Mediterranean diet good for the heart

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Roman Bystrianyk, Nov 28, 2005.

  1. "Mediterranean diet good for the heart", Reuters UK, November 28, 2005,
    Link:
    http://www.healthsentinel.com/admin.php?table_name=news&adminEvent=add_table_item

    Eating a Mediterranean-style diet for three months can reduce the risk
    of heart disease by 15 percent, a new study shows.

    The heart-healthy effects of the Mediterranean diet -- rich in whole
    grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and fish and olive oil and light on
    red meat -- are well documented, Dr. Denis Lairon of the Faculty of
    Medicine Timone in Marseille, France and colleagues note in the
    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. But just one other study has
    looked at what happens when healthy people are actually put on a
    Mediterranean-style diet.

    To investigate, the researchers assigned 212 men and women at moderate
    risk for heart disease to eat a Mediterranean diet or a standard
    low-fat diet for three months. Participants on the Mediterranean diet
    were instructed to eat fish four times a week and red meat only once a
    week. Men were allowed two glasses of red wine daily, while women were
    limited to one.

    Recommendations for people on the low-fat diet were to eat poultry
    rather than beef, pork and other mammal meats; eat fish two or three
    times a week; stay away from animal products rich in saturated fat; and
    eat fruit and vegetables, low-fat dairy products, and vegetable oils.

    While study participants did not follow all diet recommendations, the
    researchers found, eating habits did change in both groups. Study
    participants took in fewer calories and consumed more proteins and
    carbohydrates and less total fat and saturated fat. Both groups showed
    a small but significant drop in body mass index.

    Among people on the Mediterranean diet, total cholesterol dropped by
    7.5 percent, and it fell by 4.5 percent in the low-fat diet group.
    Based on this reduction, the researchers write, overall cardiovascular
    risk fell 15 percent with the Mediterranean diet and 9 percent with the
    low fat diet.

    "Both diets significantly reduced cardiovascular disease risk factors
    to an overall comparable extent," the researchers conclude.

    SOURCE; American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 1, 2005.

    Am J Clin Nutr 2005;82:964-971.
     
    Tags:


  2. Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
    >
    > "Mediterranean diet good for the heart", Reuters UK, November 28, 2005,
    > Link:
    > http://www.healthsentinel.com/admin.php?table_name=news&adminEvent=add_table_item
    >
    > Eating a Mediterranean-style diet for three months can reduce the risk
    > of heart disease by 15 percent, a new study shows.
    >
    > The heart-healthy effects of the Mediterranean diet -- rich in whole
    > grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and fish and olive oil and light on
    > red meat -- are well documented, Dr. Denis Lairon of the Faculty of
    > Medicine Timone in Marseille, France and colleagues note in the
    > American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. But just one other study has
    > looked at what happens when healthy people are actually put on a
    > Mediterranean-style diet.
    >
    > To investigate, the researchers assigned 212 men and women at moderate
    > risk for heart disease to eat a Mediterranean diet or a standard
    > low-fat diet for three months. Participants on the Mediterranean diet
    > were instructed to eat fish four times a week and red meat only once a
    > week. Men were allowed two glasses of red wine daily, while women were
    > limited to one.
    >
    > Recommendations for people on the low-fat diet were to eat poultry
    > rather than beef, pork and other mammal meats; eat fish two or three
    > times a week; stay away from animal products rich in saturated fat; and
    > eat fruit and vegetables, low-fat dairy products, and vegetable oils.
    >
    > While study participants did not follow all diet recommendations, the
    > researchers found, eating habits did change in both groups. Study
    > participants took in fewer calories and consumed more proteins and
    > carbohydrates and less total fat and saturated fat. Both groups showed
    > a small but significant drop in body mass index.


    Those who want a clinically significant permanent reduction in body mass
    index would be wise to ask their doctor to supervise the addition of the
    2PD-OMER Approach dovetailed to their current diet whether it be
    Mediterranean or low-fat.

