OK health and nutrition people….. enough is enough.
For generations you have been giving us little correlations, tidbits of mechanisms. Vitamin X, High Intensity Sleep, Antioxidants, Kale, CR… Hot off the presses… new experiment reintroducing critically endangered carnivorous gut fauna…
There is nothing useful that we can do with this "information." It's just random letters from some book that you are throwing at us one at a time. "We found some Hs! It's the first letter in this chapter about Kano Jigaro and appears a dozen time a page. He had exceptional balance, grip strength and organizational skills. It's important. Pay attention to your Hs."
I demand a theory, preferably something simple and powerful like Darwinism that we can demonstrate by drawing sailboats. An equation would be nice.
Just this week I burned my mouth on a chili pepper. I fainted getting out of my ice bath after a 48 hour CR Fast and I went through the window doing HIIT sprints on an omnidimensional walking desk.
I'm going back to the food pyramid. Gimme some spuds.
The state of nutritional science really is pathetic. The ability to prey on the FUD surrounding "a long and healthy life" is second only to promises of get rich quick schemes.
Sometimes I think it would be more practical to educate the public about coming to terms with death rather than all of these food pyramids, cubes and spheres.
I think the problem is not the field, but your expectations from nutritional science research. Your comment is premised on the assumption that what you see in newspapers is representative of nutritional science. Like most research, the objective is seldom to immediately impact human health (exceptions: CDC, pharma companies, infectious disease researchers and others do that kind of stuff). Influencing human health outcomes is the hopeful eventual goal of most health-related research, but individual studies and projects are not designed to be end-all conclusions. I'd be suspicious of studies that claim this. But, read the quote by a co-author on that article. Each research project is designed to fit as a piece of puzzle into the larger picture. If you read the article, the Harvard public health professor puts it best:
> “We need more evidence, especially from clinical trials, to further verify these findings,” said a co-author, Dr. Lu Qi, an associate professor of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, “and we are looking forward to seeing data from other populations.”
Correlations are better than nothing. You want a simple elegant theory but why do you think one actually exists. The human body is incredibly complex, maybe there are no general rules, only a plethora of interacting processes that are very hard to model.
Also I think that there is a lot of evidence and theory on the harmful effects of dietary saturated fats. Same for being overweight.
Well, if they are that hard to model, then why a simple diet change can be instantly linked to a longer life? That sounds pretty easy to model.
Of course, one is probably going to find out that there's other confounding variables involved and another paper will come up in a year or so making the exact opposite claims.
Give them some credit: they've figured out that consuming food and fluids is good for you. I had been making the mistake of eating nothing at all so this is all a big help.
When I see the approximations needed to count the 7 billions humans actually living on earth, I smile at the 110 billions number.
The honest answer would be : we have no actual clue on how many people ever lived on earth, and we can only guesstimate how many are living on it right now.
Census only register people that let themselves be registered. It's probably mildly inaccurate in rich countries and terribly inaccurate in poor or chaotic countries.
Since some comments are trying to explain away the findings, here is a quote from the article about what variables were controlled for and the results:
> After controlling for family medical history, age, education, diabetes, smoking and many other variables, the researchers found that compared with eating hot food, mainly chili peppers, less than once a week, having it once or twice a week resulted in a 10 percent reduced overall risk for death. Consuming spicy food six to seven times a week reduced the risk by 14 percent.
On the other hand, keep in mind it's an observational study, not an experiment. As such, it's highly succeptible so various biases, including P-hacking (choosing a hypothesis based on data). Most importantly, keep in mind the astonishing number of false & dubious nutritional recommendations made in the past (salt is bad, salt is ok, fat is bad, fat is good, sugar is good, sugar is bad, cholesterol is bad, cholesterol is fine, ...).
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that you eat less food when it's particularly spicy? Fasting/caloric intake reduction and better health/longer life have been correlated for a while.
No, people that routinely eat extremely spicy food eat as much of it as anything else. It might put off the occasional eater of spicy food, but regular consumption depletes the neurotransmitters that generate the effect. It is an acquired immunity that can quickly escalate the level of spiciness required to perceive it. (You lose that immunity relatively quickly though.) Being able to eat almost arbitrarily spicy food is a trivially acquired ability.
