this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
76 points (86.5% liked)

Mildly Interesting

25085 readers
609 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The journal Nature Medicine published a major study about a cohort of over 105,000 people followed for 30 years. This is that researchers found.

Source

Correlation isn't causation. But that's still interesting.

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 1 month ago

I have a hard time believing this because it is at odds with my own diet and prejudices.

[–] Suck_on_my_Presence@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The image from the study

This is the full chart from the study

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 3 points 4 weeks ago

this is telling me that time spent cooking is time taken away from your life (check fast and fried row)

[–] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm having a hard time believing this list.

Nuts, legumes, fruit juice, coffee, tea, fruit/berries, vegetables are all listed multiple times.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The original is in a better format. The thing from OP was extracted... somehow.

[–] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Well that makes a lot more sense, thanks.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

The data for the participants relies on mailed questionnaires for lifestyle and medical status

Wtf. We already know this isn't good nutrition science. It's all too easy for people to misrepresent what they're eating in surveys

This sounds like an epidemiological study. What are the listed Relative Risk Increases for mortality they're trying to claim? Are any above 100%, which is the minimum threshold required to establish causality for epidemiological studies?

Not only that, the only sources of refined sugars they show here are all listed as healthier than red meat. Really? Refined sugar, the leading cause of diabetes and atherosclerosis isn't at the bottom of the list?

This study reeks of bullshit. Which is unfortunately not all that weird in nutrition science ever since the Harvard School of Nutrition got bought out by Coca Cola and sugar lobbies back in the 50's

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yea, we'd need to filter out the behavioural angles to clearly identify causal relationships.

Do people who live longer just happen to start eating differently etc.

For example, the better I feel, the better I eat. It's not the bad eating that makes me feel bad - the better eating is a consequence of feeling better.

I can tell exactly when my diet is going to tank, when my chronic conditions flare. Diet has zero effect on them.

[–] jxk@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Dark-yellow vegetables? What an odd category

[–] MrMcGasion@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago

"Low-energy beverages" sounds like a dumb Trump insult for caffeine-free diet soda.

[–] starman2112@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

We don't need another study explaining that people who eat foods that rich people eat tend to live longer. Do one of these studies but only interviewing people with an income under $20,000 and I'll take it seriously

[–] Sbergon@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Interesting to see beer that close to foods like fish, soy and tea

[–] TeamAssimilation 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Conversely, it’s surprising to see fruit so high up, while fish and poultry are in the middle. Does this mean only vegetarian people eat healthy? Hardly believable for an omnivorous animal like humans.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Being an omnivore allows us to get calories from multiple sources, which allows us to live long enough to breed. That's an evolutionary advantage.

After the point of breeding and raising children, evolution taps out.

So something being an evolutionary trait does not mean those traits lead to longevity. But it guarantees we're good fuckers.

[–] TeamAssimilation 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But it guarantees we're good fuckers.

It seems I need to file a complaint then!

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I'm not bad in bed. I'm efficient from an evolutionary perspective.

Now give me five minutes and we'll go again.

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

There's debate on if humans are actually omnivores.

[–] TeamAssimilation 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Very big caveat: while our primate cousins manage to eat some meat from time to time, it was our domestication of fire more than a million year ago that allowed us to access plenty of calories and nutrients from almost any food, everything was suddenly on the table, and was made easy to chew and digest. We are more omnivorous than the naturally omnivorous animals.

[–] starman2112@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

That's really neat but my god is it ugly

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 weeks ago

First off, this chart seems to be rather cherry-picked, with some information just outright wrong. When corrected for body size, the human digestive tract is significantly shorter than herbivores and longer than carnivores. That suggests that we're omnivores.

Second, explain how humans have binocular vision, a trait common to every land-based carnivore and omnivore.

[–] Routhinator@startrek.website 6 points 4 weeks ago

Fun fact, as someone who suffers from FODMAP related IBS.. Almost very "green" item in this list triggers FODMAP reactions, and about half of the red ones are on the safe to eat category.

TL;DR - damned if I do, damned if I dont.

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

A combination of beer and fast food is neutral. Gotcha!

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

My booze is plant based. That has to count for something. Fat free, ultra low sodium and frequently served with frozen crushed whole fruit.

It's medicinal.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No way for seafood considering the heavy metal traces.

Whatever. At least pizza is on the safer side ;)

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Oh good. I like wine and beer.