Talk:Mediterranean diet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Added Images

I removed the Photo request template, as I added a couple of Images. --Inkiwna 22:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Inspiration

The article currently opens:

The Mediterranean diet is a modern nutritional model inspired by the traditional dietary patterns of some of the countries of the Mediterranean basin, particularly Southern Italy and Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, Turkey and Spain.

If I'm not mistaken, it was inspired principally by the diets of Southern Italy and Greece (Crete in particular). Dr. Ancel Keys' Seven Country Study included Yugoslavia, Italy, Greece, Finland, the Netherlands, United States, and Japan, and none of the other countries mentioned. Dr. Paul Dudley White worked in Calabria and Crete. Of course, since the original work, it has been broadened, but the original "inspiration" was Southern Italy and Greece. Comments? --Macrakis 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

--Goat Cheese-Malta-- Goat cheese is not only well and used in Malta but in various Mediterranean countries, so there is no need to specifically name Malta.

How about sheep's cheese? Maltese Gbejniet ae supposed to use sheep's cheese, actually. And Yogurt? is that a good source of calcium worth mentioning?

--Inkiwna 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC) --Wine--

I've edited the portion in the beginning that listed common foods of the Mediterranean diet. It used to say that certain staple foods are consumed in large amounts but then went on to say that wine is only consumed in a moderate amount. The fact is, wine, like any alcohol, is healthiest in a moderate amount, but that in no way means that the Mediterranean diet reflects that health concern. So now wine is listed along with the other Mediterranean staple foods with no mention of its measured consumption. The point of an encyclopedia is to speak of facts; not to distort facts in order to satisfy personal health concerns.

-- Strawberry Pudding Wings

--Can be added an external link to a Food chart?

I've tried to add the mediterranean diet food chart I've found on this website: http://www.mediterraneanbook.com/food-chart/ any problems? Thank you 82.49.46.114 15:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just a random blog, which under our policy on external links, is not appropriate. --Macrakis 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Ok...thank you. But what if I can't find a detailed Mediterranean food chart? This is the only I've found with detailed info and specific to the Med diet...the other website on the net give or recipes or the diet pyramid. What to do? 82.49.46.114 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A reputable non-profit, like Oldways, would be a good source, e.g. http://www.oldwayspt.org/med_pyramid.html . --Macrakis 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Ok...they are a great source but what I mean is that their food description is too short and not detailed. I think people have a lot of misconceptions on what are the main foods of this diet...they think only the Med diet is Olive Oil and pasta...but most of them don't know exactly what are the other foods and nutritional facts about them...I've had a look on other online food chart (try to do a search google for online food chart here ) but all are too generalist and owned by commercial websites...trust me the food chart above is the only non-profit I've found and the Mediterranean diet... 82.53.40.220 06:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Try a more focussed search. The words "food" and "chart" are very broad, and the word "online" is unnecessary. --Macrakis 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Ok 82.49.162.166 08:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition

Since the most common understanding of the Mediterranean Diet comes from the Mediterreanean Food Pyramid published by Walter Willett's group in 1995, I put this definition at the very top of the article. Does that sound reasonable? Since he states clearly that the pyramid is based on food patterns typical of Crete, much of the rest of Greece, and southern Italy in the early 1960s, I cut out the reference to Spain at the top of the article. As evidence that "everyone" uses Willett's definition, I am thinking about citing

MARIAN BURROS . Eating Well. New York Times. 2008-04-07. URL:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFD81438F93AA15750C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all. Accessed: 2008-04-07. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5WuCqjqyn)

The second paragraph now seems contradictory and confusing, and needs work, too. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I decided to put in the NYTIMES reference to show popular acceptance. If anyone knows of a better source or sources to back up the statement that WIllett's version is the most-accepted version of the Mediterranean diet, please fix it.

And I think the second paragraph is now OK. --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mediterranean diet" -- disambiguation

I think there are two uses of "Mediterranean Diet" being discussed here

• The definition developed by C. Walter Willett in his papers and books, and adopted by Oldways. I think this might be the meaning most understood by people who live outside the mediterranean basin. As Willett said, this diet is modelled on "food patterns typical of Crete, much of the rest of Greece, and southern Italy in the early 1960s"
• A description of commonalities and differences among current and historical food patterns in all parts of the Mediterranean Basin.

