Your mom was right—eat all the colors, and a lot of them

Research shows Mom was right. Eat all the colors. This is a meta-analysis. Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Mortality: Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies of US Men and Women and a Meta-Analysis of 26 Cohort Studies (ahajournals.org)  Free, original research article. Print it and read between the food commercials on TV.

• A higher intake of fruit and vegetables was associated with lower total and cause-specific mortality in a nonlinear manner in both an original data analysis in 2 prospective cohorts of US men and women and a meta-analysis of 26 prospective cohort studies.
• The lowest risk of mortality was observed for ≈5 servings per day of fruit and vegetable intake, but above that level the risk did not decrease further.
• The thresholds of risk reduction in mortality were 2 servings daily for fruit intake and 3 servings daily for vegetable intake

My favorite vegetables, peas, corn and potatoes, are not associated with lower mortality. Too starchy. Darn. It's just hard to eat this much of anything.

Despite recommendations in dietary guidelines for decades to increase fruit and vegetable intake, the current average intake among US adults is 1 serving of fruit and 1.5 servings of vegetables per day. Not good. There have been many campaigns (cited in the article) to change this because poor nutrition contributes to the burden of disease and premature death.

BTW, this is a premiere, peer reviewed journal. When I was a librarian, Circulation and its many numbered series, was the bane of my existence.

Five lifestyles which will prolong your life. . . maybe

Have you ever seen this statement--"Americans have a shorter life expectancy compared with residents of almost all other high-income countries." I wish they'd qualify that by race, ethnicity, immigration status and age. Are Swedish Americans less healthy than ethnic Swedes in Sweden? Finnish Americans worse off than those born in Helsinki? German Americans? Drugs, auto accidents, and gun deaths wipe out a big swath of young Americans which unfortunately drastically alters our life expectancy national statistics. Losing weight, eating a healthy diet, and exercising more are good for you as an individual, but probably won't change national statistics as long as those 3 killers are present.

Here's what the journal "Circulation" determined: "Adherence to 5 low-risk lifestyle-related factors (never smoking, a healthy weight, regular physical activity, a healthy diet, and moderate alcohol consumption) could prolong life expectancy at age 50 years by 14.0 and 12.2 years for female and male US adults compared with individuals who adopted zero low-risk lifestyle factors."

Simple, right? Popular health journals and websites (usually sponsored by pharmaceutical companies) have jumped on that one. Buckets of articles and bags of advice have come from that. But. As young adults, people (like me in the 1960s or my parents in the 1930s) observing those five lifestyles were probably not involved in violent gangs, car chases while drunk, stealing to support an opioid habit, or eating wings at the local bar and washing them down with 12 beers several times a week. Those five lifestyles often include a monogamous marriage, higher education levels, stable jobs, church attendance, strong family and friend relationships. It's not that grandma who smoked like a chimney and drank six beers a day didn't live to be 105, or that cousin Ralph dropped dead jogging at age 40, but they are the exception.

I haven't read the whole article, but I know how it will be cited: support take over by the government of our health insurance because look how unhealthy Americans are. Studies in countries with socialized medicine that compare their healthiest and their least healthy show the same spread as the U.S. and that there are income gaps, education disparity and socio-economic differences which government health insurance doesn't change.

This article is free access.  “Circulation” is one of the best peer reviewed journals you can read on cardiovascular issues. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032047

Nutrition and mathemagic

Here's an excellent example of using nutrition fake research to influence politics--in this case, Brexit. http://healthproblemsnews.com/health-news/higher-fruit-and-veg-prices-after-brexit-could-kill-5600-people/ Grocery bills could go up $3/week, thus killing possibly 12,000 people in the UK (highest estimate). Really? You mean someone might not be able to go to Starbucks in order to buy 3 apples and a bag of carrots? Do you know how many Brits spend their winters in Spain? It's a short flight. Gorgeous grocery stores there. I try to rely on good, peer reviewed sources, but BMJ (British Medical Journal, https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/1/e026966)  failed us here with mathemagic.

Speaking of Spain, I saved $500 in less than a year by giving up my morning coffee at Panera’s in 2015; I saved another $500 by discontinuing coloring my hair. I saved $200 by changing credit cards (got one that gives cash back). Helped pay for our 2015 trip to Spain.  And yes, their grocery store produce is better than any I’ve seen in the U.S. and the airports are packed with retired Brits coming and going.

Low fat and no fat diets may be dangerous to your health

If you want to make a New Year's resolution that should be easy to keep, give up low-fat or no fat food items. For 40 years the U.S. has been on the fast track to obesity problems--diabetes, more cardiovascular problems, and decreased exercise and activity because it's just tough to do it with all those extra pounds that damage knees and hips. Now it turns out the the U.S. government, the professional nutrition organizations, academic researchers and the food processing companies (which followed government guidelines) probably had it wrong.

When I was a child about 40% of our calories came from fat--mostly animal fat. My mother cooked with lard, we drank whole milk (cream would freeze and push up the cap when the delivery was on the porch), we used butter, we ate eggs and bacon, but sugar especially when rationed during WWII and Korea was used frugally. Somewhere along the way my mother was swayed by articles on nutrition published in women's magazines--and in the 60s and 70s she switched to margarine and 2% milk, she was cautious with eggs, and bacon probably wasn't used. Lard became Crisco and then Safflower Oil and Peanut Oil for her fabulous pies.

For 40 years Americans tried to decrease their use of fat--we (at least I) bought low-fat or no-fat salad dressing, skim milk, low-fat sour cream, skinny bread, and added carbs just as the government recommended, and sugar was added to processed food to make them palatable, as the flavor and satiety  was gone. Special chemicals were added to provide texture and thickening. So we just ate more of everything because the food didn't taste or feel right and didn't satisfy. And we all got fatter and less healthy; cardiovascular diseases which had been on the decrease, began to increase; diabetes which had been relatively rare became an epidemic. In studies of low-fat, high carb diets, those studied had higher rates of premature death, not lower as was expected. Industry went along because there was a profit to be made--ordinary products like dairy and cereal were advertised as low fat; diet products proliferated and became a huge industry as did weight reduction surgery and weight clubs and support groups. Exercise products and clubs sprung up.

Researchers know more about the human body in 2016 than they did in 1966--men and women aren't the same (no matter which pronoun is demanded), blacks and Asians aren't the same, teens and elderly aren't the same, children are not just small adults, our grandparents did actually pass along culture as well as genes, and you just can't change thousands of years of evolution of our bodies' response to famine and plenty by having the USDA or HHS mandate food for school lunches and grants for academic research.

So put some butter on that toast, and fry up some bacon and enjoy the New Year while you wait for the next expert to report on why we need to believe them about climate change.

 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2564564

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/12/16/dr-david-ludwig-clears-up-carbohydrate-confusion/