    > Among people on the Mediterranean diet, total cholesterol dropped by
    > 7.5 percent, and it fell by 4.5 percent in the low-fat diet group.
    > Based on this reduction, the researchers write, overall cardiovascular
    > risk fell 15 percent with the Mediterranean diet and 9 percent with the
    > low fat diet.
    >
    > "Both diets significantly reduced cardiovascular disease risk factors
    > to an overall comparable extent," the researchers conclude.
    >
    > SOURCE; American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 1, 2005.
    >
    > Am J Clin Nutr 2005;82:964-971.


    This article reiterates the point that diets do **not** bring about
    clinically meaningful amounts of permanent weight loss but do have a
    role in overall health (aside from addressing the problems arising from
    obesity).

    Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
    like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
    this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):

    http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

    For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
    the LORD has reshaped me:

    http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

    In Christ's love always,

    Andrew
    http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
     
  3. GaryG

    GaryG Guest

    "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
    > >
    > > "Mediterranean diet good for the heart", Reuters UK, November 28, 2005,
    > > Link:
    > >

    http://www.healthsentinel.com/admin.php?table_name=news&adminEvent=add_table_item
    > >
    > > Eating a Mediterranean-style diet for three months can reduce the risk
    > > of heart disease by 15 percent, a new study shows.
    > >
    > > The heart-healthy effects of the Mediterranean diet -- rich in whole
    > > grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and fish and olive oil and light on
    > > red meat -- are well documented, Dr. Denis Lairon of the Faculty of
    > > Medicine Timone in Marseille, France and colleagues note in the
    > > American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. But just one other study has
    > > looked at what happens when healthy people are actually put on a
    > > Mediterranean-style diet.
    > >
    > > To investigate, the researchers assigned 212 men and women at moderate
    > > risk for heart disease to eat a Mediterranean diet or a standard
    > > low-fat diet for three months. Participants on the Mediterranean diet
    > > were instructed to eat fish four times a week and red meat only once a
    > > week. Men were allowed two glasses of red wine daily, while women were
    > > limited to one.
    > >
    > > Recommendations for people on the low-fat diet were to eat poultry
    > > rather than beef, pork and other mammal meats; eat fish two or three
    > > times a week; stay away from animal products rich in saturated fat; and
    > > eat fruit and vegetables, low-fat dairy products, and vegetable oils.
    > >
    > > While study participants did not follow all diet recommendations, the
    > > researchers found, eating habits did change in both groups. Study
    > > participants took in fewer calories and consumed more proteins and
    > > carbohydrates and less total fat and saturated fat. Both groups showed
    > > a small but significant drop in body mass index.

    >
    > Those who want a clinically significant permanent reduction in body mass
    > index would be wise to ask their doctor to supervise the addition of the
    > 2PD-OMER Approach dovetailed to their current diet whether it be
    > Mediterranean or low-fat.


    Until it's been studied by real scientists, and the results published in a
    recognized, peer-reviewed journal, your "2 Pound Diet" has no more
    credibility than all the other weird diets being promoted by crackpots and
    fanatics.

    >
    > > Among people on the Mediterranean diet, total cholesterol dropped by
    > > 7.5 percent, and it fell by 4.5 percent in the low-fat diet group.
    > > Based on this reduction, the researchers write, overall cardiovascular
    > > risk fell 15 percent with the Mediterranean diet and 9 percent with the
    > > low fat diet.
    > >
    > > "Both diets significantly reduced cardiovascular disease risk factors
    > > to an overall comparable extent," the researchers conclude.
    > >
    > > SOURCE; American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 1, 2005.
    > >
    > > Am J Clin Nutr 2005;82:964-971.

    >
    > This article reiterates the point that diets do **not** bring about
    > clinically meaningful amounts of permanent weight loss but do have a
    > role in overall health (aside from addressing the problems arising from
    > obesity).
    >
    > Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
    > like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
    > this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/cpayh
    >
    > For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
    > the LORD has reshaped me:
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
    >
    > In Christ's love always,
    >
    > Andrew
    > http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
     
  4. GaryG wrote:
    >
    > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Roman Bystrianyk wrote:


    <snip>

    > > > While study participants did not follow all diet recommendations, the
    > > > researchers found, eating habits did change in both groups. Study
    > > > participants took in fewer calories and consumed more proteins and
    > > > carbohydrates and less total fat and saturated fat. Both groups showed
    > > > a small but significant drop in body mass index.