Is a disambiguation page needed? --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I did some work toward improving disambiguation, at the top of this article and Mediterranean Cuisine. Does this help, or do we need a real disambiguation page? --71.175.49.61 --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

More emphasis should be on Crete and Greece in the History section

I think it is worth noting exactly where the diets origins are, Crete, Greece. There isnt really an explanation of where it exactly originates..."Mediterranean basin" I believe the article says now, and it doesnt elaborate. I dont think there is any doubt about the origin of the diet among historians, dieticians and whatnot, so I think it should be included in the article since it is very important to the subject.

• Someone posted a link to a NYTimes article, I read this interesting article in the paper not too long ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/world/europe/24diet.html?ex=1379995200&en=ea0d87fc1c4f49e7&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

^The above article tells about how the traditional Mediterranean diet is being replaced by Western European and American cuisine in most Mediterranean countries--even in the country of origin, Greece. The article focuses on some stories of how the diet differs between the different generations in Greece and how the epidemic is negatively affecting their lives (obesity, diabetes, etc, etc). Maybe something like this could be mentioned, this seems like a notable trend.

• Oh, and if you want a source that shows the Mediterranean diet has its origins in Crete, the article says exactly that a couple times, even in a picture subtitle.

134.121.247.116 (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Correlative in nature

The article states, "The putative benefits of the Mediterranean diet for cardiovascular health are primarily correlative in nature; while they reflect a very real disparity in the geographic incidence of heart disease, identifying the causal determinant of this disparity has proven difficult."

At the same time, the article (correctly) cites the Lyon Heart Study, which was a randomized, controlled trial that demonstrated that the Mediterranean diet is causative, not simply correlative, in improving cardiovascular mortality. The study has several limitations, and I do not mean to suggest that it is the be-all, end-all. However, the sentence that I've highlighted seems to be overly dismissive of the role of randomized, controlled trials. Should it be modified? Antelan 20:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Other tropical countries"

Since when was NZ a tropical country that compares to the Med???? It's a mild climate - like the UK. Putting a reference number at the end of the sentence does not justify the argument. Science fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.236.29 (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

== I see that "Tropical Countries" has been changed to "Hot Countries". New Zealand is not a hot country, it has a similar climate to Ireland especially in the North Island where most of the population live. Only 43 percent of Australia lies in the tropics but some areas such as South Australia enjoy a Mediterranean climate (hot dry summers, cool wet winters). However comparing the whole of Australia and New Zealand with the Mediterranean is nonsensical, you might as well lump in Uruguay or Gabon or somewhere equally irrelevant to the argument. --MichaelGG (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Removed recently added text that appears to have come from here. Yobol (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of whether the "Mediterranean diet" is typical of the Mediterranean

User:Foudel and an anon (perhaps Foudel?) have repeatedly removed the paragraph explaining that the diet called the "Mediterreanean diet" is in fact not typical of most of the Mediterranean basin. This paragraph gives specifics of the ways in which it is not typical. Foudel counter-argues in edit summaries: "The northern Italian diet is not part of the Mediterranean diet. Its climate is colder and many foods that commonly grow throughout the Mediterranean basin don't grow in this type of weather". We agree that the northern Italian diet is "not part of the Mediterranean diet", just as "boeuf en daube" (a typical French Mediterranean dish) and cooking butter (typical of North Africa including Morocco, which of course is mostly on the Atlantic, not the Mediterranean anyway) are not "part of the Mediterranean diet". They are, however, part of the diet of the Mediterranean basin since after all these regions are part of the Mediterranean basin. The point of this paragraph is simply to clarify that the "Mediterranean diet" is not the same thing as "the diet of people living around the Mediterranean". --Macrakis (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph I removed states that the "Mediterranean diet" is not typical of most of the Mediterranean basin. This is incorrect.

In fact the Mediterranean diet is based directly on the similarities between the diets of peoples from all over the Mediterranean region. Here's the correct definition from the American Heart Association (which has been linked to on the article page for several years):

There's no one "Mediterranean" diet. At least 16 countries border the Mediterranean Sea. Diets vary between these countries and also between regions within a country. Many differences in culture, ethnic background, religion, economy and agricultural production result in different diets. But the common Mediterranean dietary pattern has these characteristics:

• high consumption of fruits, vegetables, bread and other cereals, potatoes, beans, nuts and seeds
• olive oil is an important monounsaturated fat source
• dairy products, fish and poultry are consumed in low to moderate amounts, and little red meat is eaten
• eggs are consumed zero to four times a week
• wine is consumed in low to moderate amounts

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4644

The paragraph I removed also inaccurately puts forth the idea that North African diets don't share this same dietary pattern. Actually, apart from the difference in wine consumption due to religious reasons, most of North Africa (including Morocco and Tunisia) shares this same Mediterranean dietary pattern -- including olive oil as a staple fat.

