Harvard’s Meat & Mortality Studies

Harvard’s Meat & Mortality Studies
4.75 (95%) 4 votes

Monday, March 12, 2012: The Harvard Health Professionals Follow-up Study and the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study concluded that red meat consumption was associated with living a significantly shorter life—increased cancer mortality, increased heart disease mortality, and increased overall mortality.

Discuss
Republish

On Monday, March 12. 2012, the results of two major Harvard studies were published.  37,000 men; 83,000 women; the Harvard Health Professionals Follow-Up Study and the Harvard Nurses’ Study.  Back in the 80s, researchers at Harvard started following these 120,000 people, who were, initially free of known heart  disease and cancer, at the beginning. A few decades later, though, and about 24,000 had died, including about 6,000 from heart disease, and 9,000 from cancer.

Meanwhile, all along, every four years, the researchers were checking in, and keeping track of everyone’s diet.  What did they find?  Conclusions: Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality—meaning a significantly shorter lifespan.  No surprise, given the associated greater risk of dying from heart disease and cancer.  And this was after controlling for age, weight, alcohol, exercise, smoking, family history, caloric intake, and even the intake of whole healthy plant foods, such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

So it’s not like the people eating more meat were dying prematurely because they were eating less vegetables.  They seemed to be dying prematurely because they were eating more meat.  The substitution of other healthy protein sources is associated with lower mortality risk.  The most powerful protector they found was nuts, associated with dropping mortality risk 19 percent.

Why? Because food is a package deal.  The chair of Harvard’s nutrition department [Walter Willett], who in his “Essentials of Healthy Eating: A Guide,” explains about picking “the best protein packages by emphasizing plant sources of protein rather than animal sources.”

See: “To the metabolic systems engaged in protein production and repair, it is immaterial whether amino acids come from animal or plant protein.  However, protein is not consumed in isolation.  Instead, it is packaged with a host of other nutrients.” Right?  That’s the baggage I am always referring to. Right?

“The quality and amount of fats, carbohydrates, sodium, and other nutrients in this ‘protein package’ may influence long-term health. For example, results from the [Harvard] Nurses’ [Health] Study suggests that eating more protein from beans, nuts, seeds, and the like—while cutting back on easily digested carbohydrates [refined carbs] reduces the risk of heart disease”—as we saw in the new studies.

So, what’s Harvard’s bottom line? “Go with plants.  Eating a plant-based diet is healthiest.”

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Ed Lynch.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

On Monday, March 12. 2012, the results of two major Harvard studies were published.  37,000 men; 83,000 women; the Harvard Health Professionals Follow-Up Study and the Harvard Nurses’ Study.  Back in the 80s, researchers at Harvard started following these 120,000 people, who were, initially free of known heart  disease and cancer, at the beginning. A few decades later, though, and about 24,000 had died, including about 6,000 from heart disease, and 9,000 from cancer.

Meanwhile, all along, every four years, the researchers were checking in, and keeping track of everyone’s diet.  What did they find?  Conclusions: Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality—meaning a significantly shorter lifespan.  No surprise, given the associated greater risk of dying from heart disease and cancer.  And this was after controlling for age, weight, alcohol, exercise, smoking, family history, caloric intake, and even the intake of whole healthy plant foods, such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

So it’s not like the people eating more meat were dying prematurely because they were eating less vegetables.  They seemed to be dying prematurely because they were eating more meat.  The substitution of other healthy protein sources is associated with lower mortality risk.  The most powerful protector they found was nuts, associated with dropping mortality risk 19 percent.

Why? Because food is a package deal.  The chair of Harvard’s nutrition department [Walter Willett], who in his “Essentials of Healthy Eating: A Guide,” explains about picking “the best protein packages by emphasizing plant sources of protein rather than animal sources.”

See: “To the metabolic systems engaged in protein production and repair, it is immaterial whether amino acids come from animal or plant protein.  However, protein is not consumed in isolation.  Instead, it is packaged with a host of other nutrients.” Right?  That’s the baggage I am always referring to. Right?

“The quality and amount of fats, carbohydrates, sodium, and other nutrients in this ‘protein package’ may influence long-term health. For example, results from the [Harvard] Nurses’ [Health] Study suggests that eating more protein from beans, nuts, seeds, and the like—while cutting back on easily digested carbohydrates [refined carbs] reduces the risk of heart disease”—as we saw in the new studies.

