Growing Young

by Marta Zaraska

  I have to admit: at first I was quite pumped up. Just thinking of all these superfoods circulating around my body and perking up my cells made me feel energetic. As the day went on, though, I found myself craving cookies and fries. Like, I-can’t-think-of-anything-else craving. What’s more, by evening I was as tired as befits a working mother—basically the level of exhausted I reach on most days. Oh, well.

  Of course, my experiment was extremely short and certainly could not qualify as anything scientific, not even close. Active substances in foods need time to do all their good work in our bodies, and one day is simply not enough. One could also argue that I didn’t superfood myself sufficiently. Admittedly, the availability of superfoods in rural France falls short compared to, say, metropolitan US. There I could have also gone for moringa leaves, powdered durian fruit, manuka honey, ashwagandha powder, shilajit powder, Irish moss, or reishi mushrooms. My initial feelings of energy boost were quite likely the placebo effect at work. What I’ve also learned is that chasing superfoods takes a lot of effort and time—and money. And once I stopped whipping up baobab powder smoothies and started reading research studies and talking to scientists, I discovered that even if I did extend my superfoods day into a superfoods week or even a superfoods month, quite likely nothing much would change anyway. That’s because most fancy superfoods don’t really work.

  If you are into longevity and health news, you may find it hard to follow all the headlines on superfood discoveries. I certainly do. One day it’s goji berries, the next day it’s matcha. What’s all the rage right now, for example, is leaf powder from an Indian tree called moringa (M. oleifera). It’s loaded with protein and iron, and is supposed to lower cholesterol, protect the cardiovascular system, and reduce inflammation. Hence moringa is being added to everything from nutrition bars and protein powders to juices and chips. Yet I couldn’t find any reliable studies on moringa’s health benefits. As one Canadian researcher has written, “The enthusiasm for the health benefits of M. oleifera is in dire contrast with the scarcity of strong experimental and clinical evidence supporting them.” Same thing with goji berries, also known as the “Himalayan longevity fruit.” Goji berries are supposed to treat diabetes, prevent cancer, and help with weight loss. Yet research on the fruit is beyond scarce. The vast majority of trials have been led by the same person, an employee of a company that produces goji juice. Talk about conflict of interest.

  Another alleged miracle food, a yellow spice called turmeric, also doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Even though there do exist quite a few trials reporting benefits of its chemical component curcumin, most of them are erroneous signals. Curcumin has been classified as belonging to a group of compounds called “pan-assay interference compounds” (PAINS); when scientists screen chemical compounds looking for new drugs, pan-assay interference compounds tend to give false positive results because of their tendency to react with a wide variety of biological targets. A 2017 review published in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry summed up the supposed miracle properties of curcumin quite simply as “much ado about nothing” and warned that the compound can “trick unprepared researchers into misinterpreting the results of their investigations.” Curcumin is basically a “con artist” of the chemical world, showing false activity in poorly designed studies. So far no double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial involving curcumin has been successful.

  Just as adding fancy superfoods to your diet may not be the best idea, removing large groups of otherwise healthy products from your menu is also not the way to go if you want to boost your longevity. Even though the prevalence of celiac disease stays well under 1 percent in the US, a quarter of Americans say they avoid gluten. Among those, 35 percent do so for “no reason” other than the belief that gluten-free foods are somehow healthier. They are not. In one investigation of over 1,700 products available on the British market, researchers have found that gluten-free products such as breakfast cereal, bread, pasta, etc., tend to have more fat, sugar, and sodium than do their regular alternatives.

  Other research has also found that they contain lower amounts of some vitamins. Instead, they tend to have more heavy metals. Blood and urine samples of people on gluten-free diets reveal they may have 47 percent higher levels of mercury and 80 percent higher levels of arsenic. To make foods without gluten, a great food texturizer, you need to process them more, often spiking them with additives. As a result, epidemiological research shows that people who habitually eat low amounts of gluten tend to have more diabetes and more coronary heart disease than those who eat more of it.

  In general, if your diet excludes large numbers of items that are conventionally considered to be nutritious (fruits, vegetables, etc.), there is a good chance this diet is a fad. Before you ask—vegetarianism is not among them. For one, it only eliminates a single type of food, meat; but also, there is a substantial amount of research showing that going meat-free can significantly prolong your life. One study done in California has shown that vegetarians may live longer than others: an average of 9.5 years for men and 6.1 for women. Adding three ounces (85 g) of red meat to your daily diet, above what you normally eat, elevates the risk of death from cardiovascular disease by 16 percent over the next two to three decades of your life. If you exercise every day for twenty minutes to keep your heart healthy, that three ounces of bacon or steak may undo your entire effort.

  If gluten-free eating doesn’t make sense for most non-celiac people, if superfoods are not so super after all, and high-protein diets can hurt your longevity, then what should you eat to stay healthy? The answer is, I’m afraid, boring: lots of fruits and veggies. And they don’t have to be exotic—so not rambutan or pitaya, unless you happen to live in southeast Asia. Just cabbage, tomatoes, broccoli, spinach, apples. The cheap, ordinary stuff. And you don’t even have to go organic.

