
Eating 7+ portions of fruits and veggies a day reduces your risk of death by 42% - ph0rque
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331194030.htm
======
ajarmst
Sigh. Correlation. Causation. No mechanism is offered, and all they studied
was respondent's reported diet. Nothing to see here, other than the fact that
there is evidence that eating lots of fresh produce correlates well with
longevity. Really? Thanks, Mr. Scientist! Do both of those things also
correlate well with upper middle class?

~~~
pessimizer
They do say that they controlled for class and physical activity: but the only
thing open-access about the article is the abstract, so I can't tell _how_
they controlled for those things.

~~~
hyperbovine
The controlled for them in the standard way, by adding them into the (Cox)
regression. The full list of controls is:

"Other variables included in the analysis were age (35–44 years, 45–54 years,
55–64 years, 65–74 years and 75+ years), sex, smoking status (current smoker,
ex-regular smoker, never smoked regularly) and social class of the head of
household (manual, non-manual, other). Education (degree or equivalent
qualification, other, no qualification), measured body mass index (BMI) (<20
kg/m2, 20–24.9 kg/m2, 25–29.9 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), physical activity (as maximum
activity intensity level in the past 4 weeks: inactive, light activity,
moderate activity, vigorous activity) and alcohol consumption on heaviest
drinking day in the previous week (non-drinker, drank within limits, drank
above limits, drank more than twice the recommended daily limit) were also
added to the models as indicated."

The most obvious thing missing from this list to me is all other dietary
related variables. For example, people who like the taste of plants are
probably far less likely to enjoy eating red meat, salty foods, and many other
things that have been associated with increased mortality.

~~~
awolf
>For example, people who like the taste of plants are probably far less likely
to enjoy eating red meat, salty foods, and many other things that have been
associated with increased mortality.

Which, incidentally, have really only been associated with increased mortality
through flawed epidemiological studies such as this one.

~~~
hyperbovine
Flawed is a strong word. There is little doubt that meat and sodium intake are
associated with a number of poor health outcomes. (Run almost any regression
you can think of.) That is a much weaker statement than saying the former
causes the latter, which is why responsible researchers are reluctant to do so
unless there is very convincing evidence. Even if you are not convinced of the
causal link, you would be well served to moderate your consumption of these
foods on the chance that one exists.

------
bdcravens
"reduces your risk of death by 42%"

Pretty sure I still have a 100% risk of dying no matter what.

~~~
backprojection
Risk of dying as a function of age, obviously.

------
grishas
Ah, food studies. The breeding ground of bad science. I am not saying this is
bad science, but a quick glance shows this to be survey data.

The problem with the data is that people who eat "healthy" probably care more
about their health. Even if the food has a negative effect, they could have
other tendencies (exercise) that outweigh any negatives.

Plus they probably eat more carefully, in general, drink less, etc. So...
correlation != causation yada yada

A better study would be to take unhealthy people and now introduce the fruits
and veg and see what happens.

~~~
johnrob
You might be correct, but I've seen a lot of smart people fall into this trap:
"X is not proven to be true, there for X is false". The study might not prove
any hard facts, but it doesn't mean the point of the study isn't spot on.

------
adwf
On a technical sidenote, 65226 people were in the study. Who wants to bet that
the count was limited by the number of rows that fit in an old excel
spreadsheet?

------
weavie
I doubt its quite so straightforward. If you eat less veggies and replace them
with doughnuts amd beer then im sure you're probably more likely to die
sooner. Replace them with organic pastured meats, particularly organ meats,
then Im not so convinced.

There is much more to health than the amount of vegetables you eat, including
genetics, and it is imposssible to properly test them in isolation.

------
bdfh42
Don't you just love statements like "and canned and frozen fruit appeared to
increase risk of death by 17% per portion" \- I could be dead by nightfall.

I do look forward to a proper statistical analysis of these results rather
than this tabloid nonsense. It will be interesting to see if there is actually
any measurable impact above (say) just some fruit or vegetable intake per day.

~~~
sitkack
Your risk of death is already, probably really really low, so increasing it by
17% isn't going to kill _you_. It will kill the other you out in statistics
land, which could actually be me, so do a bro a favor and watch what you eat.

~~~
saalweachter
To clarify what I think you're saying:

It's a percent of a percent.

So if you have a 0.004% chance of dying on any given day, and you increase
this by 100%, then you have a 0.008% chance of dying. Not a 100.004% chance.

~~~
sitkack
100% !

------
izzydata
Eating 500+ portions of fruits and veggies a day reduces your risk of death by
99.99%. Because you are far less likely to get into any accidents if you are
so busy eating fruits.

~~~
m_ram
You'd need a spotter because your risk of choking would increase by a lot.

------
r4um
How much is one portion actually ?

~~~
dragonwriter
The study says they used UK Department of Health definitions of portion sizes,
which are 80g / portion for fruits and vegetables. [1]

[1]
[http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/5ADAY/Pages/Portionsizes.aspx](http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/5ADAY/Pages/Portionsizes.aspx)

------
chrisBob
This isn't very valuable with out the full questionnaire visible. Most of
these kinds of "studies" come from huge questionnaires. If you ask enough
questions then your statistics will show a strong link between _something_.

------
niuzeta
link to actual paper:

[http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2014/03/03/jech-2013-20350...](http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2014/03/03/jech-2013-203500.full.pdf+html?sid=5fecc845-0e21-4e37-9b20-e15d266d525b)

------
wehadfun
No it doesn't Your risk of death is 100%

------
fyresite
Steve Jobs was a fruitarian and he died at the young age of 56.

~~~
misnome
What's your point? That anecdotal evidence can contradict statistics?

~~~
drcube
And what are these "statistics" based on? Self reported survey data, aka
"anecdotes".

------
kzahel
I hate titles like this. Obviously nothing will decrease your risk of death
because your death is 100% guaranteed.

~~~
cheepin
If I decrease my likelihood to die from cancer and heart-disease, which ones
am I increasing?

~~~
sp332
Kidney failure. Also various accidents and disasters.

~~~
chc
Not at any point in time, you don't. You increase your risk of those things as
t=∞ (because previously you might have died before they could happen), but
your risk of those things does not increase at any point in time.

~~~
sp332
Oh, I see. Well if you start eating a lot of grapes, your chances of choking
on a grape go up a lot :)

------
zebulom
Today doctor says this, 10 years later doctor says exact opposite.

~~~
wpietri
Doctors have been suggesting that people eat more fruits and vegetables for a
lot more than 10 years.

------
mkhoury
I don't see the relation between this and hacking. Oh probably reduce risk of
death -> live more -> code more -> hack more.

~~~
sp332
Before you can be a healthy hacker, you must first be a healthy human being.

~~~
jksmith
Just don't get shot with a banana cannon. That could cause trauma and death.

