From an interview with Nina Teicholz author of The Big Fat Surprise
Dr L: It seems the prevailing thinking on fat is that some fats, like olive oil, are the best for our health. You discovered in your research that the Mediterranean Diet is not what it’s cracked up to be. How did it come to pass that we all worship at the altar of olive oil?
Nina: The Mediterranean Diet originated from a survey of the eating habits of long-living Cretan peasants in the 1950s, who seemed to eat very little meat or dairy. However, they were surveyed shortly after WWII, when their economy was in ruins. Also, their diet was sampled during
Lent, when animal foods were severely restricted. The data was therefore not any good and never grew any better. In fact, the reason that the Mediterranean Diet became celebrated and famous is that researchers fell in love with the sun-kissed, enchanting Mediterranean—and most of their studies and travel were funded by the olive-oil industry. It’s amazing how researchers, including some of the most respected people in the field today, thrived on the Mediterranean Diet conference junket. The actual science is far from impressive: it can only show that this diet is superior to the failed, low-fat diet (and what diet isn’t?). Tested against a higher fat diet, the Mediterranean regime looks far less impressive for weight loss or heart disease. Also, no one’s ever been able to pinpoint any special, disease-fighting powers of olive oil—which turns out not to be an ancient foodstuff after all but a relatively recent introduction to the Mediterranean diet.
http://www.drfranklipman.com/big-fat-surprise-a-conversation-with-nina-teicholz/
Hello
I take your point, but it's a reference from an opinion of funded science or study, in a narrow timescale.
Take a holistic approach for a moment, the Med diet didn't start in the 1950's, that's simply the study reference point.
I do appreciate it's findings but if we considered that their lifestyle started in the fifties then we're very much mistaken, their diet, lifestyle and culture has been modelled into what they are now for hundreds of years.
When I was last there almost all the men smoked, (not an example I advocate) still, statistically they remain a nation who have one of the biggest lifespans in the world.
Do we think Vegetarianism was invented in 1944?
The term vegan was, but if we believe there weren't practicing vegetarians before then then that's frankly silly, take several Indian cultures as an example.
On that point I will also add that Vegans have an incredibly good record when it comes to heart disease.
We could go on, but where does it end, from Atkins to Paleo there are advocates and doubters yet science insists on debunk and classification.
God help homeopathy then.
If anyone says to me that's cobblers I say then sniffing Glue doesn't have a reaction either? (I don't).
I have learned to keep an open mind and if you see my previous threads you'll see that I'm med free type 2. So I can say with some confidence that I'm doing okay.
I respect all viewpoints on this thread and it makes me think of how butter got such a bad rap yet once again I'm hearing the words super food in the same sentence.
As anyone to takes a positive approach to their health on these forums will tell you we all have different approaches and medications or diets which we workaround to better ourselves.
But of late there is a trend for one article to vent via social media which tells you this or that is good or bad and I would rather not be so easily swayed myself. I can give you raspberry ketones as an example of this, or the jury being out on dairy products and non-dairy alternatives such as almond milk performing beyond expectations.
Everyone armed with a science paper or journal seems to be an immediate authority on a given subject.
This is a symptom itself on information now being so readily available on the internet.