  Is Organic Really Better?

  In one 2014 interview, fashion designer Dame Vivienne Westwood suggested that people who can’t afford to eat organic food should “eat less” rather than compromise their diets with conventional chow (unsurprisingly, she caused quite an uproar with that comment—people accused her of being elitist). Although most people aren’t as adamant about organics as Dame Vivienne, over half of Americans now believe that organic food is healthier than its conventional counterpart. Scientists are not convinced. The results of studies on the nutrient content of organic versus conventional foods are mixed, with many showing no differences at all.

  Take, for example, a trial in which a group of women consumed either 3.4 ounces (96 g) of organic or conventional tomato purée per day for three weeks, while their blood was monitored for concentrations of standard tomato nutrients: lycopene, beta-carotene, and vitamin C. The result? “No significant differences between organic and conventional exposures”—to quote the authors. Maybe the dosage was not enough? Well, in another study that had people eat 1.1 pounds (500 g) of apples a day for almost a month, there was also a nutritional tie between organic and conventional. One food not enough? In a Danish trial, sixteen people ate either a strictly controlled organic diet or conventionally produced equivalents for weeks at a time. Again, blood and urine tests showed no antioxidant benefits of any of the diets. Admittedly, there are a few studies that do show some small differences in favour of organic diets, yet in general these are not considered strong enough to warrant wide-ranging recommendations for organic eating.

  Of course, abundance of nutrients is not the sole reason people choose organic—it’s certainly not for me. Another big one is pesticides, or rather, the supposed lack of them in organic products. I’m saying “supposed” because organic foods do contain pesticides. There are many organic pesticides out there that are permitted for use in certified organic agriculture, such as copper sulfate or pyrethrum. Yet the fact that they are produced by nature—pyrethrum is a plant extract—does not mean they are necessarily less toxic than substances produced in a lab. In reality, we know very little about th
e long-term toxicity of organic pesticides. Yet as research progresses, some bad news on these compounds used in organic farming begins to surface. Chronic exposure to copper sulfate can result in liver disease, and in tests, pyrethrum comes out at least as acutely toxic as the infamous synthetic pesticide chlorpyrifos. Rotenone, meanwhile, another organic pesticide, ups the risk of Parkinson’s disease by as much as eleven times.

  What makes things worse is that we often simply don’t know how much residue of organic pesticides can be found in organic foods. That’s because authorities, such as the USDA, often don’t test for them. Besides, some synthetic pesticides can be used in organic farming, too. In the US, twenty-five such products were approved at the time of writing. In an interview with the Washington Post, Nate Lewis, farm policy director for the Organic Trade Association, commented on organic eating: “It’s critical you stop short of saying it’s going to be healthier for you. We don’t know that.”

  If you live in a country that has lax pesticide application rules, eating organic could make sense. But in places such as the US, Canada, Japan, or the EU, the regulations are so strict that even rule-exceeding levels of pesticides don’t mean much. To establish safety standards for pesticides, scientists take the highest dose at which no harmful effects can be found in lab animals, and then divide it over and over. That’s why the United States Environmental Protection Agency states on its website, “just because a pesticide residue is detected on a fruit or vegetable, that does not mean it is unsafe.”

  Many of the reports on pesticide danger tend to come from studies on farm workers and gardeners. And yes, if you are employed on a farm or you garden intensively, pesticides are something you should be concerned about, simply because it is possible to be exposed to far, far larger dosages than you may get from food. Pesticide applicators from Iowa and North Carolina who regularly deal with certain chemicals have double the risk of lung cancer. You should also be cautious using pesticides inside your home—that would be all these bug sprays against ants, cockroaches, and other creepy-crawlies. Applying such products four or more times per year may increase the risk of melanoma by 44 percent.

  Once again, it’s all about dosage. Some scientists go as far as to argue that synthetic pesticides, just like the natural ones we eat in fruits and vegetables (tannins in wine, glucosinolates in broccoli), may have a hormetic effect on our bodies—i.e., big doses are toxic, small doses are health-boosting. Meaning not only that tiny amounts of pesticide residues found in your food may not be harmful; they could even be beneficial. Although this controversial idea still remains to be tested in humans, some animal research does show that small doses of many supposedly toxic chemicals, including pesticides, can prolong life or reduce the incidence of cancer.

  Here is a take-home message: if you have the financial means, sure, go ahead and pick up organic eats from time to time. I’m often tempted myself (better safe than sorry, right?). But the benefits of such foods, assuming they exist, don’t justify our current obsession with everything organic. In the words of the American Cancer Society, “Vegetables, fruits, and whole grains should continue to form the central part of the diet, regardless of whether they are grown conventionally or organically.”

  If you must do something, buy foods produced in places such as the EU, the US, or Canada—places with strict pesticide checks. And simply wash your fruits and vegetables. Rubbing tomatoes under running water for only fifteen seconds removes almost 70 percent of some pesticide residues. Add lemon juice or baking soda to the wash water, and the benefits will be even more pronounced. But from a longevity perspective, it simply doesn’t make sense to chase the purest foods. What’s far more justified than organic food—and actually far more justified than superfoods, fad diets, supplements, worrying about a few extra pounds, or tracking your daily steps—is investing in your social life and in your mind.

  The Roseto Effect

  In 1960, Roseto, a small town in central Pennsylvania, seemed like an unremarkable place: neither particularly pretty nor charming, surrounded by unexceptional nature. Yet in seventeen years of practice in Roseto, the local physician, Dr. Benjamin Falcone, had barely seen any heart disease in locals under the age of sixty-five. That was highly unusual. When researchers compared Roseto to its surrounding communities, even ones sharing the water supply and medical facilities, they discovered that mortality rates in Roseto were 30 to 35 percent lower than in its counterparts.

  It was not the genes, scientists soon concluded. It was not the diet, either. The Rosetans loved sugary treats, cooked with lard, and enjoyed sausages—41 percent of their calories came from fat. They made their own wine and loved to drink it—and did not abstain from hard liquor, either. What’s more, the Rosetans also smoked and worked gruelling hours at a quarry or at a local factory. Obesity was common, too.

  When the mystery was finally solved after years of research, the answer took many by surprise: Roseto’s unusual healthiness was due to outstanding sociality, which had roots in the town’s history. Roseto was settled in late nineteenth century by immigrants from Roseto Valfortore, Italy, who, though they forgot their healthy Mediterranean diets soon after settling, did not abandon their jovial attitudes. Surrounded by unfriendly neighbouring communities, from the very beginning the Rosetans felt they had to stick together. And so they did.

  They looked out for each other, followed Italian traditions, and lived in multigenerational homes. Families were strong, elders were respected. They celebrated family events with big gatherings in their back gardens, with lots of food and plentiful wine, and did so often. The Rosetans believed individuals were part of something larger, a community—they had twenty-two civic organizations in a town of under two thousand inhabitants, from fishing and hunting clubs, sports clubs, and Christian youth organizations to a library.

  Among Rosetan men, 81 percent were members of at least one such organization. Admittedly, women didn’t have many clubs, but they were active in the town’s social life through church groups and cooking—they gathered together often to prepare food for events and celebrations. The locals also cared for the looks of their town; they kept it clean and pretty, regularly picking up trash off the streets and planting flowers around the town centre. Last but not least, they were very neighbourly. In the words of one Rosetan housewife, “The neighbours were always in my kitchen and I was always in theirs. We talked. We knew what was going on there, and there was always someone around to help you and to keep you from feeling lonely.”

  Yet in 1963, a physician named Stewart Wolf, who studied extensively what became known as “the Roseto effect,” made a dire prediction. Were the Rosetans to abandon their values and sociability, their healthiness would plummet and their mortality rates would start to resemble those in other small American towns. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s happened. As modernization set in and Roseto opened itself up to the rest of America, the community spirit evaporated.

  Young people started dreaming the “American dream”: bigger houses, fancier cars, more luxurious lifestyles. In the 1960s, the houses in Roseto were small and set close to one another, with little display of affluence—there was actually a social taboo against showing off wealth (it was considered bad luck). Now the new houses were being built suburban ranch-style: large and far apart. Driving replaced walking. People abandoned their community organizations and joined country clubs instead, as they strived to get ahead of the Joneses. In 1971, the town recorded its first heart attack in a person under the age of forty-five. Soon many more followed. Hypertension rates skyrocketed and so did general mortality. By the end of the 1970s, Roseto became a place like any other in the US.

  You don’t have to live in a Roseto-type place to experience the Roseto effect. A multitude of studies conducted around the world in both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries show very strong impacts of the mind and sociality on longevity. They show that if you want to change just one thing in your life, going f
or tons of fruits and vegetables in your diet may not be the highest priority. Instead, you should improve your relationships with others and work on your mindset.

  Here are some stats: eating six or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day, versus zero, lowers the risk of mortality by 26 percent. Sticking to the famed Mediterranean diet means a 20 to 21 percent lower risk of dying within the next few years. The numbers for many social factors are much higher. A happy marriage equals a 49 percent lower mortality risk. Living with someone, even just a roommate, as opposed to living alone: 19 to 32 percent. Having a large network of friends: 45 percent. Other mindset and social indicators have effects similar to that of a super-healthy eating style: volunteering lowers mortality risk by about 22 percent—more or less as much as following the Mediterranean diet. If you were to add everything together, combining a good marriage, strong friendships, feeling of belonging, and so forth, to create a complex measure of social integration, or something that could be called the essence of the Roseto effect, you would get a whopping 65 percent reduction in mortality. And yes, as these numbers come from various studies done with various methods, they are hard to compare. But they still indicate some important trends.

  Now, what about exercise? We certainly seem fixated on physical activity as a way to boost health—just look at the sales of various fitness trackers. One company, Fitbit, managed to sell 15.3 million devices in 2017, and as many as 20 percent of Britons use wearable technology to count their steps. In the US, one in six people use fitness bands and smartwatches. Whether all these exercise trackers actually work is another issue altogether. A study done in Singapore showed that using a Fitbit does not lead to improved health or fitness. Even more troubling was another trial in which wearing a fitness tracker actually led to slower weight loss.