Adam Rees

Blue Zones is back in the headlines again ... is it worth considering, does it have merit, or are there aspects to call it to question?

1. It was a survey, not a study

2. What makes anyone think that food deserves credit?
***There are areas of the world that ate meat and fit the criteria of the blue zones but were omitted. One might ask why?

***Many other vegetarian communities with low life spans exist. Therefore the food eaten in the blue zones must be disqualified as the sole significant contributor to the above average lifespans. As well as bring to question what other contributorS might here be, and how many, and in what capacities?

If the blue zones has any credibility, then food does NOT deserve 100% of the credit. What else was going on in and/or around these groups?

3. This Blue Zones Survey conveniently left out the blue zone communities that ate meat. Weird huh?

Bonus: The longevity of these communities is not due to the food they consumed. What they did all have in common (including the areas omitted that ate meat) was a strong culture of cooperation and connection within their communities that resulted in a very interesting way of dealing with stress.

What else might there be that we can take away from the survey?

Most excuses aren’t reasons to avoid exercise, they’re reasons to exercise.

You just gotta know what to do to get the reward you want instead of the consequences you don’t.

To learn more, get this:

Coax the Gain: Look, Feel, and Perform in the Life You Want, While Becoming Impervious to Injury Coax the Gain: Look, Feel, and Perform in the Life You Want, While Becoming Impervious to Injury