No validate scientific evidence, blue zones are areas with bad record keeping and no birth certificates etc…
The poorest countries have the greatest percentage of plant-based food and, no surprise, they also have the shortest lifespans. The reality is that the phrase "plant-based" is now a buzzword replacement for "vegetarian" and it has more political meaning than any real connection to health or nutrition. Hostess Twinkees, Hohos, Ring Dings, etc. are all very good examples of plant-based food.
Are you suggesting it's because of plants and not because they're poor?
Instead of making ecological comparisons, you should ask the question of what the science shows within one population, like in prospective cohort studies. Does increased vegetable consumption correlate with better or worse health outcomes?
> Hostess Twinkees, Hohos, Ring Dings, etc. are all very good examples of plant-based food.
Sure, but that's not what people are talking about when they refer to plants in the context of health and nutrition.
I believe they are suggesting that the diet being plant-based is not a guarantee of health or a long life-span, contrary to what the parent comment implied.
And that nutritious and healthy diet is not necessarily plant-based.
>Sure, but that's not what people are talking about when they refer to plants in the context of health and nutrition.
Citation needed.
Specifically, this definition[0] disagrees with your opinion, allowing "higly processed foods" and "refined sweeteners" in a plant-based diet (necessittating a newly-invented acronym WFPB[1], meaning "whole-food plant-based"). They helpfully included a lollipop pictogram to get the point across.
"Plant-based" is a useless noise-word that should not be used at all, especially when you do have something concrete in mind. And if you don't, it's better not to speak, and figure out what you mean first.
We already have words like vegetarian and vegan that, while not scientifically precise, allow for a decent amount of understanding of what a person eats when they say they follow a vegetarian or a vegan diet.
Plant-based communicates no such thing. All "plant-based" diet definitions seem to generally involve eating less meat, without specifying less than what. The phrase "plant based" is as vapid as "more healthy" when provided without further elaboration.
This[2] defintion of "plant-based", for example, puts Mediterranean diet as an example; this effectively prescribes eating fish and poultry[3]. The same source[3] says the Japenese diet is similar (and is, therefore, also plant-based). The parent comment juxtaposed these two diets to "plant-based" ones, because their best guess as to what "plant-based" means did not include "heavy on poultry and fish".
Nobody seems to be able to say what exactly isn't a plant-based diet. Example [4]:
>Whole30, a popular diet and lifestyle plan, doesn’t usually qualify. “The Whole30 diet traditionally is heavier on animal proteins, though it is possible to follow this diet in a plant-based way,” Manaker says.
I'm guessing that subsisting exclusively on beef steak is not a plant-based diet, but perhaps, too, that can be followed in a plant-based way somehow.
When a diet described as plant-based requires you to "enjoy" fish and poultry weekly, we are firmly in the territory outlined in Orwell's brilliant essay "Politics and the English language"[5], which correctly observed (and predicted) the proliferation of meaningless buzz-words like "plant-based" (and corresponding acronyms), as well as the subsequent atrophy of thought.
"I am trying to less meat than I used to" has an unambiguous meaning.
"I am switching to a plant-based diet" has no meaning, because it communicates precisely zero information.
Please avoid using words and phrases that don't mean anything. For Orwell's sake, if not for ours.
[0] https://www.forksoverknives.com/how-tos/plant-based-primer-b...
[1] https://www.doctorsfornutrition.org/general-public/what-is-w...
[2] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-is-a-plant-based-di...
[3] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...
[4] https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/plant-based-di...
[5] https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/10/japenese-cente...
The book How Not to Die covers many of the top killer diseases in the US and what food are best and worst to eat to avoid those fates based on reviews of scientific literature. The trend thoughtout is that plant-based diets fare best. Not surprising that this correlates with Blue Zone diets.
The book Fiber Fueled looks the science of gut health and what foods are best for gut health. The answer: a variety of plant foods.
As a study size of one, I’ve personally been able to recover quickly enough to do 6 26.2+ mile runs in six months in my forties. I think that would difficult and injury prone on a high-inflammation diet.
Also, yes, all of those things you cited, and others. In particular the existence of The Esselstyn Heart Disease Program [1], founded by Dr Esselstyn of Forks Over Knives fame, at the world's top heart hospital, is noteworthy.
[1] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/departments/wellness/integrat...
This has always been a major concern for me with a lot of studies. People seem ok with it and I’ve never understood why. It’s like trying to understand a bug by looking at the broader logs / data instead of reading the code (which is absolutely a useful tool, though the more complicated the code - like with the human body - the less useful it is. And I certainly wouldn’t be advising any fixes based off of it). And far too often reading the code tells a wildly different story.
Even the USDA in trying to promote fish advices choosing fish that are “lower in mercury”. Or you could not eat fish and skip a major source of mecury exposure.
I find it hard to believe that so many people have an uncertainty of 5-10 years on their birth date (or lie about it) that it skews the statistics.
The diet of the Blue Zones where people live longest are mostly plant-based.