    > >
    > > Those who want a clinically significant permanent reduction in body mass
    > > index would be wise to ask their doctor to supervise the addition of the
    > > 2PD-OMER Approach dovetailed to their current diet whether it be
    > > Mediterranean or low-fat.

    >
    > Until it's been studied by real scientists,


    It has.

    > and the results published in a
    > recognized, peer-reviewed journal,


    It will be.

    > your "2 Pound Diet"


    The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.

    > has no more
    > credibility than all the other weird diets


    The 2PD-OMER Approach is not weird.

    > being promoted by crackpots and
    > fanatics.


    Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.

    > > > Among people on the Mediterranean diet, total cholesterol dropped by
    > > > 7.5 percent, and it fell by 4.5 percent in the low-fat diet group.
    > > > Based on this reduction, the researchers write, overall cardiovascular
    > > > risk fell 15 percent with the Mediterranean diet and 9 percent with the
    > > > low fat diet.
    > > >
    > > > "Both diets significantly reduced cardiovascular disease risk factors
    > > > to an overall comparable extent," the researchers conclude.
    > > >
    > > > SOURCE; American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 1, 2005.
    > > >
    > > > Am J Clin Nutr 2005;82:964-971.

    > >
    > > This article reiterates the point that diets do **not** bring about
    > > clinically meaningful amounts of permanent weight loss but do have a
    > > role in overall health (aside from addressing the problems arising from
    > > obesity).


    Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
    like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
    this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):

    http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

    For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
    the LORD has reshaped me:

    http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

    In Christ's love always,

    Andrew
    http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
     
  5. GaryG wrote:
    > Until it's been studied by real scientists, and the results published in a
    > recognized, peer-reviewed journal, your "2 Pound Diet" has no more
    > credibility than all the other weird diets being promoted by crackpots and
    > fanatics.



    COMMENT:

    Agree. And even this diet has the same problems any other diet has.
    They all work in the short term. You could put people on the "Aisle 3
    diet" in which they were allowed to eat anything they could buy on
    Aisle 3, and they'd lose weight because they wouldn't be eating what
    they liked, and they'd start to get sick of the limited selection what
    they didn't. The main cause of obesity in the US is we can have
    anything we want, or have a temporary craving for, any time we want,
    very cheaply.

    You know what diet we'll never see in a book? The Swiss diet. Which is
    a hell of a lot of milk, butter, cheese and chocolate, and not nearly
    as much fish, olives and wine as the Italians, French and Greeks get.
    But you know what? The Swiss, with life expectancy 80, outlive the
    "Mediterraneans" and French by a about a year, and only the Japanese do
    better than the Swiss (by about a year). Mediterranean diet: 79 Swiss
    diet: 80. Japanese diet 81. Big deal.

    You know WHY you'll never see the Swiss diet in a book? Because the
    health of the Swiss isn't explained by ANY dietary theory. It's
    supported by a lot of epidemiology which suggests that milk is good for
    you if you can tolerate it, but nobody pays any attension to those
    studies, not even nutritionists. So there you are. The French and the
    Italians and Greeks and the Japanese get all the press, and the Swiss
    never will. There are so many paradoxes in the Swiss diet that it's not
    even seen as a paradox. Instead, people ignore it completely because it
    trips all their mental circuit-breakers and they can't deal with it at
    all.

    Human nature.

    SBH
     
  6. montygram

    montygram Guest

    And you can reduce risk by at least 90 percent by going on an Asian
    atoll diet, rich in fresh coconut, and animals that are fed coconut,
    including chicken and pigs.
     
  7. John de Hoog

    John de Hoog Guest

    On 28 Nov 2005 14:49:15 -0800, "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The Swiss, with life expectancy 80, outlive the
    >"Mediterraneans" and French by a about a year, and only the Japanese do
    >better than the Swiss (by about a year). Mediterranean diet: 79 Swiss
    >diet: 80. Japanese diet 81. Big deal.


