The Men Who Made Us Fat

Grazer said:

Not around much over last few days, and away all next week,so apologies for lack of contributions. However, I would like to pick up on this "99.9% of Worlds leading experts...." bit. I understand that it's a bit of poetic licence to mean that YOU THINK everyone agrees about the dangers of fats. But it does suggest a level of information exists about this which isn't so, and when it comes from someone seen as an expert it can be misleading especially to a newly diagnosed diabetic. Unless of course there is evidence about this 99.9% in which case I apologise

Click to expand...

99.9% is 1 in a 1000
99.99% is 1 in 10000
There is an order of magnitude between the two made up numbers.

xyzzy said:

My information comes indirectly from one of the consultants there and is from a few months ago. At the time they were saying they were going to roll out some low carb dietary info and training. As T2 I don't get to see the consultants and GP's so that is as much as I know.

Actually I was there yesterday having my eye check up as that's where we all get sent in these parts. While I could still see I looked at all the advice that they had laid out on their boards and big TV screen. I was actually quite impressed. There was an emphasis on portion control which as I've always said is valid but within that they were pushing the importance of restricting starchy carbohydrates quite well although the "include some with every meal" was still there. They were heavily pushing restricting sugar far more than many of those PCT leaflets people have posted and gave useful info such as if you eat chocolate eat small amounts of dark chocolate. On fruit they emphasised not eating too much in anyone go and quite correctly they also emphasised fresh foods rather than processed ones. They stated all commercially labelled diabetic foods were rubbish and should not be purchased.

The only thing I could find to really disagree with was when their screen stated that two hour readings up to 12 were ok :shock: However they did state the NICE 4 - 7 fasting levels on the same screen. Maybe it's because they now only concentrate on T1 as with insulin resistant T2's saying 12 would likely mean many will never hit 4 - 7 fasting levels. An average T2's slow down in insulin response could mean that just as they were coming down from 12 on one meal they'd be raising again from the next but as I say that was really the only thing I could strongly disagree with before the eye drops took effect :lol:

Click to expand...

All sounds positive but what are their view on dietary fats as patients would need to replace their lost carbohydrates with fats?

If you don't know I'll wait to the end of the week as I'll be seeing my DSN at the DUK branch meeting, hopefully she'll have heard back from your hospital by then and will have some information to hand regarding their training and advice to diabetic patients and low-carb.

Thanks again!

borofergie said:

I agree that all considered opinions are valid, but it is perfectly possible (and, in fact, entirely likely) that made up statistics are wrong.

Reasoned estimates are fine, but it doesn't help intelligent argument when people throw in made up numbers such as "99.99%". Firstly it's representing a false consensus, and secondly it could easily be misinterpreted by someone less knowledgeable as fact.

Click to expand...

I'll tell you what I shall do then Stephen seeing how you agree with me that all opinions are valid, I won't use the 99.99% quote again if it offends and instead suggest that anyone wanting to know about fat in their diet should speak with their own Cardiology department at their local hospital or alternatively contact The British Heart Foundation, hope that that's a fair compromise!

This seems to have become a three, perhaps four way conversation over what are, I suspect, two different types of diet. I do understand that forums are like this (it doesn't matter if it's diabetes, photography, computers or classic cars) there are always this sort of debate and brickbats being chucked.

The trouble is it's not helpful for someone like me who, without having read enough to understand the implications of the diet I've chosen, is now worrying about 79% fat in my diet and the lack of protein but being completely clueless how to increase protein and not fat.

Is that a problem? I don't know - there are two schools of thought on this thread alone and people are chucking links back and forth like experts. To be blunt guys, how much of this stuff do you really know and how much is Google, because I want to make the right choices based on informed debate and experience. I don't have that option from my medical team and I'd sort of started to rely on getting it here.

RoyG said:

It seems to me Mr Bonkers is under the misconception that we are what we eat, and that people are to blame for the amount of Sugars no let me put that another way (Carbohydrates) and food consumed. I totally disagree with your stance on this. How would, could you Justify the misleading advertisements and poor information so freely given out not only by the Food company's but our own Government, as a nation we are told go the Low Fat route so you buy low fat food! its good for you, but no it's loaded with sugar.

