly better in one way but slightly worse in another? What if we are slightly better in every way or slightly worse in every way? What will we make of it? If they are slightly worse, will we think it's because they're not having enough fun? If we are slightly worse, will we think it's because we have poorer eating habits or because we don't exercise enough? When people record what they eat, for example, it's all based on their best recollection. So if there's not much difference between one town and another, I think it will be difficult to make much out of it. That's my opinion.

P.S. Yes, it would be outdated in some respects but what I had in mind would require that they (Okinawans) take the exact same survey that we took.

Well, in light of what you just posted, I think I know what your answers would have been to those questions which you were obviously upset about:

Per VillagesPL: "However, there were plenty of questions about your state of mind, such as: "felt downhearted and blue?" "felt so down in the dumps nobody could cheer you up?" "felt calm and peaceful?" "been a happy person?" "been nervous?"

No, Pathel, I wasn't upset about the above questions. I was just trying to illustrate the following: If they could take the time to ask those questions, why wouldn't they also take the time to ask more in depth questions about the food we eat? That's all. It takes a lot more than that to make me angry or upset.

I will admit to being disappointed for a short period of time. But that's about it. 99% of the time, I'm a calm, peaceful, happy person. :smiley: And, did you notice, after I said, "screw it!," I inserted a smiley face. :smiley: How upset could I have been?

:wave: