[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by AutoBike

I wasn't trying to prove anything other than there are no absolutes when it comes to the relationship between lifestyle and person's health. The best we can hope to do is make good choices that lessen risk.

Yes, I agree, it's all about trying to reduce risk.

It's nice that we agree on that very important point. If I may, I would just like to mention some second thoughts I have had about the study of the 88 year old man who eats 25 eggs per day. That study has something important to say about cholesterol and "mechanisms of adaptation" but has nothing to say about what the expectations would be for one's overall health status.

[zonerboy]

This is a thread with an agenda!
"Deserve" is a very emotionally loaded word and should not be confused with cause and effect.
A guy continually pokes a bear with a stick until the bear has had enough and mauls the guy. Was the mauling a consequence of the poking? Definitely yes. Did the guy "deserve" to be mauled? That's an entirely different question. Does anyone deserve to be mauled by a bear?
A heavy smoker suffers a heart attack, is advised to quit smoking, but refuses. He shortly there after has a second heart attack, this time fatal. Was his second heart attack caused by his heavy smoking. I would say probably yes. Did he "deserve" to have a second heart attack (or deserve to die and be found on the floor by his wife)? Once again, this is an entirely different question.
Indeed, actions (and choices) have consequences.
But whether or not these consequences are "deserved" is a moral question. And not a question of logic.
IMNSHO

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by AutoBike

No. I don't believe that it's "all about trying to reduce risk." That paints with too broad a brushstroke for my liking.

Since the subject we were discussing was diet and smoking (25 eggs per day etc..), I was refering to dietary and smoking risks. This thread isn't about drag racing so I won't comment on that.

Read the letters that followed the article. Some of those addressed his overall diet.

Thanks, but even if he enjoyed good health, the health part of it would be anecdotal.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by zonerboy

This is a thread with an agenda!

Show me a thread without an agenda.

"Deserve" is a very emotionally loaded word and should not be confused with cause and effect.
A guy continually pokes a bear with a stick until the bear has had enough and mauls the guy. Was the mauling a consequence of the poking? Definitely yes. Did the guy "deserve" to be mauled? That's an entirely different question. Does anyone deserve to be mauled by a bear?

Well, I believe when I posed MY question I used the word "knowing". "If I live an unhealthy lifestyle knowing that it will likely lead to poor health, do I deserve poor health ?"

If you don't like the word "deserve" because it's emotionally loaded, give me a better word. Now I wonder: "Can you change it to the point where all of the emotion is whitewashed out of it?"

[pooh]

IF diet seems to be one way of possibly insuring good health...and we choose to
eat in a way you determine is an unacceptable way to eat, then we as adults must determine if it is a risk we want to take and live with. I may be incorrect but, I am of the opinion that you espouse eating a certain way as the only way to achieve that insurance. Others, myself included, feel that while diet plays an important part in our well being, other factors also play a role in achieving and maintaining good health/well being. In addition to nutritional nourishment, individuals need emotional nourishment and that could be more important for some. The word moderation means something different for you, for me. Do you need specific numbers, amounts, types, times and can't accept the concept of moderation? Granted moderation for one could mean something totally different to another, but we all live in a way that is comfortable and acceptable for ourselves and are beyond being told how to live, how to eat, how to believe. While you ask for discussion, there seems little to discuss at this point. I don't mean to sound harsh or condescending, it's just my opinion and I'm expressing my feelings.

[zonerboy]

Yes, we all make choices about how we want to live our lives, and, indeed, we all must endure the consequences of our choices. So let's try to insure that our choices are "informed choices".
That's all we can do.

[Jhooman]

Originally Posted by SemiMike

Here's a perspective on these issues from an Eastern viewpoint, as the so-called Fifth Remembrance of the Buddha: "My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground upon which I stand."

Wow! I love this viewpoint.

I believe taking responsibility for my actions, gives me complete freedom emotionally and spiritually.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by pooh

IF diet seems to be one way of possibly insuring good health...and we choose to
eat in a way you determine is an unacceptable way to eat, then we as adults must determine if it is a risk we want to take and live with.

I agree but doubt that the average person fully understands the risks.

I may be incorrect but, I am of the opinion that you espouse eating a certain way as the only way to achieve that insurance.

I think that's a misconception that many have. Yes, I try to put forth the "best" way that I know how to eat, an ideal based on the results of scientific studies. But there can be some individual differences. I have recommended some books that allow for some animal protein and others that don't. It all depends on how serious a person is and what the person is trying to accomplish. Sometimes it's a step by step process whereby a person can start at one level and eventually work up to a higher level.

Others, myself included, feel that while diet plays an important part in our well being, other factors also play a role in achieving and maintaining good health/well being. In addition to nutritional nourishment, individuals need emotional nourishment and that could be more important for some.

Of course other factors play a role, have I ever said otherwise? I have recommended exercise and meditation. If you feel you need emotional nourishment that's fine. Go for it! I just don't want anyone to think that it takes the place of good dietary nutrition, because it doesn't.

