Eating seven or more portions of fruit and vegetables a day is healthier than the five currently recommended and would save more lives, researchers say.

A study of 65,226 men and women indicated the more fruit and vegetables people ate, the less likely they were to die – at any age.

“Seven a day” cut death risk by 42%, “five a day” by 29%, it indicated.

But the (UK) government says its “five-a-day” advice is sufficient and that many of us struggle to achieve even this.

Experts said other lifestyle factors, such as not smoking or drinking excessively, may have accounted for the drop in mortality, not just fruit and veg consumption, although the study authors said they had tried to account for this.

Full report: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26818377

I’m trying to cut down on sunflowers.

The Australian recommendation:

Most Australians eat only half the amount of fruit and vegies recommended for good health. Adults need to eat at least 2 serves of fruit and 5 serves of vegies each day.

Adds up to 7 but is there any problem with doing it the other way around? i.e 5 serves of fruit and 2 serves of vegies?

I currently have these fruit/vegetables in the house:

Fresh:
apples
bananas
lemons
green beans
tomatoes broccoli
onions
garlic
baby mesclun leaves
iceberg

Frozen:
broad beans
peas

Jarred:
Cucumbers
Chilli
Olives

>Adds up to 7 but is there any problem with doing it the other way around? i.e 5 serves of fruit and 2 serves of vegies?

Probably too much sugar.

Life is what happens to you while you’re busy working out how much fruit and vegies you’ve eaten every day.

Peak Warming Man said:

Life is what happens to you while you’re busy working out how much fruit and vegies you’ve eaten every day.

The more fruit & veg you eat, the longer you live, so the more fruit & veg you can eat etc etc. It might be the key to immortality.

You go to work to get the money to buy the fruit and vegetables to give you the strength to go to work.

How many serves of fruit are in a Cherry Ripe?

Peak Warming Man said:

You go to work to get the money to buy the fruit and vegetables to give you the strength to go to work.

Or if you’re the family I saw on Food Inc, you skip the F&V because $1 hamburgers are cheaper.

• You go to work to get the money to buy the fruit and vegetables to give you the strength to go to work.

What I try to tell you? This country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the fruit and vegetables. Then when you get the fruit and vegetables, then you get the woman.

Divine Angel said:

Peak Warming Man said:

You go to work to get the money to buy the fruit and vegetables to give you the strength to go to work.

Or if you’re the family I saw on Food Inc, you skip the F&V because $1 hamburgers are cheaper.

I got it, I’ll make my fortune now, I just invented the friut and vegey burger (not as much fun as a furr burger)

How much constitutes a serve anyway?

Neophyte said:

How much constitutes a serve anyway?

With fruit it’s about a medium piece, with vegies it’s a Cup (IIRC and without googling)

• How much constitutes a serve anyway?

What is a Serve?

Medium piece of the large fruit like apples, bananas etc. Not cherries etc which are about half a cup.

Neophyte said:

How much constitutes a serve anyway?

It has to clear the net and land within the box.

party_pants said:

Neophyte said:

How much constitutes a serve anyway?

It has to clear the net and land within the box.

10 / 10

“Seven a day” cut death risk by 42%, “five a day” by 29%, it indicated.
———————————————————————————-

So not eating 7 vegs cuts the death risk by 58%

Cool.

party_pants said:

Neophyte said:

How much constitutes a serve anyway?

It has to clear the net and land within the box.

:) It can actually land on the line as long as it is mostly inside.

Bubblecar said:

Experts said other lifestyle factors, such as not smoking or drinking excessively, may have accounted for the drop in mortality, not just fruit and veg consumption, although the study authors said they had tried to account for this.

It could be just as much due to not eating those foods you have to give up to fit all that fruit and veg into your diet, as it is to the fruit and veg themselves.

Soso said:

Bubblecar said:

Experts said other lifestyle factors, such as not smoking or drinking excessively, may have accounted for the drop in mortality, not just fruit and veg consumption, although the study authors said they had tried to account for this.

It could be just as much due to not eating those foods you have to give up to fit all that fruit and veg into your diet, as it is to the fruit and veg themselves.

or more about the fact that fruit and veg fills you up and you don’t have room for the other crap?

roughbarked said:

Soso said:

Bubblecar said:

Experts said other lifestyle factors, such as not smoking or drinking excessively, may have accounted for the drop in mortality, not just fruit and veg consumption, although the study authors said they had tried to account for this.

It could be just as much due to not eating those foods you have to give up to fit all that fruit and veg into your diet, as it is to the fruit and veg themselves.

or more about the fact that fruit and veg fills you up and you don’t have room for the other crap?

Isn’t that what I said?

Soso said:

roughbarked said:

Soso said:

It could be just as much due to not eating those foods you have to give up to fit all that fruit and veg into your diet, as it is to the fruit and veg themselves.

or more about the fact that fruit and veg fills you up and you don’t have room for the other crap?

Isn’t that what I said?

Not really.. you said: to fit all that fruit and veg into your diet.

I said you don’t need all that.

Soso said:

Bubblecar said:

Experts said other lifestyle factors, such as not smoking or drinking excessively, may have accounted for the drop in mortality, not just fruit and veg consumption, although the study authors said they had tried to account for this.

It could be just as much due to not eating those foods you have to give up to fit all that fruit and veg into your diet, as it is to the fruit and veg themselves.

——

Or it could be just be a genetic predisposition

Go back and see my thread “If nutrition was a science”.

mollwollfumble said:

Go back and see my thread “If nutrition was a science”.

How far back is that?

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Go back and see my thread “If nutrition was a science”.

How far back is that?

Not long ago:

If nutrition was a science

Ta, TRD.

