
Cardiovascular Deaths Linked to Poor Dietary Choices - prostoalex
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/health/number-of-cardiovascular-deaths-each-year-diet.html
======
Toine
This was known for decades. People in the future will not believe how bad we
were eating in the last 50 years. Food is so important to our physical and
mental health. We are literally killing ourselves, at this point the food
industry is almost guilty of mass murder for profit. Same for fossil fuels,
pharma, etc. I don't understand our "developed" countries.

~~~
adrianratnapala
This silly.

In the last few months I have been changing my diet because of cholesterol
readings. It's annoying, because I like steak, and I like coconut, and bacon,
and ghee, and prawns and, and, and...

Desire for such a diet has always been with us. The food industry has, for the
first time, made it affordable for hundreds of millions of us. They are guilty
only of mass feeding for profit.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
> It's annoying, because I like steak, and I like coconut, and bacon, and
> ghee, and prawns and, and, and...

How is that annoying? All of these things can be part of a healthy, balanced
diet. Why cut them out completely?

~~~
adrianratnapala
I certainly didn't cut them out completely. The point is to moderate them, I
had to discipline myself.

On the other hand, how the heck is the food industry supposed to moderate me,
why also supplying these things that you point out are part of a perfectly
sensible diet.

------
qrybam
Anecdotal:

Growing up, our parents never added salt to our food, avoided as much as
possible any processed foods and made everything from fresh ingredients.

After moving out and living with various people, shifting my diet multiple
times, I generally feel worse now than I did before. When I fast and shift
myself to healthier eating I feel better. What interests me is why most people
don't feel "bad" when they're eating the food that I would feel sluggish from
the next day. My pet theories are their body is accustomed to it/or they
simply don't know what it feels like to not feel that way- if you know what I
mean.

I thought it was self evident that anything that weakens you is likely to be
bad for you.

Glad that these findings are going more mainstream.

~~~
sebleon
> What interests me is why most people don't feel "bad" when they're eating
> the food that I would feel sluggish from the next day.

Eating processed foods for years causes huge changes in the gut microbiome.
Presence of different microorganisms means you'll process various foods
differently from others.

[http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/1...](http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/16/processed-
foods-immune-system-gut-health.aspx)

------
VLM
There's a substantial hole in the logical argument of the article "a
substantial portion of these deaths could be prevented". Obviously everyone
studied will die despite the articles implication that giving up steak results
in eternal life. They'll just die of something else. It is also not intuitive
that merely not dying from a cardio problem will result in a longer life.
Surely you can eat less meat and be less fat merely by skipping some meals and
smoking a pack or two of cigs or dipping tobacco, and it seems like cardio
death rates would drop, but overall death rate due to lung cancer would
probably increase to a net systemic higher level. It doesn't have to be that
extreme. Maybe something as simple as replacing a bloodthirsty steak with a
nice glass of vegan corn syrup soda could cause a net increase in death rates
while slightly dropping cardio death rates.

There are also peculiar side issues such as declaring fish to be healthy not-
meat means mercury intake would explode and the fisheries will be wiped out
sooner than if we didn't. The net long term effect of wiping out the fisheries
for all time might be worse than merely eating land based meat for that time
interval.

Finally there are peculiar geographic problems where urban vegans absolutely
refuse to admit there is some land suitable solely for beef production, or the
hipster quinoa fad which for a grain isn't as bad as most but the fad
primarily resulted in starvation in south america.

~~~
good_vibes
I think there is a substantial hole in your train of thought as well. Don't
miss the forest for the trees.

I think this guide will help you understand the bigger picture:
[https://zenhabits.net/plants/](https://zenhabits.net/plants/)

------
Taylor_OD
I've lost over 25 pounds in the last couple months by changing my diet
slightly. I essentially eat a nice sized lunch and no other real meals. I
drink a protein shake with some peanut butter and a banana for breakfast and a
soylent drink for dinner. Sometimes I substitute the soylent for booze if I've
got an event to go to. I fast, skip the lunch, on Mondays. It's incredible how
different my body feels without that extra weight and barring a couple nights
of thinking about the gelato in my freezer it hasnt been that difficult.