Indeed, Morocco recently joined a number of other countries that border the Mediterranean Sea in an initiative to get the "Mediterranean diet" added to the U.N World Heritage List: http://www.winenews.it/index.php?c=detail&dc=96&id=12340

The paragraph also inaccurately states: "In inland areas before refrigeration, fish was largely unknown, even in Greece and Southern Italy." Actually, Mediterranean fishermen have been preserving their fish for thousands of years, mainly by salting but also by preserving in brine or in oil, or through smoking or air-drying. This fish was not only brought inland, but was exported all over the Mediterranean region: http://www.cliffordawright.com/caw/food/entries/display.php/id/79

Also, fresh fish from rivers and lakes have always been available inland. Foudel (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right about salted fish. Thanks for the correction.

On the other hand, you seem to ignore the fact that animal fats have been important parts of the diet in many parts of the Mediterranean basin. I love olive oil -- and am happy about its health benefits --, and it is certainly the main traditional dietary fat in Greece, southern Italy, and southern Spain, however it is simply not correct that it is the predominant traditional cooking fat around the Mediterranean basin. In particular, much of central Italy and Spain use lard as the traditional cooking fat, much of northern Italy including Emilia-Romagna (which you seem to consider as not Mediterranean for some reason) uses butter, much of North Africa uses rendered sheep fat and cooking butter, and so on.

It is also important to clarify that these eating patterns have changed radically in the past 50 years, as people have gotten richer. When I was a child, in Crete, working people indeed ate very little meat simply because they could not afford it. Now, they can afford meat, and they can and do eat it often and sure enough have more of the diseases of the rich.

Please see the references in Cuisine of the Mediterranean for more discussion about the disconnect between the "Mediterranean diet" (a dietary recommendation) and the actual diet of Mediterraneans (a fact on the ground).

As for your controversial deletions of long-standing content, please stop that. Let's resolve this on the talk page first following WP procedures. --Macrakis (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for removing the fish section of that paragraph.

But there are still factual inaccuracies with that paragraph. Saying that the Mediterranean eating pattern is not typical of most of the Mediterranean basin is simply incorrect. As the American Heart Association points out, the diets of the Mediterranean are very varied -- but there is a common dietary pattern that is seen in most cultures who live in the Mediterranean basin. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4644S

Even Oldways, the respected non-profit who helped develop the Mediterranean Diet Pyramid points this out:

"This pyramid, representing a healthy, traditional Mediterranean diet, is based on the dietary traditions of Crete, much of the rest of Greece and southern Italy circa 1960, structured in light of current nutrition research ...Variations of this diet have traditionally existed in other parts of Italy, parts of Spain and Portugal, southern France, parts of North Africa (especially Morocco and Tunisia), parts of Turkey, other parts of the Balkan region, as well as parts of the Middle East (especially Lebanon and Syria). The diet is closely tied traditionally to areas of olive oil cultivation in the Mediterranean region." http://www.womenfitness.net/programs/nutrition/foodguidepyramid.htm

The other big inaccuracy is that the paragraph discounts the fact that olive oil is a traditional staple fat in North African countries and the Levant. I'm not disputing that sheep's tail fat and samna aren't used in these areas, but olive oil is at least equally important. Whereas the paragraph just says that sheep's tail fat and Samna are the staple fats.

So, if that paragraph is to be factually accurate, this is how it should read:

This diet is not typical of *all* of the Mediterranean basin. In central Italy, for instance, lard and butter are commonly used in cooking, and olive oil is reserved for dressing salads and cooked vegetables. In North Africa, wine was traditionally not consumed by Muslims. In both North Africa and the Levant, *along with olive oil,* sheep's tail fat and rendered butter (Samna) are traditional staple fats. Foudel (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think that is a good result. Thanks for working with me on it. By the way, though the AHA and Oldways are excellent sources for the "Mediterranean diet" (the modern nutritional recommendation) since after all they pretty much invented it, I don't think they're very good sources for the Mediterranean diet in the sense of "what Mediterranean peoples eat". They are, after all, advocacy groups who are using the appeal of tradition to promote this approach. Even they (in your quote above) mention that this diet is (or was) typical of "parts of" various countries. Interesting that Oldways itself describes its participants as "influential scientists, health professionals, chefs and media" -- they don't mention food scholars/historians/anthropoloogists at all.... --Macrakis (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

