Nutrition Medieterrranean diet

[pet']

Hello,

Does anyone follow this diet ? What do you think of it ?
Can You Afford the Benefits of the Mediterranean Diet?

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[Oscar]

The diet I follow would fit the definition of Mediterranean diet, though it is mostly vegan/vegetarian.

"However, recently, a study found that, yes, a Mediterranean diet reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease but only if you are rich or highly educated. The study is from the Italian I.R.C.C.S. Neuromed, who performed a study on over 18,000 subjects recruited within the Moli-sani study and published in the International Journal of Epidemiology."

Unfortunately I´m not rich, so I might not get all the benefits. At least a mediterranean friend from Greece brought me some olives which were amazing.

 

[ClaudeR]

That's a big confounding variable...
It shows something that is completely obvious to anyone who has spent time in the mediterranean region, but lost on most everybody else (including researchers it seems): the lifestyle is very different!
The benefits are not purely due to the diet, you have to take into account many other things like stress, sun exposure, mental aspects, and on and on.
Mediterranean people are generally hot blooded, they enjoy life, don't stress over things, enjoy naps, have A LOT of social interactions, and on and on.
If these are not there (i.e. in the less fortunate population) then the same diet produces different results.

Take the diet out of that context and it will fare exactly the same as any diet based on lots of fresh produce, fish, meats, and nothing prepackaged or microwaved, it is very good but not the whole picture!
Of course that won't sell books if you say "do this, it is the same as many others"

 

[ali]

Indeed, generally, the Mediterranean diet is beneficial.....especially if you live in the Mediterranean.
Sunshine, low stress all perform their variability to skew everything food related. And wealth, absolutely. Health and wealth inequality is a massive big elephant in many a nutritional research room.

 

[Steve Freides]

There is so much post hoc ergo propter hoc in these studies. I saw one the other day that said you were twice as likely to die early if you ate French Fries, and then the fine print mentioned that there were probably a lot of other lifestyle factors that explained the numbers, and not just eating French Fries.

Ugh.

-S-

 

[Miguel]

In reading "Eat Stop Eat" by Brad Pilon, something not regularly mentioned about the Mediterranean diet is the amount of fasting that the population does due to religious practice, which had substantial effect on the weight loss/maintenance of the culture.

It seems easy for "science" to take things out of context and just tell us what we want to hear.

 

[Bryant W]

I would argue that "science" is less likely to take things out of context than individuals. Individuals who read these studies out of context take them out of context. It seems to me that people not involved in a scientific field tend to read the "conclusion" of a study and interpret that to mean something like "the final say on the issue", when in reality it is just an attempt to understand the data set of the study. If you do not know the relevant literature on the topic, and do not know where whatever study you are looking at fits in with the available literature on the subject, then you are very likely to mis/over interpret the conclusions. For instance, criticizing "science" because some studies on the Mediterranean diet don't comment on the fasting of some of their population ignores the fact that "science" has in fact done the studies that suggest calorie restriction may improve one's lifespan (not just fasting...it is recognized in scientific articles that small portion size and longer meal time may contribute to the French paradox, that the cultural practice of eating to 80% fullness may contribute to the long lifespan of the [traditional] Okinawan diet/lifestyle, etc). How do you "prove" these things? It's a tough/complicated issue when dealing with open systems outside a lab.

"Science" is not taking the Mediterranean diet out of context, any more than it is taking fasting out of context. It is trying to study the variables in isolation as best it can (good luck with that...that's gonna be a while!), or just trying to accumulate statistical data to evaluate relationships between variables to develop further theory and testing. It's up to the experts to figure out how the data fits together...which means, again, that unless you are an expert in the topic familiar with the relevant research, you probably aren't going to quite understand it completely. Studying one or two studies in isolation from all the other studies on any topic is useless.

