Less Olive Oil and Less Wine for Health

[Spiral]

I personally think that olive oil is a junk food and wine is just empty calories.

So, while the financial crisis in Greece is bad for the people of Greece, this news story might have somewhat of a positive impact on our health.

Greek crisis hits olive oil, wine exports

Greek's agriculture sector was already facing a challenging 2015 before the economic turmoil this week, but now there's fear the uncertainty could disrupt the food and wine trade.

"There's a lot of speculation and even more tension," said George Frangistas, president of Incofruit-Hellas, the trade association of Greek export enterprises for fruits, vegetables and juice. "Clearly with closed banks and political pressure boiling over normal trade cannot go on."

Some food companies are refusing to make deliveries unless they are paid upfront and there are reports of empty store shelves as panicked consumers try to buy food. Also, key farm inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides and fuel also are usually imported and will require payment in advance in hard currency that is no longer available.

Less live oil? Less wine? Fewer pesticides?

While I feel bad for those who live in Greece, this looks like a win-win-win situation for the world's health and for the environment.

[dteresa]

you must be forgetting italy, spain, france, israel etc. Unless farming is obliterated in these place people will still be buying wine and olives

didi

[BlueHeron]

Spiral, I think you're being very optimistic. The prices of these items will probably go up. They tend to be consumed by more affluent people, so most will probably keep buying them.

If prices get so high that people don't want to use olive oil and wine, they will probably move to canola oil and beer. Restaurants will probably go to cheaper oils. People who have switched to olive oil from butter might switch back.

This reminds me of the University of Vermont's ban on bottled water - an attempt to reduce the number of disposable bottles used. Students switched to sweetened beverages, and use of disposable bottles actually increased. So for their health and the environment, the result was a lose-lose.

http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.co ... ended.html

[Spiral]

Spiral, I think you're being very optimistic. The prices of these items will probably go up. They tend to be consumed by more affluent people, so most will probably keep buying them.

Perhaps I am being optimistic in another way as well.

I watched television yesterday and learned about a 65 year old Greek man who is receiving a Greek pension. But pensions are not currently being fully paid due to the shortage of Euros among Greek banks. This man tells the reporter that he recently had triple bypass surgery and wonders how he will do without the support of Greek health care and without money.

I think this would be a good time for someone to inform him of the low-tech, low-cost means of treating cardiovascular disease: a starch based diet (hold the olive oil, which hurts the arteries). Also, potatoes are less expensive than shrimp, steak or scallops.

So, maybe this financial crisis will persuade Greeks to investigate the diet from the island mentioned in the Seven Countries Study that successfully kept cardiovascular disease low. Let's face it, cheeseburgers are more expensive than rice. If only Greeks could have at the ready an informed answer to the question of "where do you get your protein?"

[dteresa]

disaster is the only thing that will keep a whole population from relying on animal food.

Years ago long before I even heard of starches being the smarter choice for meals, I saw a program about people who were on food stamps. The show followed them as they shopped and showed how true their complaint was---the amount of food stamps was not enough to last to the end of the month. Even then I was appalled at the shopping habits of those subjects of the show. One person was filling the cart with more expensive cuts of meat like pork chops instead of ground meat which can be stretched, and cheaper roasts. At the time it never occurred to me to ask why she wasn't filling the cart with potatoes and rice which, of course, would have given her plenty of nourishment and allowed her to stretch those food stamp dollars. I was just thinking that person needs a mentor to show her how to shop (for the meat) more wisely.

I wish that food bank program out in california could be de rigour all over the country. Everyone might not follow the advice but at least the word would be out there. I often thought that sometimes the poor need mentors. My mom showed me how to shop and I showed my daughter when she got married.

didi

[GoodLife]

How did this conversation start out talking about the Greek financial crisis and the lack of food due to the lack of Euros and end up talking about the poor buying expensive cuts of meat in California? I don't get the connection.