So, what’s Harvard’s bottom line? “Go with plants.  Eating a plant-based diet is healthiest.”

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Ed Lynch.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Doctor's Note

For more context, be sure to check out my associated blog post: Avoid Carnitine and Lethicin Supplements.

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

 

47 responses to “Harvard’s Meat & Mortality Studies

Commenting Etiquette

The intention of the comment section under each video and blog post is to allow all members to share their stories, questions, and feedback with others in a welcoming, engaging, and respectful environment. Off-topic comments are permitted, in hopes more experienced users may be able to point them to more relevant videos that may answer their questions. Vigorous debate of science is welcome so long as participants can disagree respectfully. Advertising products or services is not permitted.

To make NutritionFacts.org a place where people feel comfortable posting without feeling attacked, we have no tolerance for ad hominem attacks or comments that are racist, misogynist, homophobic, vulgar, or otherwise inappropriate. Please help us to foster a community of mutual respect. Enforcement of these rules is done to the best of our ability on a case-by-case basis.

  1. Those familiar with the science will not be surprised by the findings of the two new Harvard studies. Remember the NIH-AARP study I profiled in Meat & Mortality? Half a million people studied—the largest forward-looking study on diet and health in history—and they found the exact the same thing. If the science is so strong why isn’t it reflected in our dietary guidelines? See Dietary Guidelines: Science vs. Corporate Interests. Nor should it surprise that nuts are so healthy. See Halving Heart Attack Risk and Is Peanut Butter Good for You? And speaking of nuts, have you seen the NutritionFacts.org tag cloud? I have videos on more than a thousand nutrition subjects.

    For my thoughts on the American Meat Institute’s reaction to the study, see my Care2 post here.




    0



    0
      1. I see your a paleolithic advocate. The half science and faulty, misconstrued evidence your group purports is simply NOT science. Dr. Greger covers the paleo diet here on his free e book
        http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

        Im sure that if you see more videos on the website, you will come to find that a plant based diet can reverse heart disease, diabetes, autoimmune disease. A high meat diet cannot do these things.




        1



        0
      2. You make a provocative comment but include no facts to support it…I have read your blog and they are full of the BS that you claim when studies are contrary to you making money…




        0



        0
    1. Could you comment on the Harvard Meta Analysis that concluded that: “Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus. These results highlight the need for better understanding of potential mechanisms of effects and for particular focus on processed meats for dietary and policy recommendations.”
      Pan A, PhD, Sun Q, MD, ScD, Bernstein AM, MD, ScD, et al. Red Meat Consumption and Mortality: Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(7):555-563. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.2287.




      0



      0
  2. Interesting study. Nuts did stand out once again as offering much benefit despite the high fat content (or perhaps because of the types of fats?). But I was surprised to see that poultry fared much better than legumes as alternatives to red meat. If as Harvard’s Willet says it is the “whole package” that comes with the protein, surely legumes have much better packaging than does factory farmed chicken and turkey? Your comments on that would be appreciated.




    0



    0
        1. Well clearly the contaminants are bad but there is a serious question as to how much of them we can remove via improved animal raising and slaughtering practices, its entirely possible that the meat companies may not even bother to use practices which are safer simply becuase they would be significantly more costly and most consumers don’t know about them anyway and would therefore see no reason to avoid animals raised and slaughtered in a conventional way.

          Either way, even if you ignore the contaminants, many of the the things whch the meat naturally contains aren’t good for us either and there is really no reason to eat the meat.




          0



          0
    1. I try to raise awareness on the hazards of eat animal-based products. Just last week I put together the following write-up on eating chicken. You may find it informational. Feel free to copy it and share it with friends and family :).

      ——–
      Many people consider chicken as a health food: you know, ‘gotta get your lean protein.’ Considering that slaughterhouses are killing more birds in one day (25-30 million) then they did in an entire year during the 1930’s, everyone has been dupped. Here are two links comparing 100g of skinless, roasted (I gave the poultry industry the benefit of the doubt) chicken and 100g of red meat hamburger.

      http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/poultry-products/694/2
      http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6196/2

      ‘Lean’ protein is nothing more than a gimmic.