Source: I eat quite a lot of habaneros and thai chilis, mostly because those are the peppers that taste strongly "spicy" to me on a day to day basis. If I eat too much on an ongoing basis, even the habaneros start to lose their spiciness. Most people have a "spiciness" threshold so low that the pepper is barely detectable to me. I was not born this way, peppers have been a regular part of my diet because I like the flavor and that confers a natural immunity to the effects.
That's unlikely. People will adjust the spiciness before adjusting their usual portions. Don't forget that habitual users will develop tolerance to capsaicin by reducing the number of receptors, so what may seem as a high level to someone may be perceived as normal by someone else.
I just want to point out how terrible the wording is on that paragraph. While I understand what the author means, that is different from what they wrote. I wouldn't bring it up if it was something casual, but come on... this is on *.nytimes.com.
It's impossible to "reduce overall risk for death" - we're all going to die. One may, however, reduce overall risk for death within a given timeframe.
edit: now that I read it again, that first sentence is a total train-wreck.
Shhh... Don't show it to my mother ! If she sees this, my whole family is going to be on a regimen of hot peppers until she reads something else :)
My mother is the kind who changes the whole family's diet when she reads some sufficiently convincing diet book or study.
At one point we ate dissociated food. At another point it was blood type food.
At another point it was raw roots or something.
I love my mother and she's an excelent cook, and she never forced us to eat according to the books, but she would be very insistent, because there were studies that showed ...
Most of the time the results of those studies were disproved, either by another experiment or by some technical issue with the way the study was conducted.
Just like there were studies that smoking is actually good for you and studies that showed that children who drink sugar soda from an early age are heathier.
The point I'm trying to make is that these studies are not just 'informative', they have real consequences on real families. There are families out there who will start eating hot food just because they've read this study.
She followed every nutritional fad that appeared on the table. I can remember nothing but horrors for dinner for the best part of 10 years of my life. She was scared of eating things in case it affected mortality in some way. In fact I ended up getting quite ill on occasion, now to what I know was simply malnutrition. This affected my schooling, my physical condition and my mental health at the time. The latter was quite devastating for a bit to be honest.
It wasn't until I got a shit job stacking shelves in a supermarket and moved out that I started eating properly and literally after a month I felt like a different person.
Now the cruel result; she had a heart attack and a stroke a couple of years ago due to what they reckon is 60 years of poor dieting.
TL;DR: "As the authors acknowledge, a cause and effect relation cannot be inferred from their work. In this prospective study, Lv and colleagues have shown temporality of association, but we need to evaluate additional criteria to judge the strength of evidence. Their findings should be considered hypothesis generating, not definitive, and will undoubtedly encourage further work."
Jokes apart on a more serious note the crux of the study is --
"Compared with those who ate spicy foods less than once a week, those who consumed spicy foods 6 or 7 days a week showed a 14% relative risk reduction in total mortality. "
Although this study is very vague, in Asian cultures health benefits of spices and various plant products is well known.
Ginger : Has Cox2 inhibitory function. Acting in a similar way to Aspirin and other NSAIDS. Helps prevent heart attacks
Curcumin : found in turmeric has anti-inflammatory similar to ginger but is poorly absorbed. Hence mad more benefits for the Gut.
Arjuna Terminalis : Bark of the plant is known to have anti-hypertensive benefits.
And the list goes on.
The problem is that in the traditional way these plants are consumed (unprocessed in food and NOT in EXTRACT form) these have very poor Bioavailability.
The only way these so called health benefits would be apparent is if they were part of the diet (you eat them everyday - as noted in the study) or they are consumed in the form of Extract.
Also many of these compounds can not be patented and this deters the pharmaceutical industry to make large investments in the clinical trails and bringing them to the market.
A co-author mentions they need more data. This reminded me of the huge study of diet and health outcomes in China by
T. Colin Cambell of Cornell in the late 1900's.
Very interesting study unfortunately the conclusions from the book has been debunked[0] a few times. It's a great example of how hard nutritional research is, even with an incredible big dataset and a bunch of very intelligent PHDs it's still very easy to come to the wrong conclusion.