I'm not sure if I'm just now gaining the will power to stick to a diet or if I
got to a weight I was truly uncomfortable with but I wish I could get my
family on the same plan to avoid stuff like this.

~~~
antisthenes
> I essentially eat a nice sized lunch and no other real meals. I drink a
> protein shake with some peanut butter and a banana for breakfast and a
> soylent drink for dinner.

A breakfast is a meal. And the way you describe it, it can easily be upwards
of 600 calories. Peanut butter is one of the most calorie dense foods on the
planet and bananas add up very quickly in terms of calories.

Also iirc, a bottle of soylent is 400 calories, which is not insignificant.

So all in all, you still probably consume ~2000 calories, which is enough to
lose weight, but also enough not to feel hungry by timing the consumption
correctly. Small-framed women, for example would gain weight with the same
diet.

> I'm not sure if I'm just now gaining the will power to stick to a diet

I wonder what is HN's obsession with sticking to specific diets? Generally
speaking there is an infinite number of possible healthy diets that get you
your macros at every calorie level.

~~~
sdflkd
> I wonder what is HN's obsession with sticking to specific diets? Generally
> speaking there is an infinite number of possible healthy diets that get you
> your macros at every calorie level.

It's easier to eat a healthy amount if your diet is pre-determined. No need to
think of alternatives and mess up. The counterpoint would be that the monotony
of the same foods also make it easier to "cheat" and revert your progress.

------
bsharitt
While I'm not "old" yet, I'm not as young as I used to be and I can feel my
life time of poor diet is starting to catch up with me. So I've become very
mindful of my diet very recently. I've switched to a mostly plant based diet
and avoid most processed food combined with some intermittent fasting. I'm
feeling much better, I'm losing weight at a healthy pace and I'm sleeping much
better, though that might be more related also dropping caffeine and alcohol.
The rest of my family is also eating more healthy, though not with the same
strictness as me. I went cold turkey and it's a bit more of a gradual process
for them.

~~~
jordanb
The best thing you can do is avoid sugar. I started doing it about a year ago
for similar reasons. I lost 30 pounds and feel great. I also cut way back on
caffeine and alcohol. That probably played a part in my feeling better but
perhaps not losing weight.

~~~
Jtsummers
Cutting out alcohol will have a significant effect on weight loss (positive
effect). Alcohol gets consumed, for calories, more easily than sugars and
other calorie sources. So your body will process your alcohol intake quickly.
Once sated, calorically, your body has to do something with the rest of what
you've eaten/drunk. This means it's expelled from the body, or stored (as fat)
and your weight goes up (or stays high).

It's a bit like sodas, here. It's easy to get many or most of the calories you
need from alcohol (especially beers) and sugary sodas. You don't feel sated so
you still eat, now you've exceeded your calorie goals and you end up gaining
weight (or maintaining a higher than desired weight). Eliminating sodas and
alcohol moves your caloric intake to be, predominantly, food stuffs. Now
you'll feel sated when you're full from your meal, and, with a bit of planning
and practice, before consuming too many calories.

------
good_vibes
A plant-based diet has been proven to prevent many of the leading causes of
death and is also what is best for the planet. Our modern diet has way too
much animal flesh and animal byproducts, all kinds of evidence in our anatomy,
genetics, and biochemistry. The amount of land and water use for animal
agriculture is insane, the greenhouse emissions and life-killing pollution are
another set of externalities.

A lot can change for the individual organism and the whole biosphere with a
simple diet change. I think a plant-based society is the only kind that could
live harmoniously with our home planet and expand successfully onto other
planets.

~~~
rimliu
I fail to see how switching from meat to plants will decrease the usage of
land and water. Also, planet could not care less what we eat or what we do.

~~~
Kbelicius
Because growing 1000 calories worth of a plant takes less space then growing
10000 calories. And if you want a 1000 calories of cow meat you will need to
feed it much more then 10000 calories of plant.

~~~
vilmosi
That's a gross oversimplification and not true in many cases.

For instance, New Zealand lamb flocks are grown high up in the mountains,
eating and drinking from local sources unsuitable for plant farming. It would
literally take more arable land for the equivalent plant based diet.