... here we are, a few years later. I went back and checked the Zubaida article cited in that paragraph. Here is what he says:

...The fact of the matter is that the Mediterranean contains varied cultures, and that Spain is in the minority of regions (the others are Greece and southern Italy) which use olive oil as a predominant medium or cooking....

[further down] What about olive oil? Few regions [he is now talking about the Middle East and North Africa] seem to use it in any significant quantities: parts of Greater Syria...and parts of Tunisia. Elsewhere it is a luxury product reserved for salad dressings. Turkey, a major producer, poses a puzzle. It is difficult to find olive oil used in cooking or dressing in restaurants, even on the Mediterranean and Aegean coasts.

So I have removed the "along with olive oil" -- it directly contradicts the cited source. --Macrakis (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You might have noticed I added a short paragraph regarding the position of UNESCO about the Mediterranean Diet, in which, even though there is not a word said about its real origins (I won't comment on that either, as I am not certain), it states that is is a representation of Spanish culture as well. In any case, and I am throwing just a thought here, I believe that the lack of references about the Mediterranean diet in the southern coastal region of Spain is related to the predominance of Greek and Italian representations as Mediterranean culture actors in the English-speaking world. --Translationista 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Translationista (talk • contribs)

I realize that these are important distinctions to make, but it is inappropriate for this topic to be featured so prominently in the article summary. To be more specific, nearly an entire paragraph is devoted to it before an explanation of the actual diet is even provided. This seems like a slightly know-it-all approach. 15:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)anon

Criticism

This article reads like an ad for the so-called "Mediterranean Diet". There is limited evidence that this diet is particularly healthy, and the name is misleading, since the diet is quite specific, and not representative of Mediterranean food.

The caption under the first photo makes me tend to agree with you. What exactly is copyright in the text? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Health Effects Paragraph

"The Mediterranean diet is high in salt content.[19] Foods such as olives, salt-cured cheeses, anchovies, capers, and salted fish roe all contain high levels of salt." so? --MichaelGG (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Portugal

An editor recently added the following material:

When Ancel Keys and his team of researchers studied and characterized the Mediterranean diet and compared it with the eating habits of the US and the most developed countries during that period, some identified it as the "Diet of the Poor". Portugal was included in their observations and studies, and Keys considered Portugal had the most pure "Mediterranean" diet. However, Salazar, the virtual dictator of Portugal, did not wanted the name of Portugal included in the diet of the poor.

Moreira, José Augusto (October 10, 2012). "Mediterrânica ou atlântica, eis a questão". Público (in Portuguese). Retrieved November 17, 2014.

Actually, the link is incorrect; it should presumably be [1] (I corrected this, but the editor blanket-reverted). Alas, the cited article contains a number of dubious assertions: "Conta-se que Portugal foi também incluído nas suas observações e estudos" (It is said that Portugal was also included in their observations and studies) -- do we have any evidence at all of this from Keys' publications? I don't think so. Then: "e aqui teria mesmo encontrado a dieta que considerava mais pura" (and that Portugal had the diet he considered the purest) -- again, evidence for this other than hearsay? Then: "mas Salazar tê-lo-á dissuadido de incluir o nosso país nas suas conclusões. O ditador não quereria ver o nome de Portugal inscrito na lista da dieta dos pobres!" (but Salazar dissuaded him from including our country in his conclusions; the dictator did not want the name of Portugal included in the list of the diet of the poor). Really? How would Salazar have even known about the study in advance? Would Keys even have cared what Salazar thought?