“A study of 65,226 men and women indicated the more fruit and vegetables people ate, the less likely they were to die – at any age. “

Isn’t the probability of death at some age pretty close to 1?

Presumably they mean death within some specified time period, perhaps one year.

Since this was a large study most of the participants would have a very low probability of dying within the following year, and for those who did, a large proportion of the deaths would be due to an unhealthy life-style, including not only smoking and excessive use of drugs, but also a grossly unhealthy diet, lack of exercise, etc.

It is surely no surprise that there is a strong negative correlation between above average intake of fruit and veg and a grossly unhealthy life-style.

The evidence of this study would then seem to indicate that a grossly unhealthy life-style is bad for your health, but the volume of fruit and veg consumed may of itself have little or nothing to do with it.

I can’t believe that no-one has said:

Correlation is not evidence of causation

The Rev Dodgson said:

I can’t believe that no-one has said:

Correlation is not evidence of causation

it has been done now. ;)

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Neophyte said:

How much constitutes a serve anyway?

It has to clear the net and land within the box.

:) It can actually land on the line as long as it is mostly inside.

It only has to touch the line, not even be inside it. Even if most of the bounce footprint is outside the line as long as some of the footprint crosses the outside edge of the line it is in.

From the full report:

“Prof Tom Sanders, at the School of Medicine, King’s College London, said it was “already known” that people who said they ate lots of fruit and vegetables were health conscious, educated and better-off, which could account for the drop in risk.

“You cannot extrapolate from this kind of information to make sensible pronouncements about what people should eat.”“

It’s a shame that this comment, and other similar ones, were not reflected at all in the headline and opening and closing of the article.

Stealth said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

It has to clear the net and land within the box.

:) It can actually land on the line as long as it is mostly inside.

It only has to touch the line, not even be inside it. Even if most of the bounce footprint is outside the line as long as some of the footprint crosses the outside edge of the line it is in.

I was going to point that out last night – but I thought. ah well look who posted it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

From the full report:

“Prof Tom Sanders, at the School of Medicine, King’s College London, said it was “already known” that people who said they ate lots of fruit and vegetables were health conscious, educated and better-off, which could account for the drop in risk.

“You cannot extrapolate from this kind of information to make sensible pronouncements about what people should eat.”“

It’s a shame that this comment, and other similar ones, were not reflected at all in the headline and opening and closing of the article.

They’ve being saying similar things about fish: Fish oil turns out to be snake oil

The problem is that although people often associate fish with a healthy diet, few consider the issue of cause and effect.

‘It has long been thought that if you eat a lot of fish, and especially these particular long-chain omega-3 fatty acids that are in fish, especially oily fish, that there is some benefit… especially for brain function,’ Dangour says.

But it’s the mindset of fish eaters themselves—the worried well with healthy diets and good exercise habits—that seems to be the cause here, rather than the fish.

‘People who eat a lot of fish tend to be healthier in all sorts of other ways,’ Dangour says. ‘If they are eating fish then what are they not eating instead? There is concern about large intakes of saturated fat from meat, which is the obvious substitute for fish in lots of people’s diets.’

>It has long been thought that if you eat a lot of fish, and especially these particular long-chain omega-3 fatty acids that are in fish, especially oily fish, that there is some benefit

Michael Mosley went on a fish diet for several months and found it greatly improved his blood flow (so much so that he was in danger of overdoing it, if I remember rightly).

jjjust moi said:

Stealth said:

roughbarked said:

:) It can actually land on the line as long as it is mostly inside.

It only has to touch the line, not even be inside it. Even if most of the bounce footprint is outside the line as long as some of the footprint crosses the outside edge of the line it is in.

I was going to point that out last night – but I thought. ah well look who posted it.

Cheeky bugger.. Who said I was an expert on tennis?

Bubblecar said:

>It has long been thought that if you eat a lot of fish, and especially these particular long-chain omega-3 fatty acids that are in fish, especially oily fish, that there is some benefit

Michael Mosley went on a fish diet for several months and found it greatly improved his blood flow (so much so that he was in danger of overdoing it, if I remember rightly).

Walnuts..

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

>It has long been thought that if you eat a lot of fish, and especially these particular long-chain omega-3 fatty acids that are in fish, especially oily fish, that there is some benefit

Michael Mosley went on a fish diet for several months and found it greatly improved his blood flow (so much so that he was in danger of overdoing it, if I remember rightly).

Walnuts..

See, as worthwhile as my previous post.

OCDC said:

See, as worthwhile as my previous post.

empty posts have less shyte in them.

Stop forcing veg down our throats
Zoe Williams
Despite the failure of the five-a-day message, policymakers are determined to pursue an individual remedy for a collective ill

You spend all that time wedging spinach under poached eggs and hiding carrot in Bolognese, only to find out you had it all wrong; five portions of fresh fruit and vegetables are not enough to assure good health.

It should be seven. Some nutritionists believe it should actually be ten. Others think five was fine, and that the impact of changing the official advice is adverse enough to offset the extra vegetable consumption it may encourage in some people. Still others think it doesn’t matter whether you say seven or five, the key thing is to get tinned, smoothied and dried fruit off the approved list, since you could, in five portions, consume as much sugar as there is in a can of Coke, and sugar is the critical enemy.

Scientific advice as divided as this in, say, a paper about climate change, would be considered too diffuse to take seriously. But in the realm of individual behaviour, nothing is too flimsy or too disputed, nothing too unreasonable or too expensive, no goal too unlikely to espouse. The difference between what is considered reasonable as a collective responsibility – almost nothing – and what is considered reasonable as an individual responsibility – almost anything – is laughable.

Full spiel: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/02/forcing-veg-throat-five-a-day