Click to expand...

Low fat food is not loaded with sugar, processed fast food/tv dinners may be but there is a big difference and no government has ever said dont buy fresh food just buy microwavable junk. As for advertising, I assume that you dont go out and buy a new Volkswagen Golf every time you see an advert for one do you? Similarly it is still your choice what you buy both to drive and to eat, you cant blame food companies for wanting to make a profit, how many people do you think they employ, how many pensions are funded partly by investment in the food industry. No we are all responsible for our own destinies and we are free to make our own choices just as it should be.

RoyG said:

This is the **** that make me want to scream, How can this be legal and right for gods sake it is blatantly misleading.

http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/faq/ingredie ... betes.html

Click to expand...

Sorry but whats misleading in saying that sugar doesnt cause diabetes, it doesnt does it, or do you know different?

noblehead said:

All sounds positive but what are their view on dietary fats as patients would need to replace their lost carbohydrates with fats?

If you don't know I'll wait to the end of the week as I'll be seeing my DSN at the DUK branch meeting, hopefully she'll have heard back from your hospital by then and will have some information to hand regarding their training and advice to diabetic patients and low-carb.

Thanks again!

Click to expand...

You can trade your third party conversations against mine as much as you like it will be no more or no less valid than what I've said.

As to the advise on fats then no idea really. As I say the dietary advise I saw seemed to make sense to me in the most part, especially for T1's like yourself and seemed to be following the latest guidelines which emphasise controlling carbohydrates as they have the most effect on blood sugars which I see as a good thing. It still had the include starchy carb message but that is still in the UK official position statement so was to be expected. Whether if I spoke to a dietician there I would find I would agree what they advocate would work for the majority of diet only T2's like myself is another matter and can't comment on.

Oh for gods sake grow up. Some people don't have the money or education to know what we are eating is not all healthy, and the food giants are hoping for that. They don't care if we eat ****. And before the powers that be decided food should be labeled we didn't know what was in it either. Actually we didn't need to know because it was simple, flour, salt, yeast, water and a bit of sugar to make the yeast work. Butter, flour, sugar and eggs makes cakes etc. Then they started adding stuff that needed e numbers, fgs whats that about. Food should be unadulterated but it isn't and thats what makes us fat. Oh and cars and being afraid to let our kids out, and working in offices instead of labouring, but thats the 21st century.

noblehead said:

borofergie said:

I agree that all considered opinions are valid, but it is perfectly possible (and, in fact, entirely likely) that made up statistics are wrong.

Reasoned estimates are fine, but it doesn't help intelligent argument when people throw in made up numbers such as "99.99%". Firstly it's representing a false consensus, and secondly it could easily be misinterpreted by someone less knowledgeable as fact.

Click to expand...

I'll tell you what I shall do then Stephen seeing how you agree with me that all opinions are valid, I won't use the 99.99% quote again if it offends and instead suggest that anyone wanting to know about fat in their diet should speak with their own Cardiology department at their local hospital or alternatively contact The British Heart Foundation, hope that that's a fair compromise!

Click to expand...

Thanks Nigel, I agree that everyone should take the advice of their Doctors (while remembering that ultimately you need to take responsibility for you own health).

dawnmc said:

Oh for gods sake grow up. Some people don't have the money or education to know what we are eating is not all healthy, and the food giants are hoping for that. They don't care if we eat ****. And before the powers that be decided food should be labeled we didn't know what was in it either. Actually we didn't need to know because it was simple, flour, salt, yeast, water and a bit of sugar to make the yeast work. Butter, flour, sugar and eggs makes cakes etc. Then they started adding stuff that needed e numbers, fgs whats that about. Food should be unadulterated but it isn't and thats what makes us fat. Oh and cars and being afraid to let our kids out, and working in offices instead of labouring, but thats the 21st century.

Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly Dawn, But some cannot see the wood for the Trees. Blinkered maybe, I guess we all cannot be super Intelligent can we. Just go off what we are all told, like sheep to the slaughter.

