4 ms·

> You see, there are Blue Zones where there are many centenarians, and the data about their lifestyle can probably explain their longevity. However, most of Ru

> You see, there are Blue Zones where there are many centenarians, and the data about their lifestyle can probably explain their longevity. However, most of Russia is located in a totally different climate zone, and what is known about the life-extending lifestyles of, say, Mediterranean countries cannot be applied to our latitude. The book "Blue Zones" referenced nine lifestyle factors that were associated with longevity. They are: 1. Moderate, regular physical activity. 2. Life purpose. 3. Stress reduction. 4. Moderate caloric intake. 5. Plant-based diet. 6. Moderate alcohol intake, especially wine. 7. Engagement in spirituality or religion. 8. Engagement in family life. 9. Engagement in social life. I find it pretty incredible that a researcher would reject these very general principles out of hand, simply because Russia's landmass is located at higher latitudes.

zeveb 8y ago
> I find it pretty incredible that a researcher would reject these very general principles out of hand, simply because Russia's landmass is located at higher latitudes. I suspect that the article has its own motives, based on the odd statement you noticed as well as this line: >> In Russia, Valery Novoselov is mostly known for his studies of medical documents of historic persons such as Vladimir Lenin. His review of medical archives dedicated to shedding light on the real causes of death of this great Russian politician is ready There are many phrases one might apply to Lenin, but 'great politician' isn't one which leaps readily to mind.
fouc 8y ago
Those factors were picked from the lifestyles of the long-lived in the Mediterranean countries in the first place.
chongli 8y ago
6. Moderate alcohol intake, especially wine. The position that moderate alcohol consumption promotes health has been overturned [1]. Data now shows that the only safe level of alcohol consumption is zero. Every single drink increases your risks of alcohol-related disease. The previous data showing a benefit to moderate alcohol use may have been a result of some confounder such as social economic status or reverse causation (diseased people quit drinking). [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- phreeza 8y ago
  I have seen this reference before, but if you look at Figure 5, it does not seem to agree with the statement that 0 is the only safe amount. Am I missing something?
  - mxwsn 8y ago
    From the paper > In estimating the weighted relative risk curve, we found that consuming zero (95% UI 0·0–0·8) standard drinks daily minimised the overall risk of all health loss (figure 5). The risk rose monotonically with increasing amounts of daily drinking. Yet as you point out, from figure 5, 1 drink/day has an exceedingly minor increased risk from 0 drinks/day. Statistically, the health risk is increased, but the impact may be low enough that people may find it worthwhile to continue to drink a modest amount due to social, emotional, or other benefits.
    - LanceH 8y ago
      Saying "any alcohol consumption is unsafe" probably overstates it. "Any alcohol consumption carries health risk" would be more correct.
      - vokep 8y ago
        Yes, this. Any driving is unsafe. Any life living is unsafe.
      - chongli 8y ago
        Yes. My point wasn't to suggest that all drinking is unsafe. My point was to refute the claim that moderate drinking is actually better for your health than no drinking. The study I linked does an excellent job of that. The conclusion that each drink carries a small but monotonically increasing risk with it completely contradicts the prior claim. And that only makes sense. If alcohol is a carcinogen, then every time you expose your cells to it you run the (very tiny) risk of producing the 'perfect storm' of mutations that causes cancer.
- johnchristopher 8y ago

zeveb 8y ago

> I find it pretty incredible that a researcher would reject these very general principles out of hand, simply because Russia's landmass is located at higher latitudes. I suspect that the article has its own motives, based on the odd statement you noticed as well as this line: >> In Russia, Valery Novoselov is mostly known for his studies of medical documents of historic persons such as Vladimir Lenin. His review of medical archives dedicated to shedding light on the real causes of death of this great Russian politician is ready There are many phrases one might apply to Lenin, but 'great politician' isn't one which leaps readily to mind.

fouc 8y ago

Those factors were picked from the lifestyles of the long-lived in the Mediterranean countries in the first place.

chongli 8y ago

6. Moderate alcohol intake, especially wine. The position that moderate alcohol consumption promotes health has been overturned [1]. Data now shows that the only safe level of alcohol consumption is zero. Every single drink increases your risks of alcohol-related disease. The previous data showing a benefit to moderate alcohol use may have been a result of some confounder such as social economic status or reverse causation (diseased people quit drinking). [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

phreeza 8y ago
I have seen this reference before, but if you look at Figure 5, it does not seem to agree with the statement that 0 is the only safe amount. Am I missing something?
- mxwsn 8y ago
  From the paper > In estimating the weighted relative risk curve, we found that consuming zero (95% UI 0·0–0·8) standard drinks daily minimised the overall risk of all health loss (figure 5). The risk rose monotonically with increasing amounts of daily drinking. Yet as you point out, from figure 5, 1 drink/day has an exceedingly minor increased risk from 0 drinks/day. Statistically, the health risk is increased, but the impact may be low enough that people may find it worthwhile to continue to drink a modest amount due to social, emotional, or other benefits.
  - LanceH 8y ago
    Saying "any alcohol consumption is unsafe" probably overstates it. "Any alcohol consumption carries health risk" would be more correct.
    - vokep 8y ago
      Yes, this. Any driving is unsafe. Any life living is unsafe.
    - chongli 8y ago
      Yes. My point wasn't to suggest that all drinking is unsafe. My point was to refute the claim that moderate drinking is actually better for your health than no drinking. The study I linked does an excellent job of that. The conclusion that each drink carries a small but monotonically increasing risk with it completely contradicts the prior claim. And that only makes sense. If alcohol is a carcinogen, then every time you expose your cells to it you run the (very tiny) risk of producing the 'perfect storm' of mutations that causes cancer.
johnchristopher 8y ago