In a recent interview, Daniel Lieberman was critical of Blue Zones and I think he summed it up best, saying "most of the stuff the Blue Zones diet suggests is pretty sensible. Eat of lot of plants, get exercise, don't drink to much, don't smoke. Do you need centenarians to tell you that?"
What initially made me most skeptical when reading the Blue Zone books etc was the push for the mostly vegetarian diets. Sally Fallon from the Weston Price Foundation talks about how bad that data is on her blog. She’s on the other end of the spectrum. Sounds like the bad data from the longevity numbers checks out. Following the money.
I think the “The Blue Zones are Bad Data” is an interesting title for such a good, clear, fact based writer like you. What does that mean, really and what message are you really trying to convey? The Blue Zones have been over stated and become the ‘6 minute abs’ of health and maybe longevity. Like all things, when you read the Cliff Notes (aging myself)…you get the Cliff Notes. The book makes some common recommendations based on the benefits of active lifestyles and health that are a benefit. The data and how that affects life spans, longevity, insurance etc are a different story and shouldn’t discount some of the benefits of the book. Wine everyday should not be the take home message and if it is, it sounds like every sound bite ever written in a health/longevity related post. People hear what they want and always do what’s comfortable and easy. Nobody taught us more about that than you.
Thanks for your comment. I don't know if I fully understand your comment—are you upset about the post's title, or are you saying that the data behind the Blue Zones (places where masses of people live to 100+ due to certain habits) is wrong?
Hi Michael. Thank you for responding. What I want to communicate is that that the title ”The Blue Zone Are Bad Data” smears significant benefits that the book holds and people won’t get the benefits based on your title, probably, because they will never get that far. If we look at the lessons of the end of the book: 1. Move Naturally. 2. A way to cut calories by 20%. 3. Plant Slant. 4. Glass a wine a day( this one is tricky at best). 5. Purpose now. 6. Downshift. 7. Belong 8. Right Tribe ( maybe 2 Blue Zone inclusive; yet important in our loneliness epidemic world) most of these make sense for all. With your title, most would never read this book or even consider it. It’s hard to get us to do right most of the time, especially me. The book is an easy read and a reminder of what’s right most of the time. The commercial nature has taken on a life of its own, yet the bones are good. My point is your title doesn’t allow any one to see any benefit and that’s not the way I perceive you and your writing.
Thanks for the feedback on the headline. In my mind, Blue Zones are places where masses of people supposedly live to 100+. The data on that is bad. The habits are a separate extrapolation from that bad data. I.e., I the headline doesn't claim the suggested habits from the data are bad (and in the piece, I noted that most of the advice are quite good), it says that the Blue Zones are a result of bad data.
No they are not. Neumann was throughly debunked and corrected, and his paper did not make the same claims his book does, or his podcast appearances to sell said book.
typical, "we found new evidence, proving previous science wrong" that the internet loves so well.🤷🏻♂️
Thanks for your comment. How do you rectify your claim with the fact that the Blue Zones founders have said the places aren't Blue Zones anymore? Or the data from the countries the Blue Zones are in showing that there aren't a significantly higher proportion of centenarians in the Blue Zones? Or the Loma Linda admission?
Look up the responses from the original two researchers to Newman’s claims when his paper came out.
Sardinia was individually verified with birth and baptismal data.
Perfect? Hardly, but to claim it is all a lie is ridiculous imho.
Loma Linda Adventist data was fine as well, well studied and validates what the original Blue Zone data found.
Newman’s critique of Loma Linda is again based on taking the Adventist population at large, not the specific vegan/Pescatarian Adventists, who have much different outcomes.
He is right they do not show super centenarians, but that is a Straw Man.
Adventist researches rebuked Newman, and Newman himself admitted that Lona Linda was exempt from any claims of record fraud.
Yes the Japanese data was bad, 82% error rate for centenarians, but Saul has no idea how accurate the actual, individual data points of the Okinawan centenarians, a separate group completely than the Okinawans as a whole, who’s diet is awful, as their morbidity rates show.
What he did not do was verify each Okinawan claim of age, and verify if they were indeed invalid, he just assumed based on Japans national database.
Also, the super centunarian claims maybe wildly exxagerated and Buttners empirenis ceftainly guiltynof huping the research, but to call them a lie, is ridiculous click bait, so typical, imho, of the internet/book sales going on the 20 hears or so.
What the data has definitely shown, across multiple cuktures and cobtinents, that a dietarybpatternnof 65-75% carbohydrates, 10-15% fat, less than 5% saturated fat, and protein 15-20% of calories, virtually eliminates ASCVD, T2DM, and dramatically lowers risk of dementia and cancer.
Which is applied in a western nation with modern sanitation and medicine, health span and lifespan should increase drmatically, and result in more centenarians.
While yes, there are significant errors in the data, especially the Japanese data, which is what his paper is about, he has since expanded and extrapolated those findings and engages in conjecture to flesh out a book narrative.
With the ever present, “what we thought was true, what the science said, what “they” sold us is a lie.”
Essentially the same nonsense being spewed for fat and LDL in the LC/Paleo sphere that sells so well.
Now all that being said, the claim a WFPB diet will get you to a hundred, is indeed a ridiculous claim.
All manner of things can kill us, look at the Tsimane and Hadza, both using the same dietary patterns as the “blue zones”, as even though they are free of our ASCVD and t2dm, they do not live linger because infections, parasites and child mortality gives them much lower lifespans then Americans and Europeans.
Access to modern healthcare and sanitation are far more impactful on longevity than diet it seems.