I can highly recommend "Death by Food Pyramid" though, it's a very honest look into food science and the author is very honest about what we know (not a whole lot for sure but we have some strong indications that some diets seem to produce better results) and what we don't know.
That's always the same story. A group of researchers finds a funny correlation in the data. They don't know the cause of the correlation, but they just write an article explaining that. Of course, the article if full of conditionals and sentences like: "this should be investigates further".
Then, a journalist finds this paper, eliminates all the conditionals and writes a click-bait article, so his employer can earn money from the announcers. Profit.
And I am not talking only about this article in particular, but about all the scientific journalism in general.
This is exactly how news is created these days, unfortunately. "Cancer cure using garlic!" is actually "Long term study of 1000 garlic eaters shows a 5% decrease in the incidence of gastrointestinal cancers."
You know… I'm not sure the press and the readers are more culpable that scientists and scientific institutions.
First, Universities have PR offices, a army or administrators and marketing people. They want attention and "clickbait"in their own way. It's not like they don't know that a nutrition study finding a correlation between chili and stomach fat will get traction in the world of "one weird trick." I don't think they are ticking all the boxes and misinterpreted despite all efforts.
Second, a lot of the science just isn't good. Not enough independently corroborating studies, hypothesis fitting… The world of health and nutrition has produced bad information that passed through to official recommendation used by governments, doctors… remember when we were supposed to be scared of eggs because of cholesterol? What was the evidence for that?
Third, science has rejected other knowledge systems like folk traditions, wives tails and such. That's great when they give us an alternative. The planets are not being pulled across the sky by chariots, no argument. But when it comes to nutrition, if you look back over the last 2 generations… listening to your grandmother would have been better than listening to science. They haven't earned credibility of "science."
You need a genetic variant that is pretty well studied and doesn't have too many effects, just a small handful that are well characterized.
A well characterized variant is in ALDH2. [1] People with normal ALDH2 metabolize alcohol normally. Those with variant ALDH2 process acetaldehyde poorly, so this unpleasant metabolite remains in their blood longer, causing discomfort and flush. Those with 0 variant alleles drink more than those with 1 allele; those with both mutations in alleles drink the least.
Let's say you had some variant like that, but for spicy food metabolism. The more variants in this spicy food metabolism gene, the more spicy the food felt to you so you might eat less.
If those who would be genetically expected to tolerate more spicy food survived longer than you would otherwise expect in a (genetic) dose-dependent fashion, then this would be suggestive that spicy food intake might be in the causal pathway of longevity. You would have to do additional work to be sure that the gene didn't do other things in metabolism (pleiotropy) that directly had effects on longevity.
The more spicy food you eat the less crappy food you eat...? That could actually be the explanation (not a variable I saw corrected for in the text at least).
Quite possibly. The people I know who are really into spicy food tend to be people who cook for themselves rather than living off microwave meals. I'm no heat freak nor particularly a connoisseur of fine foods and I'm moving more away from repackaged foods as my taste for the spices develops and I'm starting to have preferences and opinions rather than just shoving stuff that is "easy and good enough" down my gullet when I eat at home.
Of course cooking for yourself does not necessarily mean eating more healthily, so even if this is something to do with the observed difference there are will be other significant contributing factors too.
Not just fast food, but most restaurants in general. For someone who prefers a little kick, it's like the majority of bars serving only virgin cocktails. I made the mistake of asking for my meal to made a little on the spicier side(1) at one of these americanized mexican comfort food places. The waitress looked at me like I was asking her to calculate a double integral.
(1) This is common at Thai restaurants, so I figured I'd give it a shot.
It still makes no sense to me. There are numerous spices. But given that this is a Chinese study, maybe "spicy" means five-spice powder, or maybe just Sichuan pepper. And of course, health claims have also been asserted for several Indian spices. Personally, I'd go for a Goan/Sichuan hybrid :)
Edit: OK, I see "mainly chili peppers". So are chili peppers more commonly used in China than Sichuan pepper?
