https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/20...
> Assuming the meta-analyzed evidence from cohort
> studies represents life span–long causal associations, for
> a baseline life expectancy of 80 years, eating 12 hazelnuts
> daily (1 oz) would prolong life by 12 years (ie, 1 year per
> hazelnut), drinking 3 cups of coffee daily would achieve
> a similar gain of 12 extra years, and eating a single man-
> darin orange daily (80 g) would add 5 years of life. Con-
> versely, consuming 1 egg daily would reduce life expec-
> tancy by 6 years, and eating 2 slices of bacon (30 g) daily
> would shorten life by a decade, an effect worse than
> smoking. Could these results possibly be true?
Aside from that, I'd love to know how each of those items affects life quality. Living long is only a life goal up to a certain age, and from what I've seen around me, that age is very rarely 90.
It feels like trying to be immortal, which is a bit of a folly.
Anyway, the other day I noticed that Warren Buffett is just retiring at the age of 94. The man has eaten McDonald's for breakfast for much of his life. Diet cannot be that big of a deal.
What those epidemiological studies reveal is that food associated with higher class makes you live longer, which is reverse causation, at best.
Edit: i.e a bacon eater consumes a higher than average caloric intake, hazelnut eaters have more greens/vegetables in their diet possibly
The inverse possibility--that nicotine, and perhaps caffeine as well, heighten the risk of psychosis in those genetially predisposed--has also been considered.
Incidentally caffeine calms me down as well.
Since then, I've walked a kinder, more compassionate path. I hope the same for you.
With that said, the fact that the other study seemed to find the opposite conclusion concerns me.
That's not to say that these results might not be significant -- what you propose may be the case -- but I'd want to see an actual mechanism of action before buying something like this.
This confuses me. Aren't all the best degrees postgraduate degrees?
That said, instant coffee is just freeze-dried coffee. There's a possibility its effect is no different.
There's massive buffer systems in the body.
The body is incredibly complex so I'm not saying this is conclusive but here's a source plus a lot of explanation with numerous experiments.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3828631/
Another thing: Calcium strongly associates with acid.
And there's no evidence of osteoporosis or bone leaching with high acid diets.
> This hypothesis posits that foods associated with an increased urinary acid excretion are deleterious for the skeleton, leading to osteoporosis and enhanced fragility fracture risk.
That the second part of this hypothesis could be true is actually super easy to prove from a purely chemical perspective. When the pH of the blood drops, cells such as bones and muscle cells will release buffering ions such as phosphate from bone and proteins from muscle cells. As long as the minerals from the bones are not replaced, the bones will weaken.
The straw man in this claim is that the pH discussion usually talks about what foods change the body's overall pH balance in what direction; not just the urine.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/6/1354
I only did a postgraduate degree, so I don't have the practice reading scientific studies to determine which is true. Maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in?