On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:07, Thomas Bridgeland wrote:

>A long article, but with some useful points, I think.
>
>
>http://www.techcentralstation.com/081705E.html
>
>...The answer, which many will find surprising, is that
>after over fifty years of international data there is
>not good scientific support for the claim that lifestyle
>changes prevent diseases or increase longevity.

A belated thanks for posting this one, Tom.

The author is right to criticise the single-minded assumption that
longevity is the criterion of good health.

Once we decide on what is good health, if we come up with a profile of the
sleep, nutritional, activity, pollution exposure, maternal health, infant
experiences, sunlight exposure, domicile etc. factors that lead most to
that arbitrary selection of a good health criterion, only then will we be
in a position to begin a serious, scientifically-based prescription for
good health.

Meanwhile, I'm happy with the unscientific palaeolithic way!

Keith