I don't understand; Sichuan pepper (花椒, huajiao) isn't spicy. Wikipedia confirms:
"Sichuan pepper's unique aroma and flavour is not hot or pungent like black, white, or chili peppers. Instead, it has slight lemony overtones and creates a tingly numbness in the mouth (caused by its 3% of hydroxy alpha sanshool) that sets the stage for hot spices."
Chinese cooking uses many different kinds of spicy peppers, however. For instance, heaven-facing peppers (朝天椒, chaotianjiao) are pretty common in Sichuan cooking. Maybe that's what you mean?
China has eight main cuisines related to different areas in China. Some of these cuisines are spicy and some are not.
Obviously a whole lot other things also differ together with the spices in these cuisines. It would be nice if they'd asked if the subjects identified with a specific cuisine/area.
There could also be a wealth relation. The poorer Guandong (Cantonese) kitchen has little less chili than the famously spicy Szechuan kitchen which is from a richer area.
That may be true historically, but today's Guangdong, wrapping around Hong Kong, home to Shenzhen and a vast number of exporters, is twice as rich as landlocked Sichuan:
One thing that I don't quite understand -- what is it about spicy food that makes it desirable? Esp. the super hot peppers? I know that I love them, but I can't really say why (after all, I normally try to avoid pain). The only thing I can think of is that part of the brain knows that the pain isn't "real" (that is, it isn't being caused by something that is damaging you), yet another part is releasing endorphins to counteract the pain, causing a mild euphoria. But I haven't really found much information to back up this theory.
I do know that at times when I get a spell of mild depression, munching on some hot peppers seems to pull me out of it.
I think the endorphin theory is a pretty common explanation, but I think for me and for many others it's largely about flavour. I enjoy the flavour of chili peppers, and I also enjoy how spiciness brings out other flavours in food and makes it richer and more interesting.
>I also enjoy how spiciness brings out other flavours in food and makes it richer and more interesting
What? I do like spicy food occasionally, but my main gripe with "very" spicy food is not how painful it is, but how the spiciness overwhelms all other flavors and it's the only thing you can taste. Like you might as well be eating chili paste because you can't taste anything else anyway.
Agreed - I have no problem with Nando's "Extra Hot" on the heat level but the spice overpowers everything else to the point of silliness. Dropping down to "Hot" keeps it spicy enough but without drowning the rest.
well, you are simply having too much chilli in the food. good curry for example isn't one that burns your mouth (if you eat it regularly), but rather enrich all flavors present, including many other herbs and spices. if you don't feel anything else but burn, your cook ain't that good :)
Maybe, I had just observed that others seem really to enjoy the overwhelming burning sensation and drew conclusions that something must wrong with me if I want to taste something more than chili in my food.
>"The endorphins work to block the heat. The body produces them in response to the heat, which it senses as pain," said Paul Bosland, co-founder and director of New Mexico State University's Chile Pepper Institute. [0]
"The spicier the food, the more water you drink (maybe)."
Negative. Water actually amplifies the sensation. The sugar in the desert counters the sensation, as does milk. If I go awhile without eating "11" hot, when I return I have to follow it with milk or sugar(or both=Thai Tea or Cafe Sua Da). Otherwise, the subsequent burning sensation can be quite unpleasant. I always go to "11" when I feel a cold or flu coming on to combat the contagion, it works 9 times out of 10. YMMV.
If I go too hot or if I'm making a really hot hot sauce, I'll go for citrus. The acid counters down the oils and help faster. In the sauce, it balances things. Same for pineapple.
"Spicy" things tend to have anti-microbial properties. That could certainly trigger a beneficial intestinal flora change--especially in places without a good refrigerated handling chain.
Spicy food also has a tendency to clear sinuses. I believe a couple of studies have shown that clearing sinuses occasionally (but not too often) is beneficial.
I've heard that the pain response that the spices trigger somehow activates your immune system or something like that, though as you eat more spicy food you build up a tolerance so I'm not sure how that factors in.
That's not the point. The point would be that be that people who eat more spicy food live a little bit longer. It does not mean you don't die from other causes - obviously level of life is a large predictor for life expectancy.