    Also right up near the top are Hong Kong(!) and Australia. And a study
    a few years ago of *healthy* longevity (i.e., how long people on
    average live before becoming incapacitated) rated Japan first,
    followed closely by Australia.

    There are quite a few successful diets. It would seem obvious, too,
    that life style factors other than diet need to be considered. Poverty
    levels could be the most important factor of all. So maybe, rather
    than doing cross-country studies, someone should compare different
    diets across people of the same economic status.

    jdh
     
  8. fresh~horses

    fresh~horses Guest

    Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
    > GaryG wrote:
    > > Until it's been studied by real scientists, and the results published in a
    > > recognized, peer-reviewed journal, your "2 Pound Diet" has no more
    > > credibility than all the other weird diets being promoted by crackpots and
    > > fanatics.

    >
    >
    > COMMENT:
    >
    > Agree. And even this diet has the same problems any other diet has.
    > They all work in the short term. You could put people on the "Aisle 3
    > diet" in which they were allowed to eat anything they could buy on
    > Aisle 3, and they'd lose weight because they wouldn't be eating what
    > they liked, and they'd start to get sick of the limited selection what
    > they didn't. The main cause of obesity in the US is we can have
    > anything we want, or have a temporary craving for, any time we want,
    > very cheaply.
    >
    > You know what diet we'll never see in a book? The Swiss diet. Which is
    > a hell of a lot of milk, butter, cheese and chocolate,


    Sure you will. Go here:
    http://www.westonaprice.org/index.html

    Not that I'm advocating it.


    and not nearly
    > as much fish, olives and wine as the Italians, French and Greeks get.
    > But you know what? The Swiss, with life expectancy 80, outlive the
    > "Mediterraneans" and French by a about a year, and only the Japanese do
    > better than the Swiss (by about a year). Mediterranean diet: 79 Swiss
    > diet: 80. Japanese diet 81. Big deal.
    >
    > You know WHY you'll never see the Swiss diet in a book? Because the
    > health of the Swiss isn't explained by ANY dietary theory. It's
    > supported by a lot of epidemiology which suggests that milk is good for
    > you if you can tolerate it, but nobody pays any attension to those
    > studies, not even nutritionists. So there you are. The French and the
    > Italians and Greeks and the Japanese get all the press, and the Swiss
    > never will. There are so many paradoxes in the Swiss diet that it's not
    > even seen as a paradox. Instead, people ignore it completely because it
    > trips all their mental circuit-breakers and they can't deal with it at
    > all.
    >
    > Human nature.
    >
    > SBH



    Milk is especially yummy when it's Kefir, or Stilton cheese.
     
  9. "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" wrote:
    >
    > GaryG wrote:
    > > Until it's been studied by real scientists, and the results published in a
    > > recognized, peer-reviewed journal, your "2 Pound Diet" has no more
    > > credibility than all the other weird diets being promoted by crackpots and
    > > fanatics.

    >
    > COMMENT:
    >
    > Agree. And even this diet has the same problems any other diet has.


    The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.

    > They all work in the short term. You could put people on the "Aisle 3
    > diet" in which they were allowed to eat anything they could buy on
    > Aisle 3, and they'd lose weight because they wouldn't be eating what
    > they liked, and they'd start to get sick of the limited selection what
    > they didn't.


    There is no limited selection with the 2PD-OMER Approach... just limits
    on amount.

    > The main cause of obesity in the US is we can have
    > anything we want, or have a temporary craving for, any time we want,
    > very cheaply.


    Incorrect. The main cause of obesity is fear of hunger amplified by
    marketing successes at amplifying this fear.

    > You know what diet we'll never see in a book? The Swiss diet. Which is
    > a hell of a lot of milk, butter, cheese and chocolate, and not nearly
    > as much fish, olives and wine as the Italians, French and Greeks get.
    > But you know what? The Swiss, with life expectancy 80, outlive the
    > "Mediterraneans" and French by a about a year, and only the Japanese do
    > better than the Swiss (by about a year). Mediterranean diet: 79 Swiss
    > diet: 80. Japanese diet 81. Big deal.


