In Europe, I know a lot of people that still stick to this practice even without practicing Christianity.
Ironically though, the young that do practice Friday fasting are much more likely, demographically, to have children. So I imagine the practice will continue for many centuries.
And even then, it's usually breaded and deep fried. Not sure, I'd qualify it as a healthy alternative to a steak.
most of that's still meat though?
So overall you’re most likely ending up eating less meat, and not just different meat.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-and-the-risk-...
and
https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat
I’m not going to single out studies and pretend that I’m in any way into this field.
When I was in Athens, a kilogram of fresh caught sardines ran about 2 euro for a kilo. Thats cheaper than canned!
On Crete, it was a bit more expensive at 4 euro per kilo but I never paid more than 4 euro for a pound of fish. thats cheap enough to make fresh caught fish a daily meal
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-fishing/as-stocks-...
In Sardinia they eat a lot of blue fish (or oily fish), not surprisingly the European pilchard also called "sardine" of the genus "Sardine" has a very similar name to "Sardinia".
According to some recent study Aristotle himself named the fish after the population of Sardinia Island that were the first ones to trade it in ancient Mediterranean markets (looks like the most popular way to prepare it was in salt, as we still do nowadays).
But that's probably not why they are a "blue zone", an important difference is the kind of meat they eat: there is an abundance of sheep meat but much less beef red meat.
But that's probably no it either, Sardinians have genetic markups that protects them from entire classes of diseases, being a quite homogeneous population from the DNA point of view, they passed them on from a generation to the next.
My family doctor asks for a battery of lab tests about once a year (or whenever I get around to scheduling a check-up), including glucose and cholesterol and liver functions and so on. This has been going on since I was twenty something.
Right now there is rightfully pushback against unnecessary testing. Over-medicalization by which people are subjected to treatment without suffering under symptoms is very much a problem. Also the socialized healthcare providers are not happy with this, as you can imagine.
/s in some of this, perhaps all
> “But, unexpectedly, on a per-test basis, we actually found that the main problem was tests being over-ordered during a patient’s initial examination, rather than during repeat tests. This indicates to us that ordering the right test during the initial evaluation may lead to fewer errors and better patient care,” he said.
a. Tests are not accurate, a false positive causes alarm and follow-up examination where none was present.
b. On the inverse: negative tests provide a false sense of security and good-health. [2] discusses this as the prime motivator for patient blood test requests.
c. Economic cost to the insurer or ultimately patient/taxpayer, not of the tests themselves but of the downstream examinations.
As a general rule in medicine: Don't treat a patient without signs or symptoms. When a persons feels healthy, they usually are healthy.
1. https://hms.harvard.edu/news/unnecessary-testing
2. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
We cannot keep waiting for randomized experimental research to identify all the ways health may degrade over time. If we can regularly gather data en masse, we regularly over time can identify more predictors and risk factors for poor (and good) health, and evaluate efficacy of treatments received or effects from lack of treatment.
Again, why pay for seatbelts (and get tickets for not having them) in vehicles if I've have no history of accidents, or receive preventative dental care despite no serious current oral issues, etc.
Why do we have heat sensors in vehicles? The vehicles I've driven in life have never overheated.
Somehow we continue to excuse doctors who practice poorly by treating by markers alone rather than the whole picture (including the patients feelings and desires), or despite contraindications for the treatment being considered.
Somehow the only practical solution is to allow health degradation, and then rush to identify and treat and attempt reversal.
Theres room to debate the degree and depth that we would utilize labs and other measures, but a complete non-starter mentality just leaves health outcomes to blind fate and promotes development of complex conditions much more difficult to unwind.
I think the similar reasoning is used in other countries.
If you can read swedish/use Google translate, this page explains it very clearly: https://www.1177.se/fragor--svar/nationellt/behandling--hjal...