      It doesn’t stop at the macronutrients, not by a long shot. Aside from getting fed their own fecies and rendered animal, chickens now grow over twice as fast thanks to genetics and growth stimulants (3lbs bird in six weeks compared to four months). So fast in fact that these animals can not handle the weight of their own internal organs and are rendered breathless after a few steps. So fast that large slaughterhouses must despose of an average of 500 lbs worth of dead chickens due to what is called “flip over” disease- the chickens die from a heart attack as early as one month old. Chickens life expectancy is around 10 years.

      Beside the numerous amount of documentation on cockroach, fly and maggot infestation found in these plants, contamination is also a problem in the poultry industry. According to a USDA micobiologist, there are as many as 50 different opportunities for cross-contamination to occur. The largest offending point of cross-contamination is the chilling pool. Dubbed as ‘fecal soup,’ this large vat is where the recently “cleaned” birds are left to soak in a pool of chilled water that is brimming with all sorts of excrements. An interesting side note is that these corpses absorb an average of 8% of their weight of this filth. Thats right, poultry eaters around America spend more than $1 billion dollars on this bacteria soup that is sold as poultry weight every year.

      What about inspection? The larger slaughterhouses can see as many as 500,000 corpses leave every day. Each inspector has roughly two seconds to inspect each body for over 12 different diseases as well as other abnormalities (by the way, as a result of popular demand in the poultry industry, feces, sores, scabs lesions and broken bones are considered “trimmable conditions” and are no longer condemnable). Federal regulations allow for the sampling of 10 corpses out of ever 15,000. That is less than .1%.

      So what sort of contamination are we talking about? For starters, a reporter who interviewed 84 USDA inspectors wrote that “millions of chickens leaking yellow pus, stained by green feces, contaminated by harmful bacteria, or marred by lung and heart infections, cancerous tumors, or skin conditions are shipped for sale to consumers.” As for bacteria, an Agricultural Department study showed that over 99% of broiler chickens have tracable amounts of E. Coli bacteria, 30% of chicken consumed is infested with salmonella and 70-90% are contaminated with a pathogen called campylobacter. Look it up, campylobacter is no joke. Contaminated chicken kills as little as 1,000 and sickens as many as an estimated 80 million Americans each year.

      This does not include the horrific living conditions, killing practices and environmental
      damage that is a result of eating chicken.

      Sources:
      “Food Inc.”
      “Slaughterhouse” by Gale Einsnitz
      “Mad Cowboy” by Howard F. Lyman




      0



      0
      1. Archaedus: thanks for the above links.

        For anyone who clicks on the links, you may find yourself confused. The problem is that the two links (at least when I clicked them) defaulted to different units for the chicken vs the beef. Once you have the two go to the same unit, you will see what Archaedus is talking about.




        0



        0
  3. The authors of the study on NPR said people can eat red meat 3 times a week, but only a few ounces, the size of a deck of cards. I don’t think anybody is going to follow that advice. They emphasized “moderation”, I hate that word. Moderation kills!




    0



    0
  4. Just when I think I’ve got all the facts down straight, I read something surprising like this:

    Red Meat Halves Risk of Depression
    [in Australia]

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9158235/Red-meat-halves-risk-of-depression.html

    Evidently there’s a bell curve involved, and the livestock in Australia is mainly grass-fed.

    Is it possible that we vegans and vegetarians could be missing some unknown nutrients found only in meat, especially us long-time plant only eaters?




    0



    0
  5. Just found this today:

    Five Questions: Walter Willett on red meat

    http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-five-questions-walter-willett-20120324,0,4545134.story

    I like Dr. Willett’s honesty when answering the question about grass-fed meat: “We don’t know for sure.”

    Previous studies mentioned about mood improvement or “brain fog” are based on the intake of industrial factory-farmed meat, which most of us will agree is a killer, one way or another, especially when consumed in typical American and Atkins portions.

    I wonder if Dr. Willett has seen the Australian study.

    I’d be really interested in any comments Dr. Greger can give on that study. Any flaws in design? Methodology issues? Conflicts of interest in funding?

    Then again, perhaps the secret is a combination of grass-fed beef and Vegemite? ;-)




    0



    0
  6. I cannot find the actualy study, it may not be published yet. I know the study was of 1000 women in the gelong region. that is an small study in one region only. The interesting thing is that the author says that they found that if you eat more than the recommended amount you will also be more likely to suffer depression. So there is a magical number of grams per week/day that reduce the risk. Sounds very inconclusive and I don’t think we need concider it in the light of the large body of data liking ill effects to meat.