Thank you for posting that dawnmc :thumbup:

I just want to know the truth about what to eat and how much of it and in what proportions. Not a thesis on the subject

swimmer2 said:

To be blunt guys, how much of this stuff do you really know and how much is Google, because I want to make the right choices based on informed debate and experience.

Click to expand...

Swimmer I would respectfully say that is the point in all of this. None of us are experts if you want expert then you need the medical proffesion. I can say 79% fat is fine, just look at mine or others "stats" for hBA1c and such like but others will tell you no way and try and persuade otherwise.

You have to view the argument in the context of who is arguing it as well. I will argue from the perspective of trying to get newly diagnosed diet only T2's to do LCHF because I think it works best for the vast majority of those newly diagnosed people or people such as yourself. Others are doing it from a T1 / T1.5 insulin using perspective etc so you need to take that into consideration as well.

Personally I try and base my arguments on logic rather than being a dietary expert as I recognise I'm not. I will give links to people opinions I'm sympathetic with or things I find of interest and yes will point out when I think someone is wrong.

When it comes down to it though the bottom line is if you fix the percentage of carbs in your diet "low" then sheer logic dictates you must have other percentages for fat and protein and all three have to add up to 100% or your complete diet.

The percentages are not the full story though, if only it were that easy!

Everyone needs a certain amount of energy (calories) intake per day to maintain their weight and the ability to actually function.

There are simple rules which apply to all dietary methods which is why diets become comparable. Those rules translate how grams of carbs, fat and protein convert to calories. For each gram of carbs you eat it counts as 4 calories, each gram of protein is also 4 calories and each gram of fat counts as 9 calories. That is what I base my logic on.

I don't know what your own calorific requirements are swimmer as they will depend on how much exercise and your current weight. As Phoenix and others like myself point out you can roughly calculate your requirements by using BMR or RMR. If I assume you are an average chap (sorry) then its likely to be around 2000 calories a day (some will say a bit more). Consequently if you fix your carbs to say 125 grams / day to keep your meter readings safe that will be giving you 500 (125 x 4) calories of your 2000 calorie requirement. You will therefore as an average man need to get 1500 calories from other sources. How you break down that extra requirement is up to you but it will either have to come from fat or protein. It can't come from thin air.

The simple fact that a) you wanted to fix the amount of carbs you eat and b) need to eat enough calories to function has at the moment and maybe unknowingly got you on a position of eating a 79% fat diet. If you want to reduce fat and up protein then simply research foods that are high protein and eat more of those while cutting back on fats. You can work how to change the ratios quite easily using the carbs / 100g, fat / 100g and protein / 100g figures you can find on the backs of things. My personal belief is eating a very high protein diet (much above 30%) is far worse than eating a very high fat diet.

Let's assume you agree with me and decide you want to aim for around 25% protein in your diet. Well 25% of your 2000 calorie a day required intake is again 500 calories or 125 grams based on the 1 gram of protein equals 4 calories rule. So you now have fixed two of your numbers in your diet. You are getting 500 calories from carbs by sticking to 125 g a day and now get another 500 from protein from the 125g of protein a day. So from carbs and protein you are now eating 1000 calories. As you need to eat 2000 calories the only way you can do that and maintain your weight and function is by eating 1000 calories of fat.

So now it comes down to choosing the kind of fat to make up that 1000 calories of fat. You could choose saturated or unsaturated fats etc. There is then an argument to be had whether one type of fat is better than another and those arguments get debated here too. Whatever fat you end up choosing you will need to be eating 1000 calories of them or 50% of your diet so on the example then overall regardless of what type of fats you decide are good or bad yo MUST end up as lchf as your ratios are 25% carbs, 25% protein and 50% fat.

So lets say that 50% "shocks" you and you decide to cut half the fat out of your diet but recognise eating too much protein is not good for you so try and keep that at the same 125 grams a day.

