>This person asked me in a discussion about whether vitamin A is bad for you. He/She argued, “Why do people in countries that consume the most vitamin A have the longest lifespans and lowest rates of heart disease?” He/She was referring to Japan and France, specifically.
This comment really set me off. Obviously, I have no interest in going and running around trying to make my decisions about what to eat based on what somebody in Japan is eating. My dietary decisions are solely based on what is alleviating an actual health problem. I have no interest, nor care, nor any regard whatsoever, for what anybody else on the planet is eating, however or wherever they are eating it. It makes absolutely no difference to me. And it certainly shouldn’t make a difference to you.
If there is something – a diet or anything at all – that has a potential therapeutic effect, then having to run it through some kind of blue zone approval process is completely absurd!
That person doesn't understand that the "blue zone approval process" is exactly what he describes for himself.
Only instead of a sample of one, perhaps delluded and placebo-ed, with unknown long term lifespan results, it's a sample of many, with a proven lifespan track record.
It might not be scientific, but neither his method is. Both are however empirical, and the "let's see what blue zones do" has more inputs and more assurance of the effects than his method-of-one-person.
1 comment
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 18.2 ms ] threadThis comment really set me off. Obviously, I have no interest in going and running around trying to make my decisions about what to eat based on what somebody in Japan is eating. My dietary decisions are solely based on what is alleviating an actual health problem. I have no interest, nor care, nor any regard whatsoever, for what anybody else on the planet is eating, however or wherever they are eating it. It makes absolutely no difference to me. And it certainly shouldn’t make a difference to you.
If there is something – a diet or anything at all – that has a potential therapeutic effect, then having to run it through some kind of blue zone approval process is completely absurd!
That person doesn't understand that the "blue zone approval process" is exactly what he describes for himself.
Only instead of a sample of one, perhaps delluded and placebo-ed, with unknown long term lifespan results, it's a sample of many, with a proven lifespan track record.
It might not be scientific, but neither his method is. Both are however empirical, and the "let's see what blue zones do" has more inputs and more assurance of the effects than his method-of-one-person.