    Prediction for those using the 2PD-OMER Approach dovetailed with any
    sensible diet (Mediterranean, Swiss, Japanese or Polymeal):

    150 years.

    > You know WHY you'll never see the Swiss diet in a book? Because the
    > health of the Swiss isn't explained by ANY dietary theory. It's
    > supported by a lot of epidemiology which suggests that milk is good for
    > you if you can tolerate it, but nobody pays any attension to those
    > studies, not even nutritionists. So there you are. The French and the
    > Italians and Greeks and the Japanese get all the press, and the Swiss
    > never will. There are so many paradoxes in the Swiss diet that it's not
    > even seen as a paradox. Instead, people ignore it completely because it
    > trips all their mental circuit-breakers and they can't deal with it at
    > all.


    Your observation leads to the conclusion that dietary theory is flawed.

    Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is **not** a diet.

    Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
    like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
    this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):

    http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

    For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
    the LORD has reshaped me:

    http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

    In Christ's love always,

    Andrew
    http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
     
  10. "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > GaryG wrote:
    >> Until it's been studied by real scientists, and the results published in
    >> a
    >> recognized, peer-reviewed journal, your "2 Pound Diet" has no more
    >> credibility than all the other weird diets being promoted by crackpots
    >> and
    >> fanatics.

    >
    >
    > COMMENT:
    >
    > Agree. And even this diet has the same problems any other diet has.
    > They all work in the short term. You could put people on the "Aisle 3
    > diet" in which they were allowed to eat anything they could buy on
    > Aisle 3,


    LOL. For extremely rapid weight loss, we especially
    recommend restriction to the paper products aisle.
    Tried stewed paper towels.

    > and they'd lose weight because they wouldn't be eating what
    > they liked, and they'd start to get sick of the limited selection what
    > they didn't. The main cause of obesity in the US is we can have
    > anything we want, or have a temporary craving for, any time we want,
    > very cheaply.
    >
    > You know what diet we'll never see in a book? The Swiss diet. Which is
    > a hell of a lot of milk, butter, cheese and chocolate, and not nearly
    > as much fish, olives and wine as the Italians, French and Greeks get.
    > But you know what? The Swiss, with life expectancy 80, outlive the
    > "Mediterraneans" and French by a about a year, and only the Japanese do
    > better than the Swiss (by about a year). Mediterranean diet: 79 Swiss
    > diet: 80. Japanese diet 81. Big deal.
    >
    > You know WHY you'll never see the Swiss diet in a book? Because the
    > health of the Swiss isn't explained by ANY dietary theory. It's
    > supported by a lot of epidemiology which suggests that milk is good for
    > you if you can tolerate it, but nobody pays any attension to those
    > studies, not even nutritionists. So there you are. The French and the
    > Italians and Greeks and the Japanese get all the press, and the Swiss
    > never will. There are so many paradoxes in the Swiss diet that it's not
    > even seen as a paradox. Instead, people ignore it completely because it
    > trips all their mental circuit-breakers and they can't deal with it at
    > all.
    >
    > Human nature.
    >
    > SBH
    >
     
  11. George Cherry wrote:
    > "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > GaryG wrote:
    > >> Until it's been studied by real scientists, and the results published in
    > >> a
    > >> recognized, peer-reviewed journal, your "2 Pound Diet" has no more
    > >> credibility than all the other weird diets being promoted by crackpots
    > >> and
    > >> fanatics.

    > >
    > >
    > > COMMENT:
    > >
    > > Agree. And even this diet has the same problems any other diet has.
    > > They all work in the short term. You could put people on the "Aisle 3
    > > diet" in which they were allowed to eat anything they could buy on
    > > Aisle 3,

    >
    > LOL. For extremely rapid weight loss, we especially
    > recommend restriction to the paper products aisle.
    > Tried stewed paper towels.



    COMMENT:

    Yeah, I knew somebody was going to note that you'd get pretty thin in
    the feminine hygeine section. But you get the point.