Well you can't eat more carbs because your readings as T2 will rise so effectively cutting fat in half in an attempt to lower your fat intake really just means you are eating 500 calories less per day. So you are now only consuming 1500 calories a day. However as we said our average man needs 2000 calories a day to maintain their weight and function so effectively you've just gone on a diet and will remain that way presumably until you reach a weight where your RMR says you will stop losing it. On 1500 calories a day a 5ft 6" man who is just over 50 year and doing minimal exercise a day would be predicted to end up around 7 stone before they stopped losing weight.

Saying that it does then effect your ratios as you are now getting 500 calories from each source so your ratios show 33% carbs, 33% protein and 33% fat. So yes you are no longer doing lchf but are on a permanent diet. When you see me write "the myth of a low carb, low fat, low protein diet" I mean it in that context. You can either believe I'm right or wrong again that is your choice.

My point is Swimmer I imparted that without stating a single food stuff as like yourself I don't claim special knowledge but I can choose LOGICALLY a ratio that is appearing from experiment (i.e my test results and what my GP says) to be working and some has evidence based research that I can read.

So really Swimmer there is no simple answer. You can't in most cases go see the NHS dietician as she will just tell you eat more carbs and take drugs and accept higher BG's. Other health services would tell you different things again. It is your choice.

Thanks xyzzy for taking the time to put together such a clear and thoughtful answer.

I am generally optimistic that this forum can be a resource for the newly diagnosed and the poorly advised. There is genuine help to people's outcomes that can be achieved with the right advice. In many ways that would be easier if this were a single issue site - by which I mean a single advice site - but perhaps that would be unpalatable in other ways.

I have had great results as a result of "my" diet. When I hear someone new on this site who is scared or sick or both, I can only suggest to them what works for me or keep quiet. In many cases the advice given (Daisy's post etc) is exactly what I have or would have said - of course it is, because it's the advice that I myself have followed. But from time to time we have a seeming 'clash of the titans' effect occurring - from established members of the forum (and yes, I'm afraid that includes you xyzzy) who hurl rocks around. Maybe this is debate, but I find it unnerving because I have made radical changes to my diet and my body as a result and need some certainty. I've been on here for nearly 6 months and hundreds of posts - what does it look like to the newcomer who's still in a daze over their diagnosis ?

Sorry - this has strayed so far off the original post, which was about a programme that I for one enjoyed enormously and found very informative.

xyzzy said:

swimmer2 said:

You have to view the argument in the context of who is arguing it as well. I will argue from the perspective of trying to get newly diagnosed diet only T2's to do LCHF because I think it works best for the vast majority of those newly diagnosed people or people such as yourself.

Click to expand...

you can forget trying to get me to do that diet... I'm sticking to the Mediterranean diet food pyramid and enjoying it. If you keep the pasta and potatoes to small portions and mix it with plenty of olive oil or butter to lower the GL for the meal and also change to using wholegrains for baking, then it works well.

http://www.oldwayspt.org/resources/heritage-pyramids/mediterranean-diet-pyramid

http://www.oldwayspt.org/resources/heritage-pyramids/mediterranean-diet-pyramid/med-diet-health

Protect you from diabetes

Eating a diet with omega-3 fatty acids can improve insulin sensitivity.
Abete, I., D. Parra, A.B. Crujeiras, E. Goyenechea, and J.A. Martinez. "Specific insulin sensitivity and leptin responses to a nutritional treatment of obesity via a combination of energy restriction and fatty fish intake." Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 21.6 (Dec 2008): 591(10).

Adherence to a Mediterranean diet is associated with a reduced risk of diabetes.
Martínez-González MA, Fuente-Arrillaga C, Nunez-Cordoba JM, et al. Adherence to Mediterranean diet and risk of developing diabetes: prospective cohort study. British Journal of Medicine. 2008.

The lower risk associated with a Mediterranean-type diet suggests that diet could help reduce incidence of pre-diabetes after a myocardial infarction. Many, though not all, trials have indicated that a Mediterranean-type diet lowers risk factors linked to insulin resistance and diabetes, including serum triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, systemic inflammation, endothelial function, and insulin sensitivity.
Mozaffarian D, Marfisi R, Levantesi G, et al. Incidence of new-onset diabetes and impaired fasting glucose in patients with recent myocardial infarction and the effect of clinical and lifestyle risk factors. Lancet. 2007;370:667-75.