[Spiral]

I just read that some pharmacies are running out of insulin to give to patients. This could be a problem for diabetics. But it could also be an opportunity to reverse insulin resistance with a starch based diet. Can you say "starch" in Greek?

One reporter is encouraging people to take a vacation in Greece:

The weather is just as stunning as it ever was this time of year; the archaeological sites just as interesting; the beaches just as magical; the food just as heart-healthy. The prices are significantly cheaper than usual. It is one of those rare everybody-wins situations.

I might agree with most of that. But not the part about the food being heart healthy. I don't think that most of the restaurants in Greece are serving vegetarian entrees without olive oil. People can save a lot of money if they quit the oil and choose rice instead of steak.

[BlueHeron]

I just read that some pharmacies are running out of insulin to give to patients. This could be a problem for diabetics. But it could also be an opportunity to reverse insulin resistance with a starch based diet. Can you say "starch" in Greek?

More likely, people are going to die from lack of medication.

If all of the insulin stores in this country were destroyed tomorrow, diabetics who wanted to turn to diet would go with the standard bad advice and cut down on starches even more. But a lot of people would just get sicker and sicker, experience more and more devastating symptoms, and finally die.

[Taggart]

Well from what I see, Greece has a lower rate of coronary heart disease than here in North America, so whether it's what they eat or something else, they must be doing something right over there.

[BlueHeron]

Ikaria, one of the Blue Zones, is in Greece. Residents have almost no chronic disease or dementia. According to the most recent Blue Zones book, their diet, although mostly plants, is 50% fat. Yet they have one of the highest rates of centenarians in the world. I was really shocked by the 50% figure and reread it several times. I am still trying to figure it out.

[dailycarbs]

This folds in nicely with the other discussion we're having about yo yo dieting.

Fast occasionally
Ikarians have traditionally been fierce Greek Orthodox Christians. Their religious calendar called for fasting almost half the year. Caloric restriction – a type of fasting that cuts about 30 percent of calories out of the normal diet – is the only proven way to slow the aging process in mammals.
https://www.bluezones.com/2014/03/ikari ... n-lessons/

[BlueHeron]

Extreme calorie restriction will slow aging if you are a mouse. Results in monkeys are mixed. It seemed to slow aging when the controls were obese, but not when they were of normal weight, but results in at least one study were dependent on the ages of the monkeys when calorie restriction began (interestingly, results were not positive when monkeys were started on calorie restriction at a young age).

Here's a 23-year study of monkeys showing that health markers were improved, but longevity was not.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/2012/0 ... t-survival

Generally mouse studies give information that helps scientists decide whether to proceed with human studies. Sometimes results in mice are vastly different from results in humans. There is no evidence that severe calorie restriction in humans is any better than the McDougall diet. If you want to try it, knock yourself out, but the level of restriction that's required sounds pretty miserable to me.

[Ltldogg]

Ikaria, one of the Blue Zones, is in Greece. Residents have almost no chronic disease or dementia. According to the most recent Blue Zones book, their diet, although mostly plants, is 50% fat. Yet they have one of the highest rates of centenarians in the world. I was really shocked by the 50% figure and reread it several times. I am still trying to figure it out.

Just because it is in a book does not make it true.

[dailycarbs]

Extreme calorie restriction will slow aging if you are a mouse. Results in monkeys are mixed. It seemed to slow aging when the controls were obese, but not when they were of normal weight, but results in at least one study were dependent on the ages of the monkeys when calorie restriction began (interestingly, results were not positive when monkeys were started on calorie restriction at a young age).

Here's a 23-year study of monkeys showing that health markers were improved, but longevity was not.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/2012/0 ... t-survival

Generally mouse studies give information that helps scientists decide whether to proceed with human studies. Sometimes results in mice are vastly different from results in humans. There is no evidence that severe calorie restriction in humans is any better than the McDougall diet. If you want to try it, knock yourself out, but the level of restriction that's required sounds pretty miserable to me.

