Residents praise Blue Zones' goal of improving public health and the impact of some of its programs. But critics say it exaggerates accomplishments and uses misleading metrics.
One of Dan's talents is the objectivity of his research and reporting -- listening well and presenting complexity, like that of Blue Zones Project in Brevard. Seems to me, from this read -- and from living in Brevard -- that BZP has made strides among us, contributing to the wellbeing of many, including those kids touched by TC Strong as well as diners at such places as Blue Ridge Bakery and Sunrise Cafe. And yet, goodness knows, we have a long way yet to go, collectively as diverse communities even here in one small mountain town. Good that a not-for-profit, SparkPoint, is being launched!
The data in the Blue Zones book has been exposed as cherry-picked to fit the author’s bias. It is not a sound scientific work, especially the dietary conclusions.
Follow up observations by others at these healthy sites has found a marked difference in the true diets being consumed; basically folks are eating meat and getting less exercise ( the Greek island mentioned in the book consists of steep hills with nowhere to walk but on the narrow deadly roads-not done!)
Buettner left out entirely the data from healthy old folks at places such as Hong Kong where they consume more meat than anywhere in the world.
And, please, don’t believe that foods are good for us just because they are plants.
Research all the toxins plants use as defense chemicals: lectins, oxalates, phthalates, and more have been known to KILL people. Polyphenols are PLANT anti-oxidants, not HUMAN anti-oxidants.
A plant based diet is pushed by the media mainly due to advertisers’ money, not to actually promote health. Unfortunately it has become the accepted propaganda narrative.
Dan, I'm curious, what is the basis for your claim that Saul Newman's study "has never been accepted by [peer reviewed] publications." If you are speculating or taking Dan Buettner's word for it, you really ought to make that clear, it's highly unethical not to do so. Overall this piece suffers from both-sides-ism, a common affliction in journalism. It's as though you can't quite bring yourself to agree with what one of your sources, a reputable scientist, not a profiteering journalist, says about Blue Zones: “[They] pretend that they are in the scientific research domain, but they are really more in the marketing domain.” That sums it up nicely, yet you muddy the waters with contrary claims that are mostly anecdotal or advanced by individuals who have substantial financial interests at stake. What would it look like, for example, if the so-called expert who contracts with the Guiness Book of World Records to "authenticate" supercentenarian claims concedes that the records which he has used to substantiate those claims are often fraudulent?
This was a fabulous article. Marla thank you for your comments! I forwarded this to so many people!!
Dan, thanks for writing the article!!
One of Dan's talents is the objectivity of his research and reporting -- listening well and presenting complexity, like that of Blue Zones Project in Brevard. Seems to me, from this read -- and from living in Brevard -- that BZP has made strides among us, contributing to the wellbeing of many, including those kids touched by TC Strong as well as diners at such places as Blue Ridge Bakery and Sunrise Cafe. And yet, goodness knows, we have a long way yet to go, collectively as diverse communities even here in one small mountain town. Good that a not-for-profit, SparkPoint, is being launched!
The data in the Blue Zones book has been exposed as cherry-picked to fit the author’s bias. It is not a sound scientific work, especially the dietary conclusions.
Follow up observations by others at these healthy sites has found a marked difference in the true diets being consumed; basically folks are eating meat and getting less exercise ( the Greek island mentioned in the book consists of steep hills with nowhere to walk but on the narrow deadly roads-not done!)
Buettner left out entirely the data from healthy old folks at places such as Hong Kong where they consume more meat than anywhere in the world.
And, please, don’t believe that foods are good for us just because they are plants.
Research all the toxins plants use as defense chemicals: lectins, oxalates, phthalates, and more have been known to KILL people. Polyphenols are PLANT anti-oxidants, not HUMAN anti-oxidants.
A plant based diet is pushed by the media mainly due to advertisers’ money, not to actually promote health. Unfortunately it has become the accepted propaganda narrative.
Dan, I'm curious, what is the basis for your claim that Saul Newman's study "has never been accepted by [peer reviewed] publications." If you are speculating or taking Dan Buettner's word for it, you really ought to make that clear, it's highly unethical not to do so. Overall this piece suffers from both-sides-ism, a common affliction in journalism. It's as though you can't quite bring yourself to agree with what one of your sources, a reputable scientist, not a profiteering journalist, says about Blue Zones: “[They] pretend that they are in the scientific research domain, but they are really more in the marketing domain.” That sums it up nicely, yet you muddy the waters with contrary claims that are mostly anecdotal or advanced by individuals who have substantial financial interests at stake. What would it look like, for example, if the so-called expert who contracts with the Guiness Book of World Records to "authenticate" supercentenarian claims concedes that the records which he has used to substantiate those claims are often fraudulent?