Yet more Dietary confusion - Mediterranean vs low-fat...

[geo]

"Mediterranean diet more effective than low-fat diet for slowing diabetes progression"

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/04/1 ... =obnetwork

Here's the study, which you can only see the abstract: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/conten ... 6a3134bef0

I don't normally read these things becasue they are so rediculous, but I figured I will say something this once and then just hold my peace...

Here's the basic info:

1. Mediterranean dieters ate lots of vegetables and whole grains and replaced most red meat with poultry and fish. Monthly sessions with nutritionists helped them keep less than half of their calories coming from carbohydrates and at least 30 percent of calories from fat, mainly olive oil.

2. The low-fat diet restricted sugary snacks and limitedfats to less than 30 percent of daily calorie intake.

And guess who is trumpeted as "winning" - the Mediterranean diet of course...lots of veggies and whole grains and replace red-meat...sounds like a good idea...

But who really won? no one...at the end of 6 years all the "low fatters" were on meds, at the end of 8 years all the Mediterranean dieters were on meds...sounds lose-lose to me. Yet the press will jump all over this as low fat being bad and Mediterranenan being better. And of course the Low Carb folks will say we told you so. And the paleo folks will say, see get rid of those grains and sugar.
and the WP folks will say...well who cares, drink your raw milk and ferment everything... And of course the press will tumpet low-fat being bad and high fat good with all those healthy fats!

But this is what I see (putting my oh so jaded Mcdougaller glasses on:

1. The Med Diet was actually a Low-Carb Mediterranean diet (not sure why that wasn't pointed out in the article when it was clearly stated in the study abstract) - so they cut out the red-meat, added lots of veggies and whole grain...restricted processed grains and sugar...and kept added fats to primarily olive oil with fat intake at the usual SAD levels > 30%. I think anyone would agree that this is healthier than SAD!

2. The low fatters just were supposed to keep their fat levels <30% and told to eat less sweet snacks. AKA, eat your typical SAD and cut out some cookies (OK I don't know if thats what they did but thats what it sounds like to me).

3. The weirdest things were what the doctors said:

a. "Everybody thinks of fat as being bad, but this shows that it depends on what kind of fat," said Olansky, an endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic who was not involved in the new study." Huh? so it had nothing to do with the veggies and whole grains and red-meat reduction and sugar reduction? It was just adding all that olive oil that did the trick? And this from someone from Essy's Hospital...do they not learn from each other?

b. People diagnosed with diabetes should aim to have a healthy diet, and a Mediterranean diet is a good, healthy option, lead study author Katherine Esposito told Reuters Health in an email. Huh? they all had to go on meds after 8 years...i.e., they continuously got worse!!! Thats a good, healthy option????

c. Cutting calories is important, and cutting fat is an easy way to cut calories, but according to this study, maintaining the right levels of healthy fats is important, she said. Huh? again its all about the fats???? how exactly did they seperate the fat effects from the veggies and whole grains and reduced sugar and reduced red-meat?

d. Both diets were designed to help prevent the disease from getting worse and to keep blood sugar under control without medication for as long as possible. Huh? since when does simply cutting fat to <30% or adding tons of oil to your diet healthy? And how did that keep blood sugars under control if they all had to go on meds after 8 years????

e. Diabetes "remission," in which blood sugar levels appear healthy with no signs of diabetes, was rare overall but slightly more common in the Mediterranean group, according to the results published in Diabetes Care. Huh? remission was nothing more than being diagnosed as Type II but not being on meds??? Who are they fooling with that kind of diagnosis? And eventually there was 0 remission for everyone! They all went on meds afer 8 years...i.e., they got worse over time, there was no remission, just a slowing down of the nefarious disease that's primarily caused by poor lifestyle factors. For those that are following a Mcdougal lifestyle and think that maybe 90% or 80% or 70% is good enough...you might want to think again. Poor lifestyle choices are simply that...they will eventually catch up with you.

f. Avoiding saturated fat, which often comes from red meat, could be important for diabetics, Olansky said. Huh? So they cut out red meat and subbed in chicken and fish and olive oil instead? ummm does chicken and fish and olive oil not have Sat. Fat?