    0



    0
    1. Natian, this is simply one study of the many that supports the notion that meat is the link to chronic illnesses. If you search more of this website, you will find that meat promotes cancer growth, the development of heart disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, Alzheimers and a variety of other conditions. What makes this so fascinating is that if one switches to a plant based diet, these diseases can be prevented and reversed. This is why meat is viewed as a food one should completely avoid. Here are a few links to look into.
      http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/diet-rheumatoid-arthritis/
      http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/our-number-one-killer-can-be-stopped/
      http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/industrial-carcinogens-in-animal-fat-2/




      0



      0
  7. Yes I’m all for the plant based diet. I have been total vegetarian, (vegan, but I wear leather shoes and woollen jumpers) for about 30 yrs.




    0



    0
      1. Please don’t delete it. I would really love to know what is wrong with the studies cited on that website.
        The website LOOKS very credible, even though I’m sure it’s wrong. I’m truly at a loss for arguments against my meat-eating friends and I feel like an expert in nutrition could help.




        0



        0
      2. guest: There is nothing wrong with Benoit Boucher’s post for this site. We welcome honest questions and disagreements. I hope someone finds the time to give Benoit a good answer. (There is one. I just personally don’t have the 30 second sound bite off the top of my head…)




        0



        0
    1. I’ll respond to some of the points made here.

      1. Vegan Says: “Red Meat Gives You Heart Disease and Type 2 Diabetes”

      Claim: “Two massive studies have looked into this recently, one from Harvard with 1,218,380 individuals, and another European study with 448,568 individuals.They found no link between unprocessed red meat and heart disease, diabetes or the risk of death. The effect was only seen for processed meat.”

      Rebuttal: It is not accurate to say the Harvard study (actually a meta-analsis if studies) found “no link” between red meat and diabetes and stroke. The AVERAGE relative risks (RR) for unprocessed red meat in these studies were:

      CHD (coronary heart disease): 1.0 (same as not eating meat)

      Diabetes: 1.16 (16% higher risk per serving per day. One serving = 100 grams)

      Stroke 1.17 (17% higher risk)

      True, the latter two were not statistically “significant”, but still…

      For processed meat, there is no question of harm. Here are the RR’s from the Harvard meta-analysis:

      CHD: 1.42 (42% higher risk)

      Diabetes: 1.19 (the US study found a RR of 1.53)

      Stroke: 1.14

      Eating some processed meats, like bacon had double the diabetes risk over abstainers. Yet many Paleo and Atkins folks try to make bacon into some virtuous food of the Gods…That’s seriously misguided, given these stats.

      How about the Harvard Meat & Mortality Study Dr. Greger referred to above? I recall it found that eating one serving of meat per day increased one’s risk of ALL CAUSE mortality by 13%, and for processed meat, this was 20%. I recall it DID find that CHD was significantly elevated in unprocessed meat eaters–which should not be surprising, given the saturated fat load, carnitine, and other bad things in meat. The relationship was more or less linear, and people chowing down on 11 oz. of meat a day–which was the high end of the scale–had a RR of all cause mortality of about 1.8, which is close to that of those who smoke a pack a day of cigarettes.

      2. Claim: High-protein diets (high in meat) have actually been shown to help you lose weight, not gain it. They make you feel so full that you eat fewer calories, while boosting your metabolism.”

      Rebuttal: This is simplistic reasoning. One may lose more weight in the short term on a high protein/low carb diet because the food is so boring, or one is expelling more water, but what about the long term consequences? Looking at epidemiological studies, those who eat more plant-based foods generally are thinner. Of course there may be other reasons for that (poverty, disease), but just looking at rich developed nations, the Japanese are thinner than Americans and also eat much less meat–though they do eat more fish. Italians and those on Mediterranean diets also are thinner and eat less meat than Americans…or Germans, and the Italians and Japanese also live the longest among the major nations. The French are actually the least obese in Europe, and do eat more meat than Italians (though still less than Americans), but they don’t live as long as Italians, Spaniards, or even the British.

      3. Claim: Studies show that dietary cholesterol has no effect on blood cholesterol in the majority of people. It may cause a minor increase in some individuals, but a lot of that is coming from HDL and large LDL lipoproteins, which are good things.