    Interesting article by Sapolski in the week's Sci. American, who points
    out that there's a terrible health gradient across socioeconomic class,
    even in countries with fully socialized medicine like Britain. And only
    a third of it is explained by smoking and other bad lifestyle choices.
    It shows up even in things like diabetes type I incidence, which isn't
    supposed to be very life-style related. We have no idea what's doing
    it. Sapolski opines that since it isn't dependent on absolute income
    (the relative poor of one country may be richer than the middle class
    of another, and yet they still die like lower-class) that it has
    basically to do with the "stress of feeling marginalized". Which is
    liberal-speak for what conservatives call dying of envy. Sapolski
    points out that many a graduate student lives on less income than the
    "poverty level" but the feeling is entirely different. I've heard by
    parents say much the same about the experience of living through the
    Great Depression-- so long as you're eating, it doesn't matter if
    you're poor, if everybody else is too.

    And it is true that alienation makes people do some awfully destructive
    things. Sapolski's spent his life looking at mortality rates in social
    animals, and any critters that aren't young or not alpha, do worse by
    any index. Turns out it's the same in humans.

    And the thing about Switzerland and Japan is that they are very
    cohesive societies. They may be very structured and heirarchical, but
    people are more sure of their place, and less fearful of losing it.
    That may make a big difference. Some of the states with the lowest
    mortality indicies in the US are places like Utah (a very cohesive
    society) and Hawaii (where the immigrants are rich Japanese and the
    natives have less of a sense of being left out). This compares with the
    worst places in the US, which are places like Lousianna. And everybody
    knows about Mississippi, goddamn (to quote Nina Simone).

    Now, Sapolski's fix on this is even more drastic income
    re-distribution. He even compiles a "Robin Hood" index of income
    inequality, and it maps pretty well with mortality in US states (but
    also, alas, with latitude and % caucasian consitution). I don't think
    it's that simple. I vote we start the redistibution with the profits
    from Sapolski's books, and see what he thinks....

    Failing that (destroying the entire market economy with confiscatory
    progressive taxation), there may be some things we can do to make
    American society more like that in Japan and Switzerland and Sweden and
    Utah and New Hampshire (which do just in mortality as Sweden can
    Canada) and other places were people live an awfully long time (on
    average) yet live and eat and play very differently. I don't think
    anything's going to happen until we take some of the same steps toward
    universal education, health coverage, and job security that societies
    with better health have. Hawaii has a pretty good state medicare
    system. Yes, we can have a libertarian dog-eat-dog society, but that's
    not much fun (and not very healthy) unless you're top dog.

    SBH
     
  12. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com <[email protected]> wrote:

    >You know what diet we'll never see in a book? The Swiss diet. Which is
    >a hell of a lot of milk, butter, cheese and chocolate, and not nearly
    >as much fish, olives and wine as the Italians, French and Greeks get.
    >But you know what? The Swiss, with life expectancy 80, outlive the
    >"Mediterraneans" and French by a about a year, and only the Japanese do
    >better than the Swiss (by about a year). Mediterranean diet: 79 Swiss
    >diet: 80. Japanese diet 81. Big deal.
    >
    >You know WHY you'll never see the Swiss diet in a book? Because the
    >health of the Swiss isn't explained by ANY dietary theory. It's
    >supported by a lot of epidemiology which suggests that milk is good for
    >you if you can tolerate it, but nobody pays any attension to those
    >studies, not even nutritionists. So there you are. The French and the
    >Italians and Greeks and the Japanese get all the press, and the Swiss
    >never will. There are so many paradoxes in the Swiss diet that it's not
    >even seen as a paradox. Instead, people ignore it completely because it
    >trips all their mental circuit-breakers and they can't deal with it at
    >all.


    I ran this by a friend of mine who is a nutritionist and specializes
    in obesity (and has spent many years living in Europe, though she
    lives in the US right now). Her comments:

    It's calories calories calories!! The Swiss eat tiny amounts and
    keep their weight down...
    He is as simplistic as those who say look at all the cheese and
    sauces the French eat, and yet.....Most Americans think that the
    French eat the way they do when they go to France i.e. restaurant
    food...If you stay with a French family, you will note that the
    amount of cheese consumed by an entire family at a meal is much less
    than what one American eats as an appetizer before any given meal!