~~~
crispyambulance
I'm sure the lamb is delicious at the dozen or so restaurants and butchers in
which it is sold for a high price.

When you're talking about scale, feeding 10's of thousands of people, plant
based food sources win out.

~~~
michael_h
'Dozen or so'? You can get a lamb roast at _Costco_.

~~~
scandinavegan
Do you get these high-altitude grazing New Zeeland lamb at Costco? Most lambs
are raised in the lamb factory.

------
cies
> Diets low in omega-3 fatty acids, found in seafood [...] also played a role.

In seafood you also find a lot of toxins, especially mercury. So trying to get
your omega3s from there comes with it's own problems.

Thank God for flax seeds! A cheap and pure source of omega3s. Freshly grind 2
tsps and mix in your food every day: you will have covered your omega3s,
amongst other micro-nutrients.

~~~
stagbeetle
Mercury binds to selenium and inactivates its "toxic" effects.

Thankfully, fish is high in selenium (almost 1:1 to with mercury, thus
canceling both out, in swordfish. Most others have ratios < 10:1).

~~~
narutouzumaki
Does that mean that tuna does not have much selenium? Would it be possible to
mitigate the effects of a tuna rich diet with by also eating other food rich
in selenium?

~~~
stagbeetle
I don't have the ratio for tuna off-hand, but IIRC a selenium supplement is
all you need to counteract a fish-heavy diet.

But, yes. You can also supplement fish with higher sel:merc ratios to balance
it out.

------
kev009
I'm curious what people think of diet-hackers.. this forum is probably more
sympathetic than most.

It seems like there's a bi-modal distribution where either you don't care
about diet, or you ascribe metaphysical properties to food and how it was
obtained and prepared. The later seems like ho-hum, nutrition is much more
complicated than the FDA labels, but I have to believe it's possible to
synthesize boring goop that gives you everything you need. I really don't care
that much about eating.. as in, if I could flip a switch and never eat again,
I would unhesitatingly do so.

I tried Soylent for a while, which I liked well enough, but they are
optimizing for things I don't particularly care about like vegan ingredients
and sedentary nutrition profile. Lately I've been using 100%FOOD which I like
quite a bit in the triple protein profile, and is helpful for my activity
level.

~~~
stagbeetle
> _but I have to believe it 's possible to synthesize boring goop that gives
> you everything you need_

It is, but to make it as bioavailable and "healthy" as regular food is a
challenge (and extremely expensive).

Contemporary goop uses synthetic micronutrients (as opposed to more
bioavailable organic) and extracts (as opposed to full-profile concentrates).

This is also ignoring that Soylent's ingredient profile is likely incompatible
with a large part of the public.

------
guelo
Hey seen salt so directly linked to heart disease.

~~~
tracker1
Salt is generally only an issue if you already have, or are via family link
likely to have heart issues... Of course, the anti-saturated fat and dietary
cholesterol claims were also unbalanced and not well supported. However, most
people have far more salt in their diet than they need anyway...

What gets me more is the amount of "natural" flavors added to food... when you
have a hypersensitive sense of smell and taste man some of that stuff is
nasty, and 19 of 20 can't even smell/taste it. It may be natural and some
people will respond positively to additives, but it's really harsh to some of
us.

~~~
scarface74
Inspired by Pascal's Wager:

Even if it's not clear that salt intake and saturated fat is bad for you, why
take the chance? Three choices:

1\. Salt/saturated fat are bad for you and you eat too much of both -- bad
outcome.

2\. Salt/saturated fat are not bad for you and you eat too much of both -
neutral outcome

3\. Salt/saturated fat are bad for you and you limit your intake - good
outcome.

I don't think anyone is arguing that too much salt and saturated fat are
_good_ for you, so the three scenarios above are the logical choices.

If the scientific studies are wrong and you cut back anyway, you have "lost
nothing".

If they are right and you cut back, you have gained. There is no benefit by
taking a chance that the accepted wisdom is wrong.

~~~
humanrebar
> Even if it's not clear that salt intake and saturated fat is bad for you,
> why take the chance?

Pascal's Wager makes sense in that you have mutually exclusive options.
Dietary choices don't work like that.

Practically speaking, if you avoid certain ingredients, you expose yourself to
more of others.

Psychologically speaking, the average person only has so much willpower. It's
best spend avoiding the worst foods and pursuing the best ones. Spending
energy on pointless diets affects one's ability to pursue good ones.

