5 ms·

Pretty much every study ever has found a correlation of more fruits = healthier. That majority of studies just group fruits and vegetables together because they

Pretty much every study ever has found a correlation of more fruits = healthier. That majority of studies just group fruits and vegetables together because they basically have the same effect as vegetables in terms of above correlation. Fruit juices however, totally worthless, just as bad as sugar.

1_player 5y ago
Healthier than what? "Healthy" doesn't exist in a vacuum. Fat is healthy in a vacuum, fat with a carb heavy diet causes metabolic syndrome. Fruit is healthy in a vacuum, but anything containing fructose, fibre or not, isn't great when you have metabolic syndrome, insulin issues or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Plenty of nutritional studies are completely worthless for this reason. There is no double-blind, randomised and controlled dietary studies.
- commoner 5y ago
  > In the 2 prospective cohorts with many repeated measurements of diet and up to 30 years of follow-up, we observed that a higher intake of fruit and vegetables was associated with a lower risk of total mortality and cause-specific mortality in a nonlinear manner. Our analysis in the NHS and the HPFS and in a meta-analysis of 26 prospective cohort studies documented that intake of ≈5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily was associated with the lowest mortality, and higher intake was not associated with additional risk reductions in mortality. The thresholds of risk reduction in mortality were 2 servings daily for fruit intake and 3 servings daily for vegetable intake. Higher intakes of most subgroups of fruit and vegetables were inversely associated with mortality, whereas intakes of starchy vegetables, fruit juices, and potatoes were not associated with mortality. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048996 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.0... A study doesn't need to be "double-blind, randomised and controlled" to have value. This study of 108,000+ people over 28-30 years is going to be more pertinent to the average person than, for example, an anecdote.

1_player 5y ago

Healthier than what? "Healthy" doesn't exist in a vacuum. Fat is healthy in a vacuum, fat with a carb heavy diet causes metabolic syndrome. Fruit is healthy in a vacuum, but anything containing fructose, fibre or not, isn't great when you have metabolic syndrome, insulin issues or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Plenty of nutritional studies are completely worthless for this reason. There is no double-blind, randomised and controlled dietary studies.

commoner 5y ago
> In the 2 prospective cohorts with many repeated measurements of diet and up to 30 years of follow-up, we observed that a higher intake of fruit and vegetables was associated with a lower risk of total mortality and cause-specific mortality in a nonlinear manner. Our analysis in the NHS and the HPFS and in a meta-analysis of 26 prospective cohort studies documented that intake of ≈5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily was associated with the lowest mortality, and higher intake was not associated with additional risk reductions in mortality. The thresholds of risk reduction in mortality were 2 servings daily for fruit intake and 3 servings daily for vegetable intake. Higher intakes of most subgroups of fruit and vegetables were inversely associated with mortality, whereas intakes of starchy vegetables, fruit juices, and potatoes were not associated with mortality. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048996 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.0... A study doesn't need to be "double-blind, randomised and controlled" to have value. This study of 108,000+ people over 28-30 years is going to be more pertinent to the average person than, for example, an anecdote.