    I argue all the time with the big wigs here, who think that they
    know cultural eating patterns but have never lived in those cultures
    to truly observe. In France, and in Switzerland, it is completely
    taboo to offer 2 rich foods in succession, or to have a second
    helping ...Here, there is no sense that one food is richer than
    another..


    Which just goes to show that we're not apt to have a definitive theory
    of nutrition any time soon.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
    -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
     
  13. Eric Bohlman

    Eric Bohlman Guest

    [email protected] (David Wright) wrote in news:c8ajf.774$_V5.317
    @newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:

    > I ran this by a friend of mine who is a nutritionist and specializes
    > in obesity (and has spent many years living in Europe, though she
    > lives in the US right now). Her comments:
    >
    > It's calories calories calories!! The Swiss eat tiny amounts and
    > keep their weight down...
    > He is as simplistic as those who say look at all the cheese and
    > sauces the French eat, and yet.....Most Americans think that the
    > French eat the way they do when they go to France i.e. restaurant
    > food...If you stay with a French family, you will note that the
    > amount of cheese consumed by an entire family at a meal is much less
    > than what one American eats as an appetizer before any given meal!
    >
    > I argue all the time with the big wigs here, who think that they
    > know cultural eating patterns but have never lived in those cultures
    > to truly observe. In France, and in Switzerland, it is completely
    > taboo to offer 2 rich foods in succession, or to have a second
    > helping ...Here, there is no sense that one food is richer than
    > another..
    >
    >
    > Which just goes to show that we're not apt to have a definitive theory
    > of nutrition any time soon.


    Actually, it shows that Americans have simply "misfocussed" when it comes
    to obesity; the American public persists in the belief that obesity is
    the result of not "eating right," where "eating right" is defined as
    eating "good foods" and not eating "bad foods." The division of
    individual foodstuffs into "good" and "bad" is actually a quasi-religious
    concept (think kosher vs. treyf, halal vs. haram) rather than a
    scientific one. The European version of "eating right" is the much
    simpler "anything in moderation" aka "don't pig out." It's a
    *quantitative* rather than *qualitative* view of eating, and meshes well
    with the known science. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of the
    mass-media audience for dietary advice is made up of women, and editors
    and advertisers are convinced that women won't read or listen to anything
    that smacks remotely of math.
     
  14. David Wright wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com <[email protected]> wrote:


    > >You know WHY you'll never see the Swiss diet in a book? Because the
    > >health of the Swiss isn't explained by ANY dietary theory. It's
    > >supported by a lot of epidemiology which suggests that milk is good for
    > >you if you can tolerate it, but nobody pays any attension to those
    > >studies, not even nutritionists. So there you are. The French and the
    > >Italians and Greeks and the Japanese get all the press, and the Swiss
    > >never will. There are so many paradoxes in the Swiss diet that it's not
    > >even seen as a paradox. Instead, people ignore it completely because it
    > >trips all their mental circuit-breakers and they can't deal with it at
    > >all.

    >
    > I ran this by a friend of mine who is a nutritionist and specializes
    > in obesity (and has spent many years living in Europe, though she
    > lives in the US right now). Her comments:
    >
    > It's calories calories calories!! The Swiss eat tiny amounts and
    > keep their weight down...
    > He is as simplistic as those who say look at all the cheese and
    > sauces the French eat, and yet.....Most Americans think that the
    > French eat the way they do when they go to France i.e. restaurant
    > food...If you stay with a French family, you will note that the
    > amount of cheese consumed by an entire family at a meal is much less
    > than what one American eats as an appetizer before any given meal!
    >
    > I argue all the time with the big wigs here, who think that they
    > know cultural eating patterns but have never lived in those cultures
    > to truly observe. In France, and in Switzerland, it is completely
    > taboo to offer 2 rich foods in succession, or to have a second
    > helping ...Here, there is no sense that one food is richer than
    > another..
    >
    >
    > Which just goes to show that we're not apt to have a definitive theory
    > of nutrition any time soon.