I will remove these dubious and unsubstantiated claims unless we can find better evidence for them. In the meantime, I'll just tag as dubious. --Macrakis (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A little more fact-checking shows that this is not dubious, but preposterous. The Seven Country Study never included Portugal, and it was first published (as a journal paper) in 1970, two years after Salazar became infirm. --Macrakis (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the remaining paragraph about Portugal, I doubt it belongs on this page. It is a magazine article with several people saying that the Portuguese diet is similar to the Mediterranean, but not the same, and that maybe it should be called "Atlantic" (or not). There is a reference to a medical article, which according WP:MEDRS doesn't belong here (not a survey article etc.). The whole paragraph should go, but I'd appreciate others' looking in on it. --Macrakis (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Review

doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.10.014 in Am J Med JFW | T@lk 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

France

Isn't it a bit odd to don't read any reference of the southern regions of France, specially Provence, who share basically the same mediterranean diet and could explain the famous french paradox ? Matieu Sokolovic (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well...

• This article is about a specific dietary recommendation, not about the actual diets of the people living around the Mediterranean (for which, see Mediterranean cuisine).
• The French paradox may not be a paradox at all (see the article), and anyway, most of France is not in the Mediterranean zone, and does not eat a Mediterranean-type diet. If there are good epidemiological reviews covering the diet of the Midi, they might be relevant here.
• The French paradox is already included in the see-also section.

--Macrakis (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Negative effects

This was supported by two recent reviews "A Mediterranean diet may includes high levels of gluten and the diets increasing popularly may be contributing to the increase in gluten-related disorders, such as coeliac disease." Impact factor is fairly decent [2]

References

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue is again WP:UNDUE and it is no surprise how this was introduced. Here is a pubmed search for reviews on this diet. You need to go through 50 reviews for those two to turn up. And the first one it is not at all clear that it is gluten thing. Slightly older (from 2014) PMID 25342148 points out there is an association between the MeDiet and reduction in GI cancer risk (the long term bad outcome of coeliac, at least) and the also-from-2014 PMID 25405316 makes no note of risk of gluten-related disease. PMID 25244229 which specifically looks at chronic inflammation and PMID 25325250 which specifically looks at the bread portion of the MeDiet don't mention this either. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree this section seems like cherry-picking a problem perceived by few experts, as indicated by the predominance of reviews which don't implicate the Med diet with NCGS. The article would not be diminished by removing comments about gluten. --Zefr (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Pubmed organizes reviews by when they were published not by any importance. That it comes in 50th means nothings except that this is a heavily research topic area. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting response. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Both the reviews in question have a decent impact factor. Happy with your adjusted wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Olive oil

Recent text modified and deleted by Zefr (→‎Dietary components: in vivo antioxidant effects of olive oil are unproven; the anti-disease statements and refs are not accepted by majority science or regulatory authorities; supposed anti-cancer effect is not WP:MEDRS; add book ref for EFSA)

• "in vivo antioxidant effects of olive oil are unproven" "supposed anti-cancer effect is not WP:MEDRS" Why these sources are "not WP:MEDRS"?:
  • Br J Nutr (impact factor: 3.453). 2015 Apr;113 Suppl 2:S94-101. The role of olive oil in disease prevention: a focus on the recent epidemiological evidence from cohort studies and dietary intervention trials. PMID 26148926
  • Mol Nutr Food Res (impact factor: 4.603). 2007 Oct;51(10):1199-208. The influence of olive oil on human health: not a question of fat alone. PMID 17879991
  • Antioxidant effects are also stated in this other source, already present Adherence to Mediterranean diet and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. International Journal of Cancer (impact factor: 5.085). 2014 Oct 15;135(8):1884-97. PMID 24599882.
• "add book ref for EFSA" And instead Zefr adds a book, which it is not even a peer reviewed source (?) and IMO doesn't match WP:MEDRS. The 2011 EFSA position is one more item to add, I agree, but we must use another source (why not the original source? [3]).
• 2011 EFSA analysis was focused on four specific points related to fatty acid composition of olive oil: maintenance of normal blood LDL cholesterol concentrations, maintenance of normal (fasting) blood concentrations of triglycerides, maintenance of normal blood HDL cholesterol concentrations and maintenance of normal blood glucose concentrations. 2011 EFSA did not analyse other issues, as for example anti-cancer effect nor the presence of other bioactive compounds. 2011 EFSA position doesn't mean that we can't mention other issues WP:UNDUE, does not justify, for example, removing potential anti-cancer effects (supported by reliable sources), as Zefr has done. In addition, 2011 EFSA position is older than other provided sources (2014 and 2015).