Several mechanistic links offer potential explanations of the Mediterranean diet's protective effect on obesity and type 2 diabetes. High consumption of vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, fish, cereals and olive oil, together with moderate consumption of alcohol, predominantly, wine, leads to high ingestion of dietary fiber, antioxidants, magnesium and unsaturated fatty acids. Additionally, this diet is characterized by a low degree of energy density overall, which might be particularly important for the prevention of weight gain.
Schroder H. Protective Mechanisms of the Mediterranean Diet in Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry. 2007;18:149-60.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I currently have high blood pressure and heavy deposits of cholesterol around my eyelids (Xanthelasma) as well as several stone of excess weight. My entire priority is to get down to a healthy weight safely and hopefully my impaired glucose tolerance along with my reduced insulin sensitivity will dissapear along with being able to reduce/stop my blood pressure medication and stop the statins.

PS, my doctor didn't even know what xanthelasma was when I showed him the yellow deposits around my eyes.

Also annoyed that my DSN is insistent upon low-fat versions of everything and also giving up cheese, butter and whole milk!!!

I told her to read the labels and see that low-fat IS NOT healthy and has loads of added sugars...

No One on this forum says you have to do anything, If they did it would be wrong. What you find is informed information from those members who have done what ever diet they have chosen, they may shout from the hilltops it works for them, and there is and will always be debates, as to whom and to which is the more beneficial, that's what forums are for, ADVICE and INFORMATION.

I myself never rush into something without first weighing up the angles and doing my own research as to the pro's and con's, it is up to each individual to asses if anything they decide to do regarding dietary or medical advice given. Will be or is suitable for them, and if they think it might be prudent to check with their GP or DSN if in any doubt first.

I tend to ignore the Banter or join in, and also look at the given evidence as most members do post links or give a good explanation as to their reasoning.

swimmer2 said:

This seems to have become a three, perhaps four way conversation over what are, I suspect, two different types of diet. I do understand that forums are like this (it doesn't matter if it's diabetes, photography, computers or classic cars) there are always this sort of debate and brickbats being chucked.

The trouble is it's not helpful for someone like me who, without having read enough to understand the implications of the diet I've chosen, is now worrying about 79% fat in my diet and the lack of protein but being completely clueless how to increase protein and not fat.

Is that a problem? I don't know - there are two schools of thought on this thread alone and people are chucking links back and forth like experts. To be blunt guys, how much of this stuff do you really know and how much is Google, because I want to make the right choices based on informed debate and experience. I don't have that option from my medical team and I'd sort of started to rely on getting it here.

Click to expand...

You have to make your own decisions Swim, you've seen the effect of the NHS diet on your diabetes.

To be honest, I'd be surprised if you really are eating 80% fat, that's what me and Lib do and it takes a fair amount of cream guzzling determination. I also doubt that you're eating too little protein. Your body knows how much protein to eat, and if you don't get enough then you'll appetite will make sure you eat some more.

I'd suggest that you evolved to eat meat and some vegetables, and not 50% of your diet from carbohydrates (especially not refined carbohydrate like flour or sugar). The consensus of the scientific community is that increasing the fat content of your diet is not associated with an increase in mortality. There is very little credible scientific evidence that suggests the opposite.

Judge by what your meter says, and by your blood lipid profile next time you have one done. 80% fat doesn't appear to have done me and Lib any harm., but you can probably get away with eating a few more carbs too.

Paul_c said:

Mediterranean diet food pyramid ....

Click to expand...

That Mediterranean regime is a good one Paul. It is one of the regimes my friends the Swedes also recommend in their national healthcare doc "Kost Vid Diabetes" that I go on about. I picked their reduced carbohydrate regime or their lchf option as the basis of the new person advise I give out. Unlike the UK which says a diabetic should eat the same diet as a non diabetic the Swedes and others recommend a range of options.