I think this is naive: there are a number of reasons people in Sweden don't easily get health-checks, and among these are certainly cost-saving, where the healthcare representatives who you need to contact before speaking to a doctor or nurse act as gatekeepers to the system. This 'rationing' of resources can sometimes have dire consequences, as happened to a former colleague of mine, who was denied the in-person checks he needed and almost died as a consequence.
There's also an enormous amount of peer-pressure in Sweden to be skinny, fit and actively go to the gym several times each week. A fat person is an extreme rarity in Stockholm. Couple this with an ingrained cultural 'guilt-complex' instilled in everyone not to be a 'burden' on anyone else, and the health-service is suddenly transformed into an 'emergency-only' institution.
Naturally that may be seen as a positive - although for some people it may have bad outcomes. It certainly contrasts with my extended family in Spain, who have tests for every possible malady at all times. But otoh that seems to work pretty good too, as one of my uncles died last year at the age of 102.
Uh, high blood pressure is a typical "silent" disease with major effect on health later.
We're currently ranked 16th in the world for longevity, so I doubt regular blood checks is that important - at least, I remember reading previously that there's no evidence regular blood checks are actually useful unless you have an ongoing condition.
My wife OTOH got it done without an issue.
So yeah maybe they don't bother with males or foreigners.
I would consider a blood test every couple of years a default practice among GPs in Switzerland. Among other measures that fall under the "prevention is better than treatment" scheme such as free skin cancer screening or colon cancer screening from a certain age.
I find the described reaction of your doctor to be out of the ordinary, and with relation to the described accusation unacceptable.
I would have switched GP in that case.
Routine checkups never happen where I live. — one visits a healer when one feel sick.
Moreover, some preventable conditions don't show symptoms. High cholesterol, for instance, doesn't show any symptoms until one of your blood vessels is clogged, but chances are that by then is too late and you might suffer a stroke/heart attack.
I don't know how much the average treatment for those costs, but I would say way less than few tens of blood/urine tests. Or even more "stealing" a good heart because you need a transplant due to a preventable condition.
By the way now I circumvent the Swiss reluctance to prevention by going to Italy and paying the analysis out of my pocket. It's still very cheap (~100 Euros every 18 month on average).
I haven't visited a general practitioner in a decade, and when I last went it was indeed because of I noticed the symptoms of of an ear-infection that I indeed suffered.
If there is screening for this specific ailment, then why not for all?
It doesn't strike me as a decision born from strategic thought.
this is the same kind of situation in Denmark, I've lived most of my life outside of Denmark, after I cam back in my early 40s I went to the Doctor and said innocently "well I guess I'm getting to that age now where I should have an annual checkup." There was no explaining the concept to him.
I'm also an American with good health insurance (PPO not HMO if that makes a difference). My GP is at Stanford, although she only seems to practice once a week or something (it can be hard to get an appointment).
I go to the doctor when something's bothering me, but that's about it. It's never been suggested that I go regularly. (I'm not quite 40 yet, so maybe that's the difference?)
My dentist on the other hand, sends me a postcard every 6mo.. :)
If you have fancy / private healthcare, you're also encouraged to have the FULL checkup. That is, running on a trend-mill while a doctor controls your heart rate, etc.
Many vegan friends also requested iron and B12 checkups with blood tests, and doctors had no issue with that.
This sounds like a great idea
However, I believe that by doing so I can avoid preventable conditions later in my life and it's well worth it both for my quality of life and potentially for other people as I might not need that much medical assistance and leave it for those who need it.
Every blood test I've had, has come back with good results. I have low blood pressure, and I don't take anything other than a few dietary vitamins daily. I'm fortunate in that I established good dietary habits back in my early twenties. It can be difficult to break old habits though, so we'll see how I fare now that I've crossed the age where things start going downhill.
In Italy, instead, it is pretty common that every couple of years you get a complete blood analysis just to see if everything is ok and whether you need to change something in your lifestyle.
Additionally, Sardinia (another "blue zone" with great life expectancy) also has a different diet compared to mainland Italy. Loads of seafood and relatively small amounts of livestock proteins.