A stunning discovery was leaked this morning by "Academics find formula for 14 extra years of life," in the Guardian Unlimited. It turns out that eating five servings of fruit or vegetables a day gives you a 44% better chance of living 14 years longer than if you hadn't eaten the fruits and veggies.
Not smoking, of course, is the leading factor in lengthening life span. Then comes the fruit and veggie factor. And low alcohol intake and exercising are the other two most significant factors.
The language of this article is a bit ambiguous, as it states the benefit as: "having a vitamin C level equivalent to eating five servings of fruit or vegetables a day." This makes me wonder whether one needs to actually eat the food, or if taking a supplement or a drink would suffice. I drink Amazing Grass a couple of times a day (I'm partial to the chocolate one. In fact, I'm partial to anything chocolate.). I wonder if that counts (according to the label, I get over 50% of the daily recommended allowance). Then again, I also eat fruits and veggies all day so I guess I'm covered.
Another interesting (and maddening) bit of verbiage was this healthy behavior: "not being physically inactive (defined as having a sedentary job and not doing any recreational exercise)." Huh? How about: "being physically active." Either way, I'm pretty sure my nearly-obsessive compulsive exercising satisfies that one.
I was surprised to see that drinking cow's milk wasn't on the list. And there was no mention of the outstanding benefits of consuming the flesh of chickens or fish. Hmmm. Maybe we're onto something with this vegan thing. Nah, there's no evidence.
Now, I'm not sure longevity is what it's cracked up to be. However, it's good to know that at least we are likely to have that option. And it's good to have yet another study in our arsenal for people who like to think we're wasting our time with all our blathering on about the importance of a diet rich in fresh, organic fruits and vegetables.
It's not hard to believe that non-smokers live significantly longer, but I wonder about the size of the effect from the other three variables. Overall, fourteen years sounds like an awful lot. I think there is good reason to be skeptical of such epidemiological studies. See, for example, this excellent article from the New York Times Magazine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html
Posted by: Alex C. | January 09, 2008 at 08:26 AM