      Rebuttal: Again, it is simplistic to say that large LDL is a “good thing”, when it still raises the risk of CHD–just not as much as small LDL particles. HDL is generally a good thing, but may not be needed if total cholesterol is sufficiently low. And who wants to risk that he or she is one of the “some individuals” for whom dietary cholesterol DOES raise blood serum cholesterol? Why take the chance?

      4. Vegan Says: “Saturated Fat Raises Cholesterol and Causes Heart Disease”. Claim: “Saturated fat actually raises HDL (the “good”) cholesterol and changes the LDL cholesterol from small to large, which is considered beneficial.”

      Rebuttal: Notice the sleight of hand here: instead of addressing the issue of raised total and LDL cholesterol , the discussion moves to HDL and the TYPE of LDL (large particle). Plant Positive has many videos in which he debunks the cholesterol ‘confusionists’ who engage in this type of misdirection. Most risk assessments are still done using Total Cholesterol, LDL Cholesterol, and HDL Cholesterol. Probably the best single measure is the TC/HDL ratio (smaller is better), but again, HDL is less important when TC drops below a certain point–probably around 150. The Framingham Risk Score deducts three points when TC is < 160. It's still the best known and most widely used measure of CHD risk.

      Among the studies cited here, I'm familiar with the Chowdhury led one–again, a meta-analysis, which looked at the relation between type of fat consumed and CHD (saturated fat had a RR of 1.03). Plant Positive has a good take-down of this and another similar study:

      http://plantpositive.com/blog/2014/3/23/recent-articles-by-drs-chowdhury-and-dinicolantonio.html

      Walter Willett, the PI for the Harvard Meat & Mortality Study referenced above, called the Chowdhury study "seriously misleading" and said it should not have been published. But I did find interesting that the study found that Omega-3 fats conferred the lowest relative risk (0.87), and that risk ascended with Omega-6 (0.98), Mono-unsaturated fats (1.0), Saturated fats (1.03), and Trans-fats (1.16). This accords with what many of us felt about the usefulness and harm of these various fats; only the lack of significant risk for saturated fat is really in dispute. Might it depend on the TYPE of saturated fat?

      These RR's pertain to the risk of the top third relative to the bottom third of dietary fat consumption.

      Might risk be much more elevated when saturated fat consumption is higher than merely the top tertile? How about the top quintile or decile? That could be dangerous. Plant Positive discusses some of the weaknesses of the Chowdhury meta-analysis.

      Again, as with the Harvard meta-analysis above, saturated fat did worse than all fats besides trans fats–just as unprocessed meat consumption was associated with higher risk for Diabetes and Stroke (and processed meats with CHD as well as Diabetes and Stroke). Since meat contains a lot of saturated fat, we are generally talking about the same food, and it didn't do well in the very studies cited here to show why there is nothing wrong with eating meat. Well, apparently there is…

      5. Vegan Says: “It is Possible to Get All Necessary Nutrients From Plants”. Claim: There are many nutrients that can not be gotten from commonly consumed plants. This includes vitamin B12, Omega-3s like DHA, as well as vitamin D3.

      Rebuttal: As Dr. Greger pointed out in one of his videos, omnivores suffer from deficiencies in more nutrients than do vegans–at least twice as many. True, one could get adequate folate, Vit. C, E, and potassium on a Paleo type diet which included lots of produce. But it is also possible to get adequate DHA and Vit. D from eating enough ALA and getting enough sunlight, if one lives in the tropics or sub-tropics (below 30 degrees N or above 30 S), or just supplement Vit. D during those months the sun doesn't rise to at least 50 degrees above the horizon. So only Vit. B12 is an issue, and we are talking a few micrograms…




      0



      0
        1. I only wish I had enough knowledge to fully comprehend Plant Positive’s critique of the Chowdhury meta-analysis…how it adjusted for cholesterol, for example. I don’t think you’d want to statistically adjust for cholesterol if you were analyzing the effects of saturated fat on health. I was surprised that Chowdhury only found a RR of 1.03 for saturated fat comparing the high tertile with the low–I would have thought it’d be higher.

          Bottom line is that even the studies cited by the low-carbers often fail to support their arguments for the healthfulness of meat, and of course there are many other convincing arguments against meat: aesthetic, economic, environmental…Meat deservedly has a bad rap and more people are realizing this…that the safest level of meat consumption may be zero. For fish, I’m still not sure.