To keep things somewhat on track I bet it doesn't say eat loads of manufactured low fat "healthy" foods or HFCS but I must admit neither overtly does the UK although I personally think my saying we should adopt a 33% starchy carbohydrate intake and having the emphasis on "low fat" that it is very difficult for the average person not to end up filling themselves somewhat full of refined carbohydrates.

http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...rtikelkatalog/Attachments/18471/2011-11-7.pdf

swimmer2 said:

I'm afraid that includes you xyzzy

Click to expand...

Yes realise that Swimmer and I have no problem with you pointing that out it is a true statement and pointless denying it.

The only excuse is my rocks are painted all the same lchf colour and I try to say the same thing and impart the same consistent viewpoint because I think its important that people get to see the lchf alternative.

My views are counter to others on this forum who I believe generally think the NHS / DUK party line is ok and have said so either directly or in so many words countless times. I also oppose their apparent view that T2 is a largely self inflicted disease. I think the whole debate around that is incredibly important as accepting the self inflicted viewpoint means T2 diabetics like me and you are easy targets for blame rather than examining the actual facts derived from science and other causes.

If I and others stopped pushing all of that view then after a while who would get to hear that lchf alternative that's led to you adopting the regime you've chosen after you arrived here ? Would you take over Swimmer as someone would have to ? Would you have got your alternative from DUK or those who oppose lchf on this forum ?

I've often found it interesting to go back and read really old threads on the forum and seen there has been a long list of "names" who have done what I do now. It is very interesting to read what they said and the reaction they got and why they ended leaving or are nowadays just quiet so I am under no illusion that my presence here will be just as transitory. At some point I'll have had enough of it all and then I can pass my lchf baton onto someone else, maybe you Swimmer :lol:

So in my opinion if I and others didn't stand up for lchf then within a very short time this forum would be no different to DUK and would be pushing the familiar DUK party line and consequently its continued need of existing would in be undermined.

What would all the new members that I help do then?

xyzzy said:

Paul_c said:

Mediterranean diet food pyramid ....

Click to expand...

That Mediterranean regime is a good one Paul. It is one of the regimes my friends the Swedes also recommend in their national healthcare doc "Kost Vid Diabetes" that I go on about. I picked their reduced carbohydrate regime or their lchf option as the basis of the new person advise I give out. Unlike the UK which says a diabetic should eat the same diet as a non diabetic the Swedes and others recommend a range of options.

To keep things somewhat on track I bet it doesn't say eat loads of manufactured low fat "healthy" foods or HFCS but I must admit neither overtly does the UK although I personally think my saying we should adopt a 33% starchy carbohydrate intake and having the emphasis on "low fat" that it is very difficult for the average person not to end up filling themselves somewhat full of refined carbohydrates.

http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...rtikelkatalog/Attachments/18471/2011-11-7.pdf

Click to expand...

this bit on the Mediterranean Diet Pyramid did annoy me though:

http://www.oldwayspt.org/resources/heritage-pyramids/mediterranean-pyramid/overview

Dietary data from the parts of the Mediterranean region that in the recent past enjoyed the lowest recorded rates of chronic diseases and the highest adult life expectancy are characterized by a pattern similar to the one illustrated in the list below. The healthfulness of this pattern is corroborated by more than 50 years of epidemiological and experimental nutrition research. The frequency and amounts suggested are in most cases intentionally nonspecific, since variation was considerable. The historical pattern includes the following (several parenthetical notes add a contemporary public health perspective):

