Interesting but certainly this is a study that should be read with some degree of skepticism. Even the author seems to admit this. Respectfully suggest that everyone hold off with any conclusions and wait for the peer reviews .
Hi Cynthia, thank you. What do you mean by skepticism, if you don't mind me asking? The published paper, and the lead author (as researchers very often do when writing about their work) suggest more research is necessary to draw more specific conclusions. But I'm curious what you are skeptical about. Not arguing for or against skepticism, mind you. Just wondering where yours lies.
Well,I guess my skepticism, my thoughts on this topic are because I’m well past 70, a retired nurse ,and familiar with the nurse‘s health study. For the most part I was skeptical of the numbers . Further studies or expansion of this study might result in different numbers. I understand , and it was clearly stated that there were other factors to consider . Perhaps it’s the times we live in but I find it necessary to question everything. lol
All hail our nurses! Lord knows we need more, good nurses. Question everything is right, Cynthia. I say that not as a conspiracist (at all) but as a journalist who has read many aging/health studies down to the footnotes. Often, I find that what the university marketing departments, and sometimes what the researchers themselves, say to the media isn't exactly or entire supported by what the science actually found. In other cases, like this Harvard study, the main idea that was marketed — eating healthy in midlife leads to being healthier when you're older, wouldn't ya know! — isn't nearly as novel or interesting as what the study decided to more or less gloss over, such as the overall mortality rate of this massive cohort of health professionals, and the surprising rate of reaching 70 in decent health. Sorry to write such a long reply. But details and accuracy matter, as you obviously know and understand. Thank you for being a careful reader. And keep moving!
Interesting but usually predictable that meat and diary are marginalised. What would be of interest, and should always be considered is... Who funds her research? As a good rule... Always follow the money
Hi Scott, the link to the nature medicine report discloses funding sources. I always read them, because, you're right, following the money in medical research is important. But I found nothing out of the ordinary.
That said, the study does disclose that one of the co-authors "is the principal investigator of a grant funded by the International Nut Council. The other authors declare no competing interests."
Kim, I've always wanted to write a fictional letter to the FDA, posing as a lawyer for Big Mustard, threatening a defamation lawsuit against Big Ketchup. And then follow that up with further satirical diatribes as counsel for, say, Big Beans threatening legal hell and fury at Big Nuts for market-share manipulation.
Hi, Noreen. It is a confounding statistic, among a few in the study that prompted me to write about it. You're reading the article correctly. In my post, I go in depth into the life expectancy tables for the people involved in the study, and in a follow up post, I asked the lead author about that 38% figure. That post may interest you: https://agingwithstrength.substack.com/p/q-and-a-harvards-healthy-aging-lead?r=88kaf
Interesting but certainly this is a study that should be read with some degree of skepticism. Even the author seems to admit this. Respectfully suggest that everyone hold off with any conclusions and wait for the peer reviews .
Hi Cynthia, thank you. What do you mean by skepticism, if you don't mind me asking? The published paper, and the lead author (as researchers very often do when writing about their work) suggest more research is necessary to draw more specific conclusions. But I'm curious what you are skeptical about. Not arguing for or against skepticism, mind you. Just wondering where yours lies.
Well,I guess my skepticism, my thoughts on this topic are because I’m well past 70, a retired nurse ,and familiar with the nurse‘s health study. For the most part I was skeptical of the numbers . Further studies or expansion of this study might result in different numbers. I understand , and it was clearly stated that there were other factors to consider . Perhaps it’s the times we live in but I find it necessary to question everything. lol
Thank you for the excellent article
All hail our nurses! Lord knows we need more, good nurses. Question everything is right, Cynthia. I say that not as a conspiracist (at all) but as a journalist who has read many aging/health studies down to the footnotes. Often, I find that what the university marketing departments, and sometimes what the researchers themselves, say to the media isn't exactly or entire supported by what the science actually found. In other cases, like this Harvard study, the main idea that was marketed — eating healthy in midlife leads to being healthier when you're older, wouldn't ya know! — isn't nearly as novel or interesting as what the study decided to more or less gloss over, such as the overall mortality rate of this massive cohort of health professionals, and the surprising rate of reaching 70 in decent health. Sorry to write such a long reply. But details and accuracy matter, as you obviously know and understand. Thank you for being a careful reader. And keep moving!
Interesting but usually predictable that meat and diary are marginalised. What would be of interest, and should always be considered is... Who funds her research? As a good rule... Always follow the money
Hi Scott, the link to the nature medicine report discloses funding sources. I always read them, because, you're right, following the money in medical research is important. But I found nothing out of the ordinary.
That said, the study does disclose that one of the co-authors "is the principal investigator of a grant funded by the International Nut Council. The other authors declare no competing interests."
Yeah because the meat and dairy industry, who receive the maximum subsidies and are run by massive corps, have no money or political influence at all.
Clearly it’s Big legume and Big Carrot that’s running the show.
Meat and Dairy are “marginalized” because they constantly show themselves to be worse for human health.
Oh how I wish Big Carrot existed. :-)
Kim, I've always wanted to write a fictional letter to the FDA, posing as a lawyer for Big Mustard, threatening a defamation lawsuit against Big Ketchup. And then follow that up with further satirical diatribes as counsel for, say, Big Beans threatening legal hell and fury at Big Nuts for market-share manipulation.
But then I turned 17 and got on with my life.
I'd have personally considered Big Pharma as the influence. Big Carrot.... Not so much
Hi, Noreen. It is a confounding statistic, among a few in the study that prompted me to write about it. You're reading the article correctly. In my post, I go in depth into the life expectancy tables for the people involved in the study, and in a follow up post, I asked the lead author about that 38% figure. That post may interest you: https://agingwithstrength.substack.com/p/q-and-a-harvards-healthy-aging-lead?r=88kaf