...maybe. I saw another article about this yesterday, in which they stated that there were other variables in play that could have impacted the results, including a greater of variety of spices in spicier food. Capsaicin is a possible cause of the results, but not definitive
I love spicy food so this is great news. But lately I've been wondering about the potential effect of spicy food on gut bacteria. Anyone who's had a painful bowl movement after eating some high Scoville level hot sauce knows what I'm talking about.
Correlation vs causation. Is it possible that people who eat the peppers also eat lots of vegetables as opposed to starchy carbs? Definitely. Is it possible people who, say, exercise more are for some reason more inclined to eat spicy foods.
They can control for any number of things, but this isn't science, it's a correlation and anyone who has taken an intro to statistics class shouldn't be fooled by a pseudoscience blog post. Really surprised to see this on the front page of a community which prides itself on its scientific knowledge.
No, you are not correct, and you're engaging in a classic middlebrow dismissal.
This is a scientific research paper published in the BMJ, and a well-documented, controlled cohort study. It's pretty much the opposite of pseudoscience. The blog post is perfectly restrained and does not claim that eating spicy food will increase lifespan, instead reporting (accurately) that the two factors appear to be linked.
I'd love to have spicy food more often – but 2-4 days after a spicy dish, I can usually smell the pepper/byproducts coming out of my skin as a particular, somewhat unpleasant body odor. The odor can remain detectable even immediately after a shower. Red curry/chili-peppers seem the worst trigger. Only time (and maybe a good sweat) eventually clear it.
Does anyone know the chemical mechanisms causing this, and whether any other foods, combined with or after the spicy meal, could help more-quickly neutralize this lagged skin odor?
I figured roughly that. But is there anything I can do to enable any metabolism of these compounds, or otherwise neutralize them? (Can some people metabolize them better? Would the right skin microbiome help? Etc...)
I studied hold a Diploma of Western Herbal Medicine as issued in Australia.
The other commenter is likely correct about something you aren't (or are) metabolising.
One herb that can be intentionally used and also has this affect (peculiar body odour) if Fenugreek. Are you typically eating much of this?
For interest and discussion I'll paste in my notes on Fenugreek:
________________________
Fenugreek - scientific name Trigonellafoenum-graecum - Year 2 Term 1 Week 1 Cardiovascular System Continued
Fenugreek has a very broad and often under appreciated action including mucus dissolver, digestive tonic, nutritive in convalescence, lowering of blood glucose levels, galactogogue, anti-inflammatory, lymphatic decongestant and liver tonic. The liver tonic action is specifically helpful in improving liver fat metabolism and via this action Fenugreek assists in the lowering of cholesterol levels.
The colour of Fenugreek extract is similar to bile (doctrine of signatures) and although Fenugreek is only a very mild cholagogue it is well indicated in the patient with bile deficiency and raised blood cholesterol because it improves the liver's fat metabolism. A subset of patients with raised blood cholesterol have the problem due mainly to blood sugar disorders (typically hyperinsulinaemia for many years followed by exhaustion of the pancreas and relative insulin lack and or the development of insulin resistance. When the pancreas is exhausted and fails to secrete sufficient insulin levels to meet the bodies needs or when insulin resistance begins the patient has type 2 diabetes.) In all these stages of blood sugar dysregulation Fenugreek is well indicated to assist in controlling high blood glucose levels and to act as a liver tonic and cholesterol lowering agent. About 50% of all patients with raised blood cholesterol will have blood sugar dysregulation as part of the aetiology. The lymphatic system is also involved in fat metabolism and Fenugreek will improve the lymphatic involvement in cholesterol and lipid metabolism. Summary - Fenugreek is mainly indicated in raised blood cholesterol with bile deficient liver disorder, blood sugar regulation disorder or lymphatic circulatory congestion. The liver and lymphatic aspects are well illustrated in the iris analysis of high cholesterol patients with the characteristic yellow deposits over liver, gall bladder, lymphatic rosary and lymphatic overlay. Light coloured stools, digestive intolerance to fatty foods and erratic blood glucose levels are also indicators