Mediterranean diet good for the heart



R

Roman Bystrianyk

Guest
"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.
 
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
 
"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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
"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
 
"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
>
 
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
 
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
 
[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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back