The word moderation means something different for you, for me. Do you need specific numbers, amounts, types, times and can't accept the concept of moderation? Granted moderation for one could mean something totally different to another, but we all live in a way that is comfortable and acceptable for ourselves and are beyond being told how to live, how to eat, how to believe.

If you are beyond being told anything, why do you bother participating? Anyway, refresh my memory, what have I told people they must do? Are you referring to what I have said in previous threads?

While you ask for discussion, there seems little to discuss at this point. I don't mean to sound harsh or condescending, it's just my opinion and I'm expressing my feelings.

Well, I agree, it's usually not much of a discussion for those who resent any suggestions regarding how to live a healthy lifestyle. People who suggest "moderation" think they are adding something substantive to the discussion but, in reality, they are adding nothing unless they can define it or set some boundaries of some sort. Otherwise, it's so subjective that it means nothing.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by AutoBike

My point was that there is risk in everything we do. You take a risk everytime you drive an extra mile to buy soy milk.

Well then, we agreee. (But no soy for me, thanks.)

What it shows is that there isn't a direct link between one's diet and one's health. Too many external factors influence longevity. For example, I can eat all of the proper things that will supposedly diminish risks associated with poor diet, but if I hang out by the pool too much and develop melanoma, all that was for naught.

Who said there must be a "direct link"? There may or may not be a direct link for each individual. I thought we agreed that there are certain prudent diets that reduce risk. And, to a large extent, it's determined by large long-term population studies. And as far as hanging out at the pool and getting melanoma, there is a way to reduce that risk.

I'm a scientist by profession. The only ABSOLUTE I know is that there are no ABSOLUTES.

I don't recall ever saying that there are absolutes, just that there is a whole range of risky behavior and it's best to try to reduce risk as best we can, based on the results of scientific studies.

[pooh]

Originally Posted by pooh

IF diet seems to be one way of possibly insuring good health...and we choose to
eat in a way you determine is an unacceptable way to eat, then we as adults must determine if it is a risk we want to take and live with.

I agree but doubt that the average person fully understands the risks.

You are making an assumption that individuals are totally unaware of "risks".....and in fact, not all who eat in a fashion deemed unacceptable by those you feel offer a better way to eat, suffer ill health. Something works for those people in spite of what might be considered poor dietary choices.

I may be incorrect but, I am of the opinion that you espouse eating a certain way as the only way to achieve that insurance.

I think that's a misconception that many have. Yes, I try to put forth the "best" way that I know how to eat, an ideal based on the results of scientific studies. But there can be some individual differences. I have recommended some books that allow for some animal protein and others that don't. It all depends on how serious a person is and what the person is trying to accomplish. Sometimes it's a step by step process whereby a person can start at one level and eventually work up to a higher level.

I wonder just how many think it is a misconception, VPL.

Some of the studies are quite old, have they been duplicated? Studies are just that, studies and results presented are those of whomever wrote them.

Others, myself included, feel that while diet plays an important part in our well being, other factors also play a role in achieving and maintaining good health/well being. In addition to nutritional nourishment, individuals need emotional nourishment and that could be more important for some.

Of course other factors play a role, have I ever said otherwise? I have recommended exercise and meditation. If you feel you need emotional nourishment that's fine. Go for it! I just don't want anyone to think that it takes the place of good dietary nutrition, because it doesn't.

Have you said otherwise? I will admit I have not read every post you write, but I have no doubt that you do recommend exercise and meditation. What seems missing from your writings is the understanding of emotional connections between people and how it contributes to the well being of individuals. This emotional component when supported by friends and family, contributes much to health.

The word moderation means something different for you, for me. Do you need specific numbers, amounts, types, times and can't accept the concept of moderation? Granted moderation for one could mean something totally different to another, but we all live in a way that is comfortable and acceptable for ourselves and are beyond being told how to live, how to eat, how to believe.

If you are beyond being told anything, why do you bother participating? Anyway, refresh my memory, what have I told people they must do? Are you referring to what I have said in previous threads?

Why do I participate in this discussion? Like a moth to a flame, I guess..... Training in science draws me to threads that might involve discussion where I have some knowledge. What have you told people they must do? It's more like telling them that if they don't do....well, the consequences will be, let's see....nasty. In some instance, poor food choices can result in poor health, but not necessarily and not always.

While you ask for discussion, there seems little to discuss at this point. I don't mean to sound harsh or condescending, it's just my opinion and I'm expressing my feelings.

Well, I agree, it's usually not much of a discussion for those who resent any suggestions regarding how to live a healthy lifestyle. People who suggest "moderation" think they are adding something substantive to the discussion but, in reality, they are adding nothing unless they can define it or set some boundaries of some sort. Otherwise, it's so subjective that it means nothing.

The point I've been trying to make, and obviously not successfully, is in spite of what you or I think, adults will do as they wish, they've reached the age they are by eating, exercising, playing, laughing during those years. If it works for them, they will continue doing what they've always done. If they feel they need to do something differently, then they will, but nothing you or I say will make an impact if it's not what the individual wants to do.
It appears that you look at life in a more analytical manner than others on this board and that may always be a reason for differences in attitudes regarding this discussion.

