How many minutes of healthy living per day you can add with small changes in your diet

We know that good habits are positively associated with more years and a better quality of life. Several studies support this link, which can be measured in different ways. Now a published in the magazine Natural food assessed how many minutes of healthy living the different foods are equivalent; some add and others subtract.

Researchers at the University of Michigan (UM) in the United States analyzed the impact on human health and the environment (through the carbon footprint) of more than 5,800 foods. The scale is wide, according to the choice of each one, they can be lose 74 minutes of healthy life to gain 80.

An example? Eating a hot dog could cost 36 minutes of healthy livingWhile eating a serving of nuts instead can help you gain 26 nuts, the authors of the article titled “Small, Specific Diet Changes Can Produce Substantial Benefits to Human and Environmental Health” have calculated.

Foods assessed were classified according to their burden of disease for humans and their impact on the environment.

Small changes that are measured in minutes

From this analysis, the authors concluded that replacing 10% of the daily calorie intake of beef and processed meats with one that combines fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and certain types of shellfish can help people gain 48 minutes of healthy living per day and reduce your carbon footprint by a third.

“In general, dietary recommendations lack specific and workable direction for motivate people to change their behavior, and they rarely address environmental impacts, ”said Katerina Stylianou, who participated in the study as a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Environmental Health at the UM School of Public Health.

The work was based on an epidemiologically based index, the Health Nutritional Index (HENI), which explains the health effects of 8 main food groups (nuts and seeds, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, milk, sugary drinks, red meat and processed meats) and 6 nutrients (omega-3, calcium, fiber, polyunsaturated fatty acids, trans fat and sodium).

HENI calculates the load of benefit or harm in minutes of healthy living associated with a serving of food consumed.

It is an adaptation of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD), a comprehensive global research program that assesses mortality and disability from major illnesses, injuries and risk factors.

To develop the HENI, the researchers used 15 dietary risk factors and GBD disease burden estimates and combined them with nutritional profiles of foods consumed in the United States, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Foods with positive scores add minutes to life healthy, while foods with negative scores are associated with health outcomes that can be injurious to health.

The environment matters

In addition, to assess the environmental impact of food, researchers used IMPACT World +, a method to assess the life cycle impact of foods (production, processing, manufacturing, preparation / cooking, consumption, waste) and added improved assessments of water use and human health.

Thus, they developed scores for 18 environmental indicators taking into account aspects such as recipes and the waste that certain foods cause.

Traffic lights

Finally, they categorized the foods into three color zones: green, yellow, and red, based on their combined nutritional and environmental performance.

The green area represents foods that it is recommended to increase the diet and it contains foods that are both nutritionally beneficial and have a low environmental impact.

This area mainly includes nuts, fruits and vegetables grown in the open field, legumes, whole grains and some shellfish.

The red zone includes foods that have significant nutritional or environmental impacts and should be be reduced or avoided. The greatest nutritional and environmental impact is given by processed meats and beef, pork and lamb.

The researchers recognize that the range of all indicators varies widely and also note that nutritionally beneficial foods do not always have the lowest environmental impacts, and vice versa.

Animal vs. vegetable?

“Previous studies have often narrowed their results down to a discussion of plant-based foods versus foods of animal origin,” Stylianou said. “Although we have found that plant-based foods generally work better, there are considerable variations in both cases“he added.

According to their conclusions, the authors of the work suggest reducing the consumption of foods with the most negative impacts on health and the environment, in particular highly processed meat, beef, shrimp, pork, lamb and greenhouse vegetables.

On the contrary, they advise increasing the consumption of the most nutritionally beneficial foods, including fruits and vegetables grown in the field, legumes, nuts and seafood with low environmental impact.

Small (and urgent) changes

“The emergency dietary changes to improve human health and the environment is clear, ”said Olivier Jolliet, professor of environmental health sciences at UM and lead author of the article.

“Our results show that small specific substitutions they offer a feasible and powerful strategy to achieve significant health and environmental benefits without requiring drastic changes in diet, ”he encouraged.

The authors of the article are working with researchers in Switzerland, Brazil and Singapore to develop similar rating systems and said they would like to expand it to countries around the world.