~~~
scarface74
I agree. That's why I said "too much". I didn't say "cut out". In my case, I
know my will power is weak. I keep "unhealthy" food out of the house so I'm
not constantly being tempted. During the week I only have to resist temptation
at lunch since I don't have access to junk food at work or at home.

During the weekend, I don't go crazy but I don't go out of my way to eat
healthy.

If I do want something to sweet, I buy the smallest portion.

------
746F7475
On our next breaking news: Gun deaths linked to bullets

------
jdhzzz
Dog bites man!

------
hashmal
no kidding.

------
cies
The "TLDR" summary of the article:

> Cardiovascular disease claims 610,000 lives in the United States each year.
> It is the leading cause of mortality nationwide, accounting for one in every
> four deaths.

> A new analysis, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, shows that
> a substantial portion of these deaths could be prevented by healthier
> eating.

Nothing new; has been shown numerous times. Article does not state how this
analysis is different.

> In 2015, more than 400,000 [2/3rds] deaths from cardiovascular causes were
> linked to unhealthy diets, according to the research

According to the article, for a healthy diet we need to eat more:

* whole plant-based foods (nuts, seeds, vegetables, whole grains and fruits), and omega-3 fatty acids

...and we need to eat less:

* salt (sodium), trans-fat, saturated fat, processed meat, sugar

> Ashkan Afshin, co-author of the study, said: “some of the leading risk
> factors are not high intake of unhealthy foods, but low intake of healthy
> foods.”

> Over all, the results of the study were consistent with global patterns.

\-----

Now my observation. When they talk about what we should eat more of, the
instruction is clear (only omega3s are cryptic). But when stating what we
should eat less of most of it is cryptic.

Well let me decrypt it for you... reduce or stop eating:

* meat/dairy/eggs (bad fats, bad protein, toxin build-up)

* processed foods, like oils & sugar (they have been separated from their original form thus lacking fibers and nutrients)

* non foods, like chemicals (sugar replacements, preservatives, colorants, etc.)

~~~
Toine
Not sure about eggs. I get a lot of contradicting opinions. My conclusion is
that 4-5 eggs a week is good for us.

~~~
cies
I contains a lot of cholesterol and "bad" protein (the protein that has lots
of sulfur-based amino acids); besides that very little nutrients.

If you want you can have a ton of nutrients for the same cholesterol/calories
by choosing whole plant-based foods.

So in the absence of choice, eggs are great. But most of us have so much
choice nowadays, that eggs are clearly an inferior option.

~~~
martinko
Dietary cholesterol does not directly affect blood serum cholesterol. This has
been known for years. You are just spouting bullshit nutritional advice that
has contributed to the obesity epidemic since the 1950s. Enjoy your "healthy"
low fat foods, I will enjoy my "unhealthy" fats. I just hope no one listens to
your advice without doing some research.

~~~
cies
> Enjoy your "healthy" low fat foods

Where was I advocating "low fat" foods?

> You are just spouting bullshit nutritional advice that has contributed to
> the obesity epidemic since the 1950s.

Yes I advocate for "whole food plant based" diet. After doing my research. But
please tell me how WFPB has "has contributed to the obesity epidemic since the
1950s", because I do not get it.

> Dietary cholesterol does not directly affect blood serum cholesterol.

You say so. But do you think that replacing 5 eggs per week with whole plant
foods is not going to lower someones blood serum cholesterol? Because I think
it does.

~~~
vilmosi
> You say so. But do you think that replacing 5 eggs per week with whole plant
> foods is not going to lower someones blood serum cholesterol? Because I
> think it does.

You make it sound obvious but it's does not sound like that to everyone. How
is one nutritional healthy food better or worse than another nutritional
healthy food?

And the "eating cholesterol gives you high cholesterol" statement is in the
same league as "eating fat makes you fat". It's not necessarily true and an
oversimplification.

~~~
twayamznacct
What about the ~20% of the population with one or two APOE4 alleles?

