[ad_1]
From diet gurus to independent researchers, to self-proclaimed media, the message is simple: the road to good health is built by eating less meat. And they are all wrong.
Yett, another recent report is positioned as an indictment of red meat consumption.
The latest study, published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal), looked at 81,000 Americans, then badyzed both their self-reported nutritional data and their documented mortality rates. The conclusion: people who "increased their consumption of red meat by at least 3.5 servings a week over eight years had a higher risk of death by 10% over the next eight years."
This summary is a little confusing, not to mention that increases its consumption of beef and pork by more than three or four servings a week these days?
The researchers' summary essentially means that out of the 14,000 people in the 81,000 cohort who died during the eight-year period during which researchers badyzed their data, those who ate the most red meat mentioned above recorded an additional 10% death. a comparative subset that has not increased its meat consumption.
This study and similar studies pose two problems, the first being that food questionnaires are seriously unreliable. Who remembers what they ate at breakfast last Tuesday, let alone what they consumed all day for weeks? But these so-called food diaries that the subjects of study must maintain are the database on which researchers rely in this type of retrospective epidemiological studies.
And in fact? People lie about what they eat when they know someone's score. They also generally do not include a complete inventory of "occasional" snacks or treats, such as birthday cakes at work. They also do not accurately report portion sizes; "One serving" means totally different things for different people.
Conclusion: Drawing conclusions about health, well-being and mortality from self-reported nutritional data is, at best, suspect.
The three spheres of life
But the second, and much more significant, reason why dietary studies are unreliable is that food is only part of a healthy and optimal lifestyle. In fact, professionals like me, certainly health educators or wellness coaches, identify three expansive "spheres" in which activities and choices have dramatic effects – good or bad – on a person's well-being. .
The first is exercise, and not just an occasional family weekend hike or a softball hour at the company's annual picnic (is there even more?). Maintaining good health requires daily movements, stretching, and what personal trainers call resistance or strength training, ie Lift weights or use a resistance band. Add to that a regular aerobic activity such as walking, jogging, cycling or swimming and you have the basics of exercise necessary to stay healthy and mobile, especially later in life.
How many of us do all this? You can answer this question for yourself.
The second sphere is the diet and nutrition, but beyond the foods chosen or avoided. Portion size matters a lot, as do the limits on snack foods, fast food, soda, diet and so on. There is a difference between eating instant mashed potatoes in a box and cooking a real potato "from scratch". The media report that BMJ's study is hanging on red meat as the main culprit, but even researchers pointed out that adding fruits, vegetables and others The natural foods of the daily diet are much more beneficial than the mere subtraction of meat.
The third sphere is mental health, not in the absence of obvious symptoms of depression, paranoia or phobia, but rather in stress management, sleep quality and even intellectual development. Apart from the information we need to deal with for our jobs or our careers, how many of us actively continue as lifelong learners, regardless of subject or field of interest. studies that might interest us?
That's about the same percentage of people who exercise regularly vigorously.
Yet all that is noted in these three areas of activity and choice is a way of life that has a much greater impact on health and well-being, the quality of life and of course on mortality than everything we include or exclude from our personal food menus.
You can literally live on junk food and stay relatively healthy – as long as you're ready to exercise like a maniac, pay close attention to the level of stress and quality of sleep and strictly control the portion size and timing for fast food this includes your diet.
This is not at all a clever way of eating, of course, but I mention it only to emphasize that the false choice of "more meat or less meat" is somehow a determinant of your health and well-being. your life will be live in a word, inaccurate.
The best.
By the way, a healthy lifestyle that many of us also neglect is an added aspect. This is the third element of a health educator's checklist – body, mind, and spirit.
The spiritual dimension is often confused with the meaning of religious affiliation and / or participation. This could certainly be qualified, but the attention to the "spiritual side of life" refers to what we do as family members, community members, co-workers and colleagues to give back of our time and our talents.
Community services, charitable donations, volunteerism for social or civic causes worthy of interest are all underestimated factors in overall health and well-being.
It is often said, "If a food tastes good, it can not be good for you."
But with community service, giving back to others in need, if it's good, it's definitely good for you.
The opinions in this commentary are those of Dan Murphy, an award-winning journalist and commentator.
Related stories:
Dan Murphy: Not so good for the goose
Dan Murphy: Livestock as advocates for the environment
Source link