In a recent interview, Daniel Lieberman was critical of Blue Zones and I think he summed it up best, saying "most of the stuff the Blue Zones diet suggests is pretty sensible. Eat of lot of plants, get exercise, don't drink to much, don't smoke. Do you need centenarians to tell you that?"
What initially made me most skeptical when reading the Blue Zone books etc was the push for the mostly vegetarian diets. Sally Fallon from the Weston Price Foundation talks about how bad that data is on her blog. She’s on the other end of the spectrum. Sounds like the bad data from the longevity numbers checks out. Following the money.
I think the “The Blue Zones are Bad Data” is an interesting title for such a good, clear, fact based writer like you. What does that mean, really and what message are you really trying to convey? The Blue Zones have been over stated and become the ‘6 minute abs’ of health and maybe longevity. Like all things, when you read the Cliff Notes (aging myself)…you get the Cliff Notes. The book makes some common recommendations based on the benefits of active lifestyles and health that are a benefit. The data and how that affects life spans, longevity, insurance etc are a different story and shouldn’t discount some of the benefits of the book. Wine everyday should not be the take home message and if it is, it sounds like every sound bite ever written in a health/longevity related post. People hear what they want and always do what’s comfortable and easy. Nobody taught us more about that than you.
Thanks for your comment. I don't know if I fully understand your comment—are you upset about the post's title, or are you saying that the data behind the Blue Zones (places where masses of people live to 100+ due to certain habits) is wrong?
Thank you. I just hope people get past the headline to hear/see your advice! I love the engagement, as always!
Hi Michael. Thank you for responding. What I want to communicate is that that the title ”The Blue Zone Are Bad Data” smears significant benefits that the book holds and people won’t get the benefits based on your title, probably, because they will never get that far. If we look at the lessons of the end of the book: 1. Move Naturally. 2. A way to cut calories by 20%. 3. Plant Slant. 4. Glass a wine a day( this one is tricky at best). 5. Purpose now. 6. Downshift. 7. Belong 8. Right Tribe ( maybe 2 Blue Zone inclusive; yet important in our loneliness epidemic world) most of these make sense for all. With your title, most would never read this book or even consider it. It’s hard to get us to do right most of the time, especially me. The book is an easy read and a reminder of what’s right most of the time. The commercial nature has taken on a life of its own, yet the bones are good. My point is your title doesn’t allow any one to see any benefit and that’s not the way I perceive you and your writing.
Thanks for the feedback on the headline. In my mind, Blue Zones are places where masses of people supposedly live to 100+. The data on that is bad. The habits are a separate extrapolation from that bad data. I.e., I the headline doesn't claim the suggested habits from the data are bad (and in the piece, I noted that most of the advice are quite good), it says that the Blue Zones are a result of bad data.
No they are not. Neumann was throughly debunked and corrected, and his paper did not make the same claims his book does, or his podcast appearances to sell said book.
typical, "we found new evidence, proving previous science wrong" that the internet loves so well.🤷🏻♂️
Thanks for your comment. How do you rectify your claim with the fact that the Blue Zones founders have said the places aren't Blue Zones anymore? Or the data from the countries the Blue Zones are in showing that there aren't a significantly higher proportion of centenarians in the Blue Zones? Or the Loma Linda admission?
Look up the responses from the original two researchers to Newman’s claims when his paper came out.
Sardinia was individually verified with birth and baptismal data.
Perfect? Hardly, but to claim it is all a lie is ridiculous imho.
Loma Linda Adventist data was fine as well, well studied and validates what the original Blue Zone data found.
Newman’s critique of Loma Linda is again based on taking the Adventist population at large, not the specific vegan/Pescatarian Adventists, who have much different outcomes.
He is right they do not show super centenarians, but that is a Straw Man.
Adventist researches rebuked Newman, and Newman himself admitted that Lona Linda was exempt from any claims of record fraud.
Yes the Japanese data was bad, 82% error rate for centenarians, but Saul has no idea how accurate the actual, individual data points of the Okinawan centenarians, a separate group completely than the Okinawans as a whole, who’s diet is awful, as their morbidity rates show.
What he did not do was verify each Okinawan claim of age, and verify if they were indeed invalid, he just assumed based on Japans national database.
Also, the super centunarian claims maybe wildly exxagerated and Buttners empirenis ceftainly guiltynof huping the research, but to call them a lie, is ridiculous click bait, so typical, imho, of the internet/book sales going on the 20 hears or so.
What the data has definitely shown, across multiple cuktures and cobtinents, that a dietarybpatternnof 65-75% carbohydrates, 10-15% fat, less than 5% saturated fat, and protein 15-20% of calories, virtually eliminates ASCVD, T2DM, and dramatically lowers risk of dementia and cancer.
Which is applied in a western nation with modern sanitation and medicine, health span and lifespan should increase drmatically, and result in more centenarians.
While yes, there are significant errors in the data, especially the Japanese data, which is what his paper is about, he has since expanded and extrapolated those findings and engages in conjecture to flesh out a book narrative.
With the ever present, “what we thought was true, what the science said, what “they” sold us is a lie.”
Essentially the same nonsense being spewed for fat and LDL in the LC/Paleo sphere that sells so well.
Now all that being said, the claim a WFPB diet will get you to a hundred, is indeed a ridiculous claim.
All manner of things can kill us, look at the Tsimane and Hadza, both using the same dietary patterns as the “blue zones”, as even though they are free of our ASCVD and t2dm, they do not live linger because infections, parasites and child mortality gives them much lower lifespans then Americans and Europeans.
Access to modern healthcare and sanitation are far more impactful on longevity than diet it seems.