for Fenugreek in raised blood cholesterol. Fenugreek also has an empirical use to improve overall lipid metabolism and to act as a blood vessel detoxifier which will assist in the dissolving of atheroma deposits in the artery walls. This action is indicated in coronary artery atherosclerosis and in carotid artery atherosclerosis which has a propensity to lead to stroke when deposits dislodge from the carotid atheroma and are transported to the brain. The majority of these patients are current or past cigarette smokers who would not have developed the carotid artery disease if they has not smoked. Fenugreek tea (short decoction) is mildly active in improving liver, cholesterol, atheroma etc but the main preparation needed in these conditions is an extract 1: 1 or 1:2 taken over many months and years. The most commonly used CV combinations utilising Fenugreek are; raised blood cholesterol with liver dysfunction and bile deficiency - Fenugreek with Fringe Tree, Dandelion Root, Globe Artichoke, St Mary's Thistle (and usually Guggal Guggal / Garlic capsules) ; raised blood cholesterol with blood sugar disorder / elevated blood glucose Fenugreek with Goats Rue, Gymnea, Fringe Tree (and usually Guggal Guggal / Garlic capsules) ; raised blood cholesterol with marked lymphatic congestion Fenugreek
with Echinacea angustifolia, Clivers (and usually Guggal Guggal / Garlic capsules). Refer to Year 1 Term 2 Week 1 Hepatics for more information of Fenugreek.
________________________
My notes go on further but comment length here is restrictive.
Definitely interested in what the HN community has to say about this sort of information.
Take this with the same perspective as how the article treats correlation/causation, but I'll share an interesting anecdote. I have several family members in their 90's that love to put cayenne pepper in/on almost anything. One even puts it in orange juice if you can believe that. I tried it once... That fellow started smoking when he was in WWII and hasn't stopped. The less-eccentric/vegan/non-smoker members of the family seem to make it to late 70's.
Well, if that is true, then why is German statistically the country with the highest average age in the world (on par with Japan), even though their food is quite bland?
Because access to healthcare and the quality thereof dominates; and German randomly fall at the upper-ends of the acceptable statistical bounds when comparing Western countries? :)
"Well, if that is true, then why are Germany and Japan statistically the countries with the highest average age in the world, even though both countries' food is quite bland?"
Spicy food is healthy only for certain people, whose genes/environment predispose them to certain dis-eases. Ancient medical systems such as Ayurveda (translated from sanskrit: The truth of life) and Traditional Chinese Medicine (sharing knowledge with ayurveda over past 5000 years as they are in same east asian region) say a food can either be medicine or poison depending on who is ingesting it.
I have a secondary systemic inflammation to due a genetic condition that make my mitochondria to malfunction. Usual symptoms include a profound fatigue after working-out and muscle weakness, specially in the extra-ocular muscles.
I have been always centered around supplements to improve the energy output (ATP) of my mitochondria (Coq10, ALCAR, idebedone ... you name it). While this made a big difference in my everyday energy levels, I always felt that this systemic fatigue couldn't come only from a energy deficit, as I was able to workout with pretty good intensity and decent weights (I can squat 1.5 my body weight).
The first hint came a couple of months ago when a friend of mine went to the doctor because he was also profoundly fatigued and the doctor told him that he had some kind of auto-immune disease that was causing a systemic inflammation and this systemic inflammation was likely the main cause for the fatigue.
The second hint came right here from HN [1]. So, I just added turmeric extract to my daily regimen 10 days ago and the results have been really impressive so far. I can recover much easier from my workouts and my general energy level has also improved a lot, specially during the mornings. It is too soon to tell, but after so many years trying so many supplements I have developed a anti-placebo and anti-bullshit sense for all these things, and this one is working for real.
Now, I am not meaning that spicy food will make you live longer, but it seems clear that they have some potent active substances that "do" something in our bodies.
I am now trying to add some spicy foods to my meals. The first one has been a very simple curry rice with black pepper (to improve absorption) to eat it post-workout.
