@ComeOnBabyPopMyBubble
There's definitely an almost religious tone to it (having been brought up a strict Catholic), a paradigm that if you behave, do everything right, you are guaranteed great health and great health in longevity
Quality over quantity.
Is it, though, there's minimising risks and there's eliminating them. With religion, your death is a given, the core is a system by which to live to enjoy a good afterlife. With 'the science', which appears to have stepped in and filled that hole in the era of secularism, there appears to be a concerted agenda to avoid this at all costs. And whilst it's all well and good to subscribe to the belief that if you do X,Y and Z then the chances of A, B and C happening to you decrease, there's no real way to eliminate any of these. It does the same thing religion used to do, and that is bring a sense of security and comfort to its acolytes. That's great! If it works for them, fine. What's not is insisting it's the only way or even the best way. There isn't one.
And what's lacking is the spirituality of such a life or a seriously dedicated effort in cultivating this - and I'm not talking about doing a bit of yoga or some mindfulness, IYKWIM.
Having such a sense of spirituality makes you, in a lot of ways, much freer in the sense that you accept that life is not transactionary, and that things happen with no rhyme or reason no matter what you do. It can become much easier to accept so called 'bad' things happening to you and yours because these are just things, events. They just are. It means losing a lot of fear about life.
That's what's missing from 'the science', although of course, acolytes will disagree and are entirely within their right and reason to do so.
It's as fallible as religion, though, IMO. Religion, too, often has elements governing food and how it should be taken.
I prefer Bruce Lee's 'No way is the way'.