[knoepfle]

Anything that sick people do less is inversely associated with mortality. The "controlling for blah blah blah" stuff can't be believed---are the researchers succeeding at controlling for everything that affects health? Not even close.

If you see a claim about food and health that doesn't spend a huge amount of time talking about the researchers' experimental or quasi-experimental approach, just ignore it.

[mywittyname]

Nutritional science is very hard for a variety of reasons, including due to experimental deficiencies and political motivations. But that doesn't mean people should ignore articles like this.

It's an unfortunate reality that Americans must deal with the fact that the food industry has a massive amount of influence over the FDA and USDA, and historically, the industry has used this clout to preserve their profit margins as the expense of our health and well-being. An example of this is the "food pyramid" whose 2011 replacement MyPlate is still not terribly accurate.

It can take years of studies like these to pressure law makers into forcing scientific consensus onto an industry who firmly believes the FDA is there to put them out of business. Without articles like this, it's unlikely that Congress would ever both to address issues with our food supply.

[coldtea]

>Anything that sick people do less is inversely associated with mortality.

All the more reason to do it more. Even if there isn't a casual relationship, why adopt the lifestyle of the sick?