Take a study from the article above in the OP...I did a brief dive since it's been a slow night on call. The results are not unexpected...they lead to more questions to study. Part of the results: "In a subgroup of individuals of different socioeconomic status but sharing similar MDS (Mediterranean diet score), diet-related disparities were found as different intakes of antioxidants and polyphenols, fatty acids, micronutrients, dietary antioxidant capacity, dietary diversity, organic vegetables and whole grain bread consumption." In the conclusion, "These nutritional gaps may reasonably explain at least in part the socioeconomic pattern of CVD protection from the MD (Mediterranean diet)." The article referencing this study quotes an epidemiologist regarding the study, "In other words, a person from low socioeconomic status who struggles to follow a Mediterranean model is unlikely to get the same advantages of a person with higher income, despite the fact that they both similarly adhere to the same healthy diet." I think it is very important to recognize that these scientists are using phrases like "may reasonably explain", "is unlikely to get the same advantages". They are not making definitive claims but are suggesting explanations for the data, hinting at the path of future study. The way I read this, noting I am not an expert in this field, is that the diets differed in some way that is not reflected in the "MDS" (mediterranean diet score), so that there were "nutritional gaps". In short, even though both the wealthy and poor had similar "scores" regarding the "mediterranean-ness" of the diet, the devil is in the details and there was some measurable difference in the foods consumed that may explain why the poor have higher CVD (cardiovascular disease). And the differences listed in detail above suggest to me that you should probably eat your veggies and fruits, make your grains whole, and buy things as fresh and unadulterated as possible. Hardly earth shattering. But time will tell and we will see, I may be wrong...

IMHO, when it comes to general scientific answers to complex questions, the people I trust the most refuse to dumb things down, and end up answering questions like a scientist who seems to be for the most part well respected around these parts, a certain Stu McGill, who on podcasts often prefaces his answer with..."It depends."

 

[User 7569]

I followed this diet by mistake when living in El Cajon California, which has a huge Chaldean population, a Mediterranean style climate and ultimately, cheap Mediterranean style markets.

This led to me eating a lot of nuts, seeds, legumes, olive oil, fruits, veggies, and whole grains, but not much fish or red wine. I felt really healthy during that time of my life, when snacking on fresh fruits, nuts, seeds, and veggies throughout the day, then having a big legume based meal at night, or oatmeal. All bought at that Mediterranean market next to my house.

I did do a lot of under eating then though, which wasn't great for my frame or my energy levels..

Basically if you can get those style of foods at a reasonable price and mix it with some basic Italian cooking then you can get really full and feel really healthy a lot of the time. Plus its delicious and easy to cook.

 

[Miguel]

Excellent explanation, sir. I appreciate your ability to intelligently delve into a topic that most folks accept at face value.

I would argue that "science" is less likely to take things out of context than individuals. Individuals who read these studies out of context take them out of context. It seems to me that people not involved in a scientific field tend to read the "conclusion" of a study and interpret that to mean something like "the final say on the issue", when in reality it is just an attempt to understand the data set of the study. If you do not know the relevant literature on the topic, and do not know where whatever study you are looking at fits in with the available literature on the subject, then you are very likely to mis/over interpret the conclusions. For instance, criticizing "science" because some studies on the Mediterranean diet don't comment on the fasting of some of their population ignores the fact that "science" has in fact done the studies that suggest calorie restriction may improve one's lifespan (not just fasting...it is recognized in scientific articles that small portion size and longer meal time may contribute to the French paradox, that the cultural practice of eating to 80% fullness may contribute to the long lifespan of the [traditional] Okinawan diet/lifestyle, etc). How do you "prove" these things? It's a tough/complicated issue when dealing with open systems outside a lab.

There is no way to isolate the entirety of the variables that exist in these types of studies, yet that is what the majority of us base our opinions on. Finding an expert in one or two things, not difficult. Finding an expert on a great deal of things, that's a unicorn hunt. So talking about diets and cultures, past "proper diet and exercise" unless the study included a nutritionist, biologist, psychologist, botanist, and a host of other specialists, it will be skewed towards a few specific results. Something else to keep in mind is the agency conducting the study and their motives. Corporate backing and funding drives the scientific bus of research towards desired outcomes, which results in studies that prove this or that because it is good for business.

It's up to the experts to figure out how the data fits together...which means, again, that unless you are an expert in the topic familiar with the relevant research, you probably aren't going to quite understand it completely. Studying one or two studies in isolation from all the other studies on any topic is useless.

Quite useless to you good sir, but is it you we are talking about? Everyone who has posted here (with myself as the exception, perhaps) has eloquently mentioned taking things out of context, but the OPs question was about the diet, the meat and potatoes so to speak. We took it upon ourselves to mention all the numerous and varied contributing factors that influence success or failure of a dietary habit.

the people I trust the most refuse to dumb things down, and end up answering questions like a scientist who seems to be for the most part well respected around these parts, a certain Stu McGill, who on podcasts often prefaces his answer with..."It depends."

Sound strategy, sir. I would add to that statement that a continuing education in pursuit of deeper knowledge on relevant topics of interest will certainly help folks make better decisions on what they believe.