Association Between Dietary Factors and Mortality From Heart Disease, Stroke, etc.
#1
just another gosling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,528
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3886 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Association Between Dietary Factors and Mortality From Heart Disease, Stroke, etc.
New study published in JAMA yesterday: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...ticle/2608221?
We started with the low sodium thing a few decades ago. We kept lowering it until we started getting cramps. About then, the sodium study came out which showed a bell curve of sodium intake vs. heath effects, 1500mg being the sweet spot. So we increased it and now we try to get 1/4t. of salt each at every meal, or thereabouts. We mostly eat plants and know that plants have some salt, but it can't be much or herbivores wouldn't seek out salt licks. So we figure we're OK there. We know we need electrolytes when we ride, but don't need much since we're low sodium. We use Endurolytes, but never more than 1/hr or 80mg/hr. on the bike, seldom that much.
I was surprised to see that we don't eat enough fruit of all things. Their table wants >300g/day. For sure a handful of walnuts/day is good for you and easy to implement. We eat lots of veggies, no meat, and a fair bit of olive oil. So that's all to the good.
This study is only about CVD, stroke, and diabetes, so doesn't cover cancer risk, from fruit juice, sunlight, or whatever
For current topical interest, I'll append a WP story about our new governmental dietary guidelines, noting that they do not reflect the above study: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ry-guidelines/
When all 10 dietary factors were evaluated in combination, they were associated with 318 656 estimated cardiometabolic deaths, or nearly 1 in 2 (45.4%) of all US cardiometabolic deaths in 2012. Among individual factors, largest numbers of estimated diet-related cardiometabolic deaths were related to high sodium (66 508 estimated cardiometabolic deaths [9.5% of all cardiometabolic deaths]), low nuts/seeds (59 374 [8.5%]), high processed meats (57 766 [8.2%]), low seafood omega-3 fats (54 626 [7.8%]), low vegetables (53 410 [7.6%]), low fruits (52 547 [7.5%]), and high SSBs (51 694 [7.4%]) compared with optimal consumption levels (Table 2; eFigure 1 in the Supplement). Lowest estimated mortality burdens were associated with low polyunsaturated fats (16 025 [2.3%]) and high unprocessed red meats (2869 [0.4%]).
I was surprised to see that we don't eat enough fruit of all things. Their table wants >300g/day. For sure a handful of walnuts/day is good for you and easy to implement. We eat lots of veggies, no meat, and a fair bit of olive oil. So that's all to the good.
This study is only about CVD, stroke, and diabetes, so doesn't cover cancer risk, from fruit juice, sunlight, or whatever
For current topical interest, I'll append a WP story about our new governmental dietary guidelines, noting that they do not reflect the above study: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ry-guidelines/
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#3
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 8,721
Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4227 Post(s)
Liked 2,488 Times
in
1,286 Posts
Nutrition studies are entertaining to read but I would never base my eating habits on some study and I would also never base my eating habits on government recommendations. Studies done on a handful of individuals for a short period of time is not a representation of majority...and how the heck does government know what my personal nutritional needs are ??...the last thing I need is for the government telling me how to do my grocery shopping ....Nutrition studies are notorious for contradicting themselves. Every few years they backtrack to what they told us and come up with something new...I learned to listen to my body and I eat whatever makes me feel good and whatever makes me function at optimal levels.
#4
just another gosling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,528
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3886 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Nutrition studies are entertaining to read but I would never base my eating habits on some study and I would also never base my eating habits on government recommendations. Studies done on a handful of individuals for a short period of time is not a representation of majority...and how the heck does government know what my personal nutritional needs are ??...the last thing I need is for the government telling me how to do my grocery shopping ....Nutrition studies are notorious for contradicting themselves. Every few years they backtrack to what they told us and come up with something new...I learned to listen to my body and I eat whatever makes me feel good and whatever makes me function at optimal levels.
The point of the article on USDA recommendations was to cast doubt on current governmental nutrition recommendations. It's pretty interesting, sort of seeing how sausage is being made these days, which not that way it's always been made.
As every good scientist says, "The thing I would most like to see happen with my research is to be proven wrong." IOW science advances. That's the whole point. Seeing old suppositions overturned gives me more confidence in the new science, not less.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Seattle Forrest
Training & Nutrition
66
05-26-19 10:40 PM
Carbonfiberboy
Training & Nutrition
15
01-22-14 02:19 PM