An abundance of food from plant sources, including fruits and vegetables, potatoes, breads and grains, beans, nuts, and seeds.
Emphasis on a variety of minimally processed and, wherever possible, seasonally fresh and locally grown foods (which often maximizes the health-promoting micronutrient and antioxidant content of these foods).
Olive oil as the principal fat, replacing other fats and oils (including butter and margarine).
Total fat ranging from less than 25 percent to over 35 percent of energy, with saturated fat no more than 7 to 8 percent of energy (calories).
Daily consumption of low to moderate amounts of cheese and yogurt (low-fat and non-fat versions may be preferable).
Twice-weekly consumption of low to moderate amounts of fish and poultry (recent research suggests that fish be somewhat favored over poultry); up to 7 eggs per week (including those used in cooking and baking).
Fresh fruit as the typical daily dessert; sweets with a significant amount of sugar (often as honey) and saturated fat consumed not more than a few times per week.
Red meat a few times per month (recent research suggests that if red meat is eaten, its consumption should be limited to a maximum of 12 to 16 ounces [340 to 450 grams] per month; where the flavor is acceptable, lean versions may be preferable).
Regular physical activity at a level which promotes a healthy weight, fitness and well-being.
Moderate consumption of wine, normally with meals; about one to two glasses per day for men and one glass per day for women. From a contemporary public health perspective, wine should be considered optional and avoided when consumption would put the individual or others at risk.

Click to expand...

my bolding on the bit I'm not happy about now that we know that the low-fat supposedly healthy options aren't really healthy...

and as far as I'm concerned... wine is always on the table so to speak... never optional.

I hope people realise that we're talking about a "proper" Mediterranean diet here and not the populist Italian Restaurant/Pizza House diet heavy on the pasta, lasagna and pizza and other bad highly refined carbs.

my bolding on the bit I'm not happy about now that we know that the low-fat supposedly healthy options aren't really healthy..

Click to expand...

I'd say my diet is Med influenced (well crossed with SW France.) The 'archvillain',well in some quarters, Ancel keys was very much involved in it's promotion as a healthy diet
As for low fat products, I think it depends on what you buy as low fat.
For a Med diet , it is really dairy that you are talking about and should simply mean that they have been made with skimmed or semi skimmed milk
If you read the labels carefully you will find that most versions of low fat cheeses and plain yoghurts are fine.
eg
Total 0% yoghurt ingredients : Pasteurised skimmed cows' milk, live active yoghurt cultures (L.Bulgaricus, S. Thermophilus, L. Acidophilus, Bifidus, L. Casei
(nothing but milk and the cultures used to ferment it)

From my fridge:
rustique (a low fat camembert type cheese) again just made with lait demi-ecreme ( half fat milk)
semi skimmed milk creme fraiche
I quite often buy skimmed milk feta (sheeps milk) more 'Medlike' Great for large Greek salads on a sunny day.

Not everything I use is low fat though
I use olive oil , supermarket for cooking, from a small producer as a dressing
Walnut oil, again for dressings
I include butter rather than any sort of low fat spread but don't use very much, we eat good bread and like the locals don't need to spread anything on it.
full fat creme fraiche (have to mix with low fat for sauces since low fat curdles)
I often buy goats cheese for lunch. (again more 'medlike' This isn't low fat but it is small, each little cheese weighing only 35g
If I have duck,very much a local product and fatty, I may use some of the duck fat with veg/potatoes ( duck fat is relatively high in unsaturated fats )

Dietary data from the parts of the Mediterranean region that in the recent past enjoyed the lowest recorded rates of chronic diseases and the highest adult life expectancy are characterized by a pattern similar to the one illustrated in the list below. The healthfulness of this pattern is corroborated by more than 50 years of epidemiological and experimental nutrition research.

Click to expand...

Having lived in the med for several year, I agree with the Med diet being very good.

However, the first paragraph I have quoted above is correct, and has been for many, many years. So having it updated to include low fat substitutes and warnings about the alcoholic astonishes me.

Why recommend a diet, then change it? It makes a nonsense of the article. Because the article is saying that the traditional diet is good. There is nothing to back up their tweaking, so the post-tweaking claims are unsubstantiated.

Its like saying that petrol is a very good fuel. It has been a very good fuel for many decades. We now recommend you add water to your petrol. As the effect of adding water to the petrol is bad........how can the manufacturers claim that, just because one part of their fuel (the petrol) is good, then petrol+water is also good? Doesnt make sense. :crazy:

Maybe its the same thinking as adding chocolate to fortified breakfast cereal - the good ingredients are supposed to make the bad ones either disapear, irrelevant, or inactive :lol: