The China study was interesting. The rice-eating south and wheat-eating north did about equally well, but the meat-eating upper class did not.
As for that link about Japan, it contains a pretty serious error. My guess is that the authors may have confused the caloric density of dry rice vs prepared rice.
Though fish intake has been pretty stable and the intake of rice has drastically declined in the past generation, people in Japan still get several times more calories from rice than from fish. It's also worth pointing out that as meat consumption has gone up, so have the rates lifestyle diseases. I've lived most my adult life in Taiwan, and the same thing is happening here.
>"there were a number of changes in the Japanese food supply: in 1961, 90% of the caloric supply per capita per day consisted of 90% vegetable products, and 10% animal products. In 2002, the ratio changed to 79% vegetable products, and 21% animal products. Rice appears to have given way to other grains (such as wheat) as well as increased intake in meat products. However, fish products appear to have maintained their standing as a constant in the Japanese food supply.
While the daily total calorie supply increased through much of the 1960s, it then stabilized, and then rose again in the 1980s. The supply of calories from rice declined from over to 1000 calories per capita in the early 1960s, and then declined to 618 calories per person. Calories from fish rose, and then largely stabilized. Fish accounted for just over 173 calories of per capita calorie supply in 2002, rising from 112 calories per capita in 1961."
http://www.japanreview.net/essays_fish_and_rice.htm
My take on it is that we'd all be healthier if we were eating as if we were on WWII-era rations, but few people have the will power to live like that voluntarily. It's much easier to try to convince ourselves we need to eat in a way few of our ancestors could have afforded to.
As for that link about Japan, it contains a pretty serious error. My guess is that the authors may have confused the caloric density of dry rice vs prepared rice.
Though fish intake has been pretty stable and the intake of rice has drastically declined in the past generation, people in Japan still get several times more calories from rice than from fish. It's also worth pointing out that as meat consumption has gone up, so have the rates lifestyle diseases. I've lived most my adult life in Taiwan, and the same thing is happening here.
>"there were a number of changes in the Japanese food supply: in 1961, 90% of the caloric supply per capita per day consisted of 90% vegetable products, and 10% animal products. In 2002, the ratio changed to 79% vegetable products, and 21% animal products. Rice appears to have given way to other grains (such as wheat) as well as increased intake in meat products. However, fish products appear to have maintained their standing as a constant in the Japanese food supply.
While the daily total calorie supply increased through much of the 1960s, it then stabilized, and then rose again in the 1980s. The supply of calories from rice declined from over to 1000 calories per capita in the early 1960s, and then declined to 618 calories per person. Calories from fish rose, and then largely stabilized. Fish accounted for just over 173 calories of per capita calorie supply in 2002, rising from 112 calories per capita in 1961." http://www.japanreview.net/essays_fish_and_rice.htm
My take on it is that we'd all be healthier if we were eating as if we were on WWII-era rations, but few people have the will power to live like that voluntarily. It's much easier to try to convince ourselves we need to eat in a way few of our ancestors could have afforded to.