[DougB]

I think you get what you get, whether you deserve it or not.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by pooh

You are making an assumption that individuals are totally unaware of "risks".....and in fact, not all who eat in a fashion deemed unacceptable by those you feel offer a better way to eat, suffer ill health. Something works for those people in spite of what might be considered poor dietary choices.

The word "totally" is your word not mine. Yes, some eat a poor diet and do fairly well for a time. But statistics show that we in the U.S. have high disease rates. And 63% of people are overweight or obese.

Some of the studies are quite old, have they been duplicated? Studies are just that, studies and results presented are those of whomever wrote them.

You pay more attention to what I say than most and even you are still asking about the studies. Yes, there are health and longevity studies that began in the 1930s and have been repeated and repeated over and over again. You have training in science and don't belive in scientific studies?

Why do I participate in this discussion? Like a moth to a flame, I guess..... Training in science draws me to threads that might involve discussion where I have some knowledge. What have you told people they must do? It's more like telling them that if they don't do....well, the consequences will be, let's see....nasty. In some instance, poor food choices can result in poor health, but not necessarily and not always.

I have never said to anyone that if they don't do what I say they will get XYZ diseases. What I have said is that I eat a certain diet because I'm trying to prevent cancer and other degenerative diseases. That's different than telling someone that they will get something nasty. However, if someone asks me directly about risks, I will tell them.

The point I've been trying to make, and obviously not successfully, is in spite of what you or I think, adults will do as they wish, they've reached the age they are by eating, exercising, playing, laughing during those years. If it works for them, they will continue doing what they've always done. If they feel they need to do something differently, then they will, but nothing you or I say will make an impact if it's not what the individual wants to do.
It appears that you look at life in a more analytical manner than others on this board and that may always be a reason for differences in attitudes regarding this discussion.

I was about 65 when someone on another website (message board) recommended that I read, "The Okinawa Program", and I did. Then, on that same website, someone else recommended, "The China Study", and I read that too. And that was not a website for health issues alone. Those two books led me to change my diet. Why is it that I am always open to new ideas when most others are not? Now I hope to find out more about the diet of Seventh Day Adventists who enjoy good health and have an average life expectancy of 88 years compared to our 78 years.

[pooh]

I've read about a study involving 7th Day Adventists. Loma Linda University in CA reported on a study involving approximately 70,000 participants. There was a 12% lower risk of death for vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians.

Plant based diets have been linked to a lower likelihood for heart disease, why is not yet understood. May be substances meat contains...saturated fat, the compound carnitine, cholesterol that are the culprits. Is it the plant foods, the type, the amounts, less meat, or a combination? Women did not show the same benifits as men.

A British study of the vegetarian diet in over 47,250 participants did not find the same mortality results. American vegetarians consume more fiber and vitamin C, this could be a factor for such difference between the two studies.

Generally speaking, people who are vegetarians may be married, be more educated, older, thinner. They more likely exercised, do not smoke and may not drink. Researchers noted that all of these are also factors that could play a role in their lower risk of death.

It’s not clear whether avoiding red meat and processed meats plays a role in boosting life or whether the foods that vegetarians are eating lowers their risk of dying compared with non-vegetarians, said Dr. Michael Orlich, the program director of the preventive medicine residency at Loma Linda University.
He said he is planning a study to help identify which foods are explaining these results.

Eating plant foods didn’t seem to protect participants against cancer, which struck both the vegetarians and non-vegetarians in roughly equal measure.

Those in the study were given a questionnaire to assess their diet. Researchers found that 5,548 people were vegans, 21,177 were vegetarians that ate dairy and egg products, 7,194 were vegetarians that included fish in their diets and 4,031 were semi-vegetarian, which includes eating meat infrequently. The rest were meat eaters.

Studies are just that, studies. They lead to more research, help draw conclusions and could lead us on our way towards a better understanding of who we are, how we "work," how and why certain processes take place.

While I have no doubt we reap what we sow, I will again postulate that a totally vegetarian or vegan diet is not the only factor to longevity....and researchers, too, are still seeking such information.

[Uptown Girl]

Excellent post, Pooh. Excellent.

[Villages PL]

Hi Pooh,

I read the same report on the Adventist News Network. But I'm going to try to simplify things. First of all, I read from a reliable source, Gerontology Research Group (GRG), that Seventh-day Adventists have an average life expectancy of 88 years, compared to our 78 years. That's quite a difference, so let's see what might explain it.

Well, guess what? The very first line of the report explains it! Basically, (in my own words), it said the following: Vegetarians live longer than those who eat meat, according to a study of 73,308 Seventh-day Adventists.

The study was funded by the United States' National Institutes of Health. It doesn't get any better than that.

The report comes with the following caveat: They eat a plant based diet to varing degrees and a vegetarian diet is not automatically a healthy diet. For example, some might choose to eat deep fried foods.

Other ways to degrade a plant based diet would be to eat a lot of highly-refined processed foods, thereby lowering the diets nutritional value, and puting on excess weight.

I don't think, as you do, that it's a big mystery needing a lot of further research. It fits in nicely with many of the other long-term, large-scale studies that have been done, including studies of the effects of "calorie restricted" diets.