    COMMENT:

    Yes. Counting total kcal is very difficult, and practically impossible
    from a epidemiologic view, since it replies on food-disappearance from
    shelves, and we know how much of THAT gets wasted. And how cultural
    the difference between the amount bought and the amount eaten can be.
    America is a land of once-a-week shoppers and rotten produce tossers!

    In rodents, so long as there is adequate protein, EFA, and
    micronutrients, composition is relatively less important to life span
    and disease incidence, than is kcals. The calorie is far more
    carcinogenic than any fat.

    In humans the jury is still out on diet composition, mainly due to the
    atherosclerosis question that plagues primates, but not too much other
    species (unless they are VERY EFA deficient).

    I have a sister who lived in Switzerland for years. I'll have to ask
    her what the non-tourists eat there, and how they eat it.

    SBH
     
  15. David Wright wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com <[email protected]om> wrote:


    > >You know WHY you'll never see the Swiss diet in a book? Because the
    > >health of the Swiss isn't explained by ANY dietary theory. It's
    > >supported by a lot of epidemiology which suggests that milk is good for
    > >you if you can tolerate it, but nobody pays any attension to those
    > >studies, not even nutritionists. So there you are. The French and the
    > >Italians and Greeks and the Japanese get all the press, and the Swiss
    > >never will. There are so many paradoxes in the Swiss diet that it's not
    > >even seen as a paradox. Instead, people ignore it completely because it
    > >trips all their mental circuit-breakers and they can't deal with it at
    > >all.

    >
    > I ran this by a friend of mine who is a nutritionist and specializes
    > in obesity (and has spent many years living in Europe, though she
    > lives in the US right now). Her comments:
    >
    > It's calories calories calories!! The Swiss eat tiny amounts and
    > keep their weight down...
    > He is as simplistic as those who say look at all the cheese and
    > sauces the French eat, and yet.....Most Americans think that the
    > French eat the way they do when they go to France i.e. restaurant
    > food...If you stay with a French family, you will note that the
    > amount of cheese consumed by an entire family at a meal is much less
    > than what one American eats as an appetizer before any given meal!
    >
    > I argue all the time with the big wigs here, who think that they
    > know cultural eating patterns but have never lived in those cultures
    > to truly observe. In France, and in Switzerland, it is completely
    > taboo to offer 2 rich foods in succession, or to have a second
    > helping ...Here, there is no sense that one food is richer than
    > another..
    >
    >
    > Which just goes to show that we're not apt to have a definitive theory
    > of nutrition any time soon.




    COMMENT:

    Yes. Counting total kcal is very difficult, and practically impossible
    from a epidemiologic view, since it replies on food-disappearance from
    shelves, and we know how much of THAT gets wasted. And how cultural
    the difference between the amount bought and the amount eaten can be.
    America is a land of once-a-week shoppers and rotten produce tossers!

    In rodents, so long as there is adequate protein, EFA, and
    micronutrients, composition is relatively less important to life span
    and disease incidence, than is kcals. The calorie is far more
    carcinogenic than any fat.

    In humans the jury is still out on diet composition, mainly due to the
    atherosclerosis question that plagues primates, but not too much other
    species (unless they are VERY EFA deficient).

    I have a sister who lived in Switzerland for years. I'll have to ask
    her what the non-tourists eat there, and how they eat it.

    SBH
     
  16. Susan

    Susan Guest

    x-no-archive: yes

    Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:

    > I have a sister who lived in Switzerland for years. I'll have to ask
    > her what the non-tourists eat there, and how they eat it.
    >
    > SBH
    >


    Your mention made me curious, so I did some brief checking on the Swiss
    diet. One thing that leapt out at me was the number of abstract
    addressing the heart healthy cheeses and other dairy from Alpine grass
    fed cows. Very favorable fat content, tipping toward heart healthy fats.

    I've often mentioned that the studies of red meat consumption finding
    CVD risk elevations often miss the point that the conventional way of
    raising feedlot cattle in the U.S. creates an undesirable food product.

    That's for starters, before we get into whether the red meat in the
    studies was just a marker for fries and Coke with that or was cured meat.

    Susan
     
Loading...