g. "Although we don't know exactly what it is about Mediterranean diets that helps control blood sugar, it likely has to do with high levels of fiber, less red meat, and more olive oil and fish, a good source of protein with unsaturated fat," she said. Huh? Good source of protein? you mean veggies aren't? only animal products have good source of protein? and wtf does good source mean? Is she trying to say veggies aren't a good source for some reason?

h. "The Mediterranean diet represents an easy way to combine healthy foods with taste and flavor," Esposito said. Huh? you mean slathering your food with olive oil makes food healthy?

i. "Patients often ask us what they can do besides medication," Olansky said.
"Often they want to try a lifestyle intervention before medicine, and this is a great example of something you could offer a patient." Huh? you mean telling people if they eat your LCMD that your Type II will worsen and you will go on meds over time is a great example of intervention?????

And now you know why people are so confused nutritionally and dietarily... I feel sorry for those that will get Type II diabetes and get inducted into the standard modern medical treatment for it... they will be force fed this crap and simply be told, "with modern medicine we can help you "control" your disease, given a smile, a pat on the back and half a dozen prescriptions and told to keep coming back for more...for... the... rest... of... their... shortened... lives...
What a way to live (or maybe I should say die)

[Crider]

I don't know when, or by whom, the definition of a low-fat diet was pegged at no greater than 30% of calories from fat, but that definition is clearly not a low-fat diet!

I've got my copy of what I think the first popular low-fat diet, The Low-Fat Way to Health & Longer Life, by Dr. Lester Morrison, which was published back in 1958. He states:

. . . if you are a man over 20 or a woman over 40, a diet comprising not more than 10 to 20 per cent of fat in calories can offer some measure of protection against heart and blood vessel disease

My 1979 Pritikin Program book says:

The Pritikin Diet's fat level, on the other hand, runs from 5 to 10 percent . . .

And we all know the modern low-fat diets, with Ornish's Spectrum plan being perhaps the highest in fat at 15% (?).

[MINNIE]

Well said. I think it just must have been time for a press release written by the PR arm of the olive oil industry to go into circulation. The same misinformation keeps resurfacing over and over, and it seems it can't be allowed to disappear from the public's consciousness for very long.

Same old story !

Personally, I really wish there could be a moratorium on the term "mediterranean Diet". It is so meaningless, yet so pervasive.

It's especially strange to me, because I'm a grandchild of genuine Mediterranean peasants, who ate their own regional variety of "Mediterannean" cuisine. It had very little resemblance to what is currently touted as "heart-healthy Mediterranean" food. I don't mean that it was opposite, just different. It was very high in vegetables, fruits and grains, which one would expect. Fat mostly came from olive oil, and nuts were popular as garnishes in many dishes. Lentils, garbanzos and other beans were eaten daily. Raw vegetables and many kinds of salads were also eaten every day. This is all to be expected when talking about Mediterranean food.

But perhaps people would find it interesting to see what was excluded.

As I recall, there was no use of whole grains. Flat, "pita" style bread was eaten in large quantities every day. The flour used was probably equivalent to modern unbleached flour. The other grain was rice, white never brown. No beef or pork was eaten,no aged cheeses , and no sausages. Little or no alcohol was consumed. Milk was used only in the form of yogurt, and served as a condiment rather than eaten in large amounts. Tradionally, goats or sheep were the milk animals, not cows.(However, cows' milk was adopted when they came to America). Red meat was eaten in small amounts, and mostly on special occasions. It was usually lamb, but might be goat if necessary. (Can you see why I was eager to become a vegetarian?) "Meat" usually meant fish or chicken, but again these were eaten in small amounts per person. Tobacco was popular with men, but not much used by women. There were no pies in the American sense of the word, and cookies and sweet desserts were special foods that weren't used daily. Desserts were fruit, nuts and seeds, if anyone had room after eating all thoses beans, vegetables and bread!

But I'm sure other Mediterranean descendants have different stories to tell about what their families ate, and probably no one can claim to know what the REAL Mediterranean diet actually is:).

Well, nobody except the olive oil pushers and low carb ideologues, that is.