Welcome to Straight Talk on Health.. I’m your host Dr. Chet Zelasko. Straight Talk on Health. is a joint production with WGVU in Grand Rapids MI. With a PhD in exercise physiology, I’ve been teaching people how to improve their health through diet, exercise, and supplementation for over 30 years. I look at the science behind all the headlines and social media and let you know whether it’s something to consider or not. You can check out other things that I do on my website Drchet.com and sign up for my free emails.
Deciding what to talk about can be challenging. Not because there is a shortage of health information but because there are too many topics I’d like to teach about. Some are major while others may seem inconsequential. Let me give you an example of one that is not earth—shattering but I wanted to know more about it.
Paula and I watch a lot of cooking shows including Top Chef and Tournament of Champions and many in between. Many are competition shows. The format is typically chefs who are competing against other chefs to complete a cooking or baking challenge. Celebrity chefs are often the judges. There are a couple of things that bug me, bugged me enough I researched the topics.
The first is the eating of raw seafood in a crudo or a ceviche. The primary difference is that a crudo is Italian in origin and uses olive oil, sea salt, and citrus like lemon or lime or vinegar to “cook” the seafood. The ceviche is Latin American and adds green onions, peppers, and cilantro. It also uses similar citrus fruits to “cook” the seafood. If it a high end competition, you can bet someone will make either of those.Chefs who judge seem like they love when someone makes either of those. These are intelligent people who are willing to eat uncooked seafood.
For me, not on your life. This is raw food. The citrus can impact the texture but it does not kill the bacteria. The only raw seafood I’ve eaten are clams on the half-shell and oysters that I’ve collected myself when my son and I go oystering. Even then they are gently steamed. Raw fish? Never and why anyone would do that makes no sense to me.
On the other hand, when a judge sees red in a chicken joint or the pork seems a little pink, you’d have thought someone tried to kill them and they refuse to eat it. I think they may be wrong after checking the science behind both examples. In the case of red in a chicken joint, most often the leg and thigh joint, it is probably myoglobin that has escaped the muscle and landed in the joint capsule. It’s red because it hadn’t oxidized yet as myoglobin is a storage form of iron in the body.
As long as the cooking chef checked the temperature of the center of the meat, and the chicken has reached 165 after resting and the pork loin or chop has reached 145 degrees before resting and allowed to rest for 3 minutes, both are safe to eat. I’ve eaten both chicken and pork under those conditions that I’ve cooked. Why? Because it follows the science. If the white meat is red and under temperature, then it should be left alone. The absurdity of consuming raw seafood but rejecting food that was temperature checked makes no sense to me. I understand that there are time limits on these shows and even in restaurants but the science is the science. I think their reaction is governed by aesthetics more than safety but I’m not a chef.
Let’s turn to a recently published study on reducing the risk of cognitive decline published in the journal Lancet. This was a study conducted in 12 Latin American countries using the model created in the USA called the POINTER study, which was based on a Finnish FINGER study; Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability. The POINTER study demonstrated that cognitive decline could be reduced using two different approaches in over 2000 subjects with a mean age of 68 years.. The first approach was a structured lifestyle intervention administered over 2 years that focused on diet, high intensity exercise, social interaction, and cognitive training. The second approach was a flexible self-paced approach. The study provided the information, the participants in that group figured out what they wanted to do for themselves. Both groups benefitted from the intervention with the structured program having better results.
Based on the POINTER design, the program was adapted for use in 12 Latin American countries as mentioned earlier with one big difference. While they used a structured approach and a free self-paced approach, they tailored it for every country, which in my opinion, was brilliant. It’s similar to the approach used in studies that teach the Mediterranean Diet adapted for specific countries and culture. Why try to teach people to focus on eating whole grain pasta when the primary source is whole grain rice in that country? That applies to the types of vegetables, fruits, protein sources as well as spices used in cooking. But that’s not all. They also used forms of movement most likely to get greater participation for the exercise program. Salsa, tango, and large group outdoor exercise programs were incorporated into the exercise program if it was part of the culture.
That’s what researchers did to adapt the POINTER approach to the different Latin American countries. Over 1000 subjects between 60-77 years participated in the study. When all was said and done, the overall impact was a 55% reduction in the measures of cognitive decline over a 2-year time period. Again, the structured program was slightly better than the flexible program. The take-home message? Cognitive decline can be improved with a lifestyle approach that is structured. That can have benefits in reducing Alzheimer’s disease in all societies. That begs the question: what are you doing with your lifestyle lately? Engaged or withdrawn? Higher intensity or as little as possible? Mediterranean and Dash diet or ultra-processed foods. Just remember that the structured approach did better.
One more topic with two differing points of contact. Let me explain. I was listening to a podcast and one of the speakers said that there is no such thing as a self-made man or woman. That’s absolutely true. If there were nobody to fund a project, no workers to build that outcome, no designers, no investors, and on and on, there would be no self-made anything. Second, in listening to a speech, someone said they didn’t quit a physical challenge. The found their inner light to stop listening to the what you can’t and found reasons to switch to a yes you can approach. I’m believing the former and more supportive of the latter without the flowery language. Why?
The University of Northern Iowa offered a psychology course on running a marathon years ago. Yes there was plenty of training on the physical side of running a marathon: 26.2 miles. But most of the class time was used to train the mind to deal with the discomfort and pain of running the marathon. Unless really injured, you have to turn off the side that says you can’t do this and overcome your negative mind talk. Nothing self made. No inner light. Just training your mind as well as your body at the same time. The final exam for the course? Successfully completing a marathon. This course was not designed for athletes although there is a strong sport psychology factor in every level of collegiate sports today. It was for any student who wanted to take the course.
The professors retired and the course is no longer offered. The message for all of us is if we want a great health span, we need to overcome inertia and negative thinking and start working now to earn it. The structured program from Finland, the US, and Latin America have proven it works for delaying cognitive decline as well as reducing a variety of degenerative diseases. Just overcome your I can’t with I will and get started today.
That’s all the time I have for this episode. If you like this podcast, hit the like button and share the link with your friends and colleagues about it. Until next time, this is Dr. Chet Zelasko saying health is a choice. Choose wisely today and every day.
References:
USDA Safe Minimum Internal Temperature Chart
Lancet. 2026. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(26)01278-X
JAMA. 2025;334(8):681-691. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.12923
Lancet. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60461