Some relevant references:
Curcumin database [2]
Good general info about turmeric [3]
Mitochondria as a target in the therapeutic properties of curcumin [4]
I'll add, if anyone would like to try something similar, but has trouble tolerating spicy foods, there's more than one way get your pepper fix. One is to make your own cayenne pepper (or equivalent) gel caps (capsule supplies can be ordered online and are +/- cheap, or do a cayenne pepper shot that doesn't burn your mouth. Just load up a spoonful, flip it to the back of your throat, then chug some water. Just be sure to not inhale between those steps :)
> As the study, published in the BMJ on Tuesday, was observational, conclusions could not be drawn about cause and effect but the team of international authors, led by researchers at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, suggested that more research could lead to dietary advice being updated. Experts warned that the study did not provide evidence to “prompt a change in diet”.
I don't think there's any truth to this. Because here in Andhra (India) people only eat spicy food and I see most people don't live longer than 70-80yrs. To quantify the spiciness: Most Indians from other states just run away from Andhra cuisine
With 65 being the average life expectancy in India (vs. 76 in the USA), maybe 80 isn't all that bad? Drop those same Andrha folks in a cleaner, less stressful spot on the globe and maybe they'd live 90-100s?
I don't have any stats to support my 70-80yrs lifetime claim. It's just my observation. And, I didn't think about how it compares with our national average. Looks like a bit better
I have andhra blood. My outer family eats medium spicy stuff. we eat lot of vegetables(we're vegetarians). Average life span about 75 years. There are parts of Andhra Pradesh where they eat too much spicy food. The life span in such areas is less than 65 years. I'm assuming that the article is not referring to this spice level. They're probably suggesting to the average Indian spice levels (which is higher compared to the rest of the world -- especially European and American).
I think it's pretty common to eat milder foods when you are ill. I know I do. If that is universally true, and all else being equal, you could probably simplify this headline down to "getting sick less linked to a longer life."
Reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon (wish I could find it now) where the discussion was on how a survey showed that heathy people exercise more. Wally commented that's because sick people are too sick to exercise.
There is a common link in all these longevity studies, whether it be women, mexican americans, people who eat spicy food, etc, and that is height, which has been shown to correlate negatively with longevity (not withstanding malnutrition).
As much I read about this particular study, in the group of the more spicy eaters, there where plenty of rural people and in the other group more urban people. So, this sounds to me, that there are different factors inside the study which are interconnected and the "evidence" could also be linked to some different factors, for example more healthy lifestyle of rural people (particular in China: I assume healthier air). In the article, I read, they even suspected, that more tea consume of the spicy group could also cause the positive effect.
So, every study should be taken with a grain of salt, particularly when the exact circumstances are not told.
> After controlling for family medical history, age, education, diabetes, smoking and many other variables
Did not convince me.
And as I stated, I read a different (German) source, where definitively other possible correlations where named -- when one group contains clearly more rural people as the other, the whole statement that "no clear rationale" can be found, is questionable in my opinion, even when it is not political correct in some countries, that urban people are living less healthy lives.
This has nothing to do with click-bait or not. It is just very questionable to me, that the study is methodical clean.
In my country, it is quite different. And I will not speculate further about a country, I don't know. I just wanted to say, that even when the authors of the study do not know the other variables and interconnections, there might be some.
First thing that came to my mind when I read this was how the ancient Egyptians used spices in their mummification process [1]. I guess history repeats itself once again.
"rapid adoption of new drugs has substantial benefits in the form of increased life expectancy, higher productivity and lower non-drug health care expenditures" - Do more drugs!
For generations you have been giving us little correlations, tidbits of mechanisms. Vitamin X, High Intensity Sleep, Antioxidants, Kale, CR… Hot off the presses… new experiment reintroducing critically endangered carnivorous gut fauna…
There is nothing useful that we can do with this "information." It's just random letters from some book that you are throwing at us one at a time. "We found some Hs! It's the first letter in this chapter about Kano Jigaro and appears a dozen time a page. He had exceptional balance, grip strength and organizational skills. It's important. Pay attention to your Hs."
I demand a theory, preferably something simple and powerful like Darwinism that we can demonstrate by drawing sailboats. An equation would be nice.
Just this week I burned my mouth on a chili pepper. I fainted getting out of my ice bath after a 48 hour CR Fast and I went through the window doing HIIT sprints on an omnidimensional walking desk.
I'm going back to the food pyramid. Gimme some spuds.