          0



          0
    2. Hi. I haven’t read that post through, and don’t disagree with all of it. However I have looked a bit around that web site. It cheery picks a lot or studies; you can find many studies in the literature that contradict each other, and it doesn’t discuss the vegan /plant based arguments and their merits (although I haven’t read through the entire site yet). There is also no discussion at the bottom as there is here.
      There are many specifics, I just looked a bit and noticed a couple of points. They cite studies saying that saturated fat does not do bad things for cholesterol. As Dr. Greger has pointed out here, some of these studies compare a high saturated fat (meat and dairy) diet to a high processed carbohydrate diet (white flour, white rice, high glucose corn syrup and etc. ) One bad diet may not be worse than another, and unfortunately the Western diet is unhealthy beyond just meat. A whole foods diet is preferable.
      The answer to your question is to take one issue, and find NutritionFacts take on that issue. I don’t doubt that there’s probably some cheery picking here too, but AuthorityNutrition was more fruity in that regard.




      0



      0
  8. Last week I read an artice by Dr. Aaron Carroll in the New York Times that “Red Meat is Not the Enemy.” Citing several studies, Dr. Carroll argues that red meat consumption may not be so bad after all, as long as it is done in moderation. Also noted along the way is that strong warnings against cholesterol and salt are overblown. Can you comment on the article and the arguments therein? Thanks. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/upshot/red-meat-is-not-the-enemy.html?WT.mc_id=2015-APRIL-FACEBOOK-PROPENSITY_HEALTH-AUD_DEV-0401-0430&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVAPRIL&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0




    0



    0
    1. Hi John,

      Thanks for reposting this. I don’t have much to add, but I am hoping others will give their take, as well. I have read it and I think the author makes interesting points, however, one small write-up in the times cannot overlook the massive research on red meat and disease. There is still convincing evidence red meat and processed meats are linked to colorectal cancer and heart disease and diabetes risk. The American Institute for Cancer Research has info on red and processed meat, which may be useful.




      0



      0
  9. Dr.Gregor, you are the biggest quack. You are just as bad as Dr. Oz. You have an agenda that is for veganism and you bring faulty misinformed science to people. I am not sure if you can not interpret the own research you post, or you’re well of aware of your bogus vegan propaganda.




    0



    0
  10. I eat a plant based diet but am considering having one “feast day” a month to enjoy my pre-plant based diet faves such as cheeseburgers, fajitas, shipley’s donuts, nothing bundt cakes, blue bell ice cream, etc. So basically I’d be eating a SAD 12 days a year. Is this a bad idea or not that big of a deal?




    0



    0
    1. Depends how much you eat and how bad that food is? Imagine if you ate 10 or so burgers that day, a tub of ice cream and donuts and so on and basically made up for the rest of the month then that can’t be good for you..?

      See what happens? Good chance to experiment on yourself? This is almost like the reverse of an intervention haha. Get some before and after blood tests? Scans and so on? Would be cool to see what happens! Why not see if you can turn this into a study or something..?




      0



      0
    2. Hi there mmcgee —

      I have a perspective on this — I embrace the 80/15/5 rule.
      80% of the time I eat foods that are 100% health promoting.
      15% of the time I include foods that are more for pleasure but do not kill me — for me it’s dark chocolate, some oils in foods, etc.
      5% of the time I go out of my way to eat things that I normally consider unhealthy but really enjoy — for me, it is basically stuff with simple carbs — chips, cookies, almond or coconut milk ice-cream, and craft beer.

      What I notice is that what falls into these categories changes as I listen to my body and pay attention to my habits.

      Nowadays, I try to find healthy ways to make chips, cookies, or banana ice-cream from frozen bananas, nuts, cocoa powder, etc.
      All the ingredients I use are real food.
      I have a friend who enjoys the ‘beyond meat’ vegan burgers because it tastes quite like the real thing to him.
      Finding healthy replacements is a part of the food journey for all of us.

      From my perspective, you are on the right track. Just keep on the journey.
      Making positive changes you may suddenly come to find that some of the things that you thought were awesome are no longer welcome in your body because you feel cruddy after eating it.
      And you may learn healthy ways to replace what you enjoyed before.

      My perspective is to be easy on yourself, keep learning about nutrition and cultivating new habits, and keep moving in the direction of health. I find that the journey matters most.
      Just my perspective… And congrats on all the changes you have made so far!

      To health!




      0



      0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This