2 out of the three longterm primate studies showed improved longevity and the one that didn't had some problems with methodology. CR consistently shows improvements in biomarkers that lead to health and longevity. We base many of our conclusions that our woe works on that same idea. It would be hypocritical to deny the same to CR.

As for level of restriction, benefits can be seen at below the 30% rate.

As to giving it a try, most of us here already are through the practice of calorie density.

CR is mainly an academic, truth seeking exercise for me. I am not promoting it or saying we should do it. Like most everything we know about nutrition and health, the studies continue and nothing can be deemed conclusive. We should be thankful for the work being done as many of the findings will help us to understanding health and longevity whether we calorie restrict or not.

My pet peeve is that I sometimes see a knee jerk reaction by people here regarding CR (not saying you). It reminds me of sad or paleo eaters when they are told of our woe. It's like their minds shut off because they assume, "potatoes and rice? That has to be wrong."

[BlueHeron]

Extreme calorie restriction will slow aging if you are a mouse. Results in monkeys are mixed. It seemed to slow aging when the controls were obese, but not when they were of normal weight, but results in at least one study were dependent on the ages of the monkeys when calorie restriction began (interestingly, results were not positive when monkeys were started on calorie restriction at a young age).

Here's a 23-year study of monkeys showing that health markers were improved, but longevity was not.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/2012/0 ... t-survival

Generally mouse studies give information that helps scientists decide whether to proceed with human studies. Sometimes results in mice are vastly different from results in humans. There is no evidence that severe calorie restriction in humans is any better than the McDougall diet. If you want to try it, knock yourself out, but the level of restriction that's required sounds pretty miserable to me.

2 out of the three longterm primate studies showed improved longevity and the one that didn't had some problems with methodology. CR consistently shows improvements in biomarkers that lead to health and longevity. We base many of our conclusions that our woe works on that same idea. It would be hypocritical to deny the same to CR.

As for level of restriction, benefits can be seen at below the 30% rate.

As to giving it a try, most of us here already are through the practice of calorie density.

CR is mainly an academic, truth seeking exercise for me. I am not promoting it or saying we should do it. Like most everything we know about nutrition and health, the studies continue and nothing can be deemed conclusive. We should be thankful for the work being done as many of the findings will help us to understanding health and longevity whether we calorie restrict or not.

My pet peeve is that I sometimes see a knee jerk reaction by people here regarding CR (not saying you). It reminds me of sad or paleo eaters when they are told of our woe. It's like their minds shut off because they assume, "potatoes and rice? That has to be wrong."

I would question whether people on this site are really following the CR restrictions. I went to a lecture by one of the CR researchers who works with mice, and he said maintaining the equivalent weight in humans would result in people who are alarmingly thin - like way below what's considered a healthy BMI. He specified a height and weight for men, but, unfortunately, I can't remember what it was.

By methodological problems in the primate studies, are you referring to the study that used leaner primates as the control group? I have seen that cited as a methodological problem, and I don't understand that. In fact, I think it would be better to compare the CR subjects to those who maintain a generally healthy diet and leaner weight to see whether it really has an advantage. (But maybe there are other methodological problems I haven't seen mentioned). When you compare any diet to the monkey equivalent of SAD (as at least one of the other studies does), it's not surprising that the group with the restricted diet would be healthier.

But of course, it's a very complicated field of research, which neither of us is going to do justice to with the time, space, and knowledge we have here (unless you're actually a researcher, and I don't know it - I'm just a lowly medical editor who has taken a few workshops in medical statistics). And if exploring it even just academically is interesting and fulfilling for you, then you should. It is certainly interesting.

I know what you mean about knee-jerk reactions. My own pet peeve is people who search high and low for so-called methodological problems and conflicts of interest when they don't like results, but ignore both when studies fulfill their preconceived beliefs (also, not saying you).