I'll wait your opinions. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

On anti-oxidants and cancer, see SELECT and the wealth of current literature on the complex relationship between oxidative stress/antoxidants and cancer. Even the sources you cite hedge: "Olive oil is also implicated in preventing certain cancers, with the most promising findings for breast and digestive tract cancers, although the data are still not entirely consistent and mainly from case-control studies. " The lesson of SELECT is something people have not absorbed yet. This idea -- extremely well validated by in vitro studies, animal studies, and observational studies - that antioxidants may prevent cancer -- went down in flames when actually tested in a rigorous clinical trial. The opposite happened - the trial was stopped early b/c people taking the antioxidants were getting cancer more than people in the control arm Jytdog (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your comment is very interesting. However, in the case of olive oil does not refer to selenium nor vitamin E.

The systematic review of 2014 PMID 24599882 says: "Cancer incidence might be influenced by dietary factors through several mechanism, e.g., suppression of spontaneous mutations, affecting cell proliferation and the methylation of DNA and induction of apoptosis.(56) The main component of the MD is olive oil, consumed in high amount by MD populations. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 observational studies suggested a 0.66 times lower odds of having any type of cancer when comparing the highest category of olive oil consumption with the lowest figure.(57)"

And 2015 source PMID 26148926 says: "Recently published results from the randomised controlled trials (RCT) such as the ‘Prevención con Dieta Mediterranea’ (PREDIMED) (15) and cohort studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) (16 – 18) have provided more solid epidemiological evidence on the health benefits of olive oil. Therefore, in the present study, the role of olive oil in disease prevention is reviewed with a particular focus on the recent epidemiological evidence from RCT and cohort studies, published until April 2014. (...) While the specific mechanisms involved are not fully understood, nowadays it is widely accepted that they are numerous and complex and that the specific biological pathways may vary depending on the disease. In terms of cancer prevention, experimental in vivo and human in vitro studies have found that olive oil’s components has several chemopreventive effects related to the initiation, promotion and progression of carcinogenesis (7), with biological mechanisms including squalene, oleanolic acid and polyphenol’s antioxidant action, which can reduce cellular oxidative stress and DNA damage from reactive oxygen metabolites (54). Polyphenols, in particular hydroxytryosol and tryrosol, have been shown to have potent anti-inflammatory effects and may also influence cell proliferation, cell cycle progression, apoptosis and arachidonic acid metabolism in cancer cells (11,55,56). In addition, specific compounds have been shown to have the potential to influence gene expression, such as oleic acid’s ability to alter expression of certain oncogenes (Her-2/neu) associated with aggressive tumours in breast cancer (57,58)."

--BallenaBlanca (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Might, might, maybe maybe. Exactly. What SELECT taught us it to be very cautious about making claims for these kinds of things. Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The respective literatures supporting SELECT and whole olive oil and/or its components in anti-disease activity do not meet the standards for totality of evidence and significant scientific agreement in epidemiological research on diets, disease and mechanism of effect, as admitted by the authors of one review cited above by BallenaBlanca: "Despite the accumulating epidemiological research, there is still a lack of consistent results from high-quality studies for many health outcomes". Simply, olive oil - whole or among its components - cannot be defined in a "substance/disease relationship".

In editing the article to contain the status of guidance concerning olive oil and maintenance of normal blood LDL-cholesterol concentrations, I used the Sadler book as a source out of interest for WP:NOTJOURNAL to aid the lay reader of the article. While thorough as a critique about the potential health properties of olive oil under study, the EFSA scientific opinion is too long and jargonistic of a read for an article on a diet, in my opinion, and is referenced by Sadler. It could be added if editors feel it is warranted. --Zefr (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the only EFSA guidance on olive oil components (polyphenols) having a protective effect on LDL from oxidative damage. It also refutes most of the other anti-disease claims (blood pressure, inflammation, normal HDL, respiratory, etc.) often attributed as the "health benefits" of olive oil. --Zefr (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

2011 metanalysis

This paper Sofi F, Cesari F, Abbate R, Gensini GF, Casini A (2008). "Adherence to Mediterranean diet and health status: meta-analysis". BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 337 (sep11 2): a1344. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1344. PMC 2533524. PMID 18786971.

compares groups based on "adherence" to MD.... 2 "points' better "adherence" reduces overall mortality and CV mortality each by 9%. adherence is a pretty subjective thing in this paper. This is not a simple thing to communicate and we should just not use this source. 5 years old now anyway. Jytdog (talk)

Agreed: how do we know if adherence to MD was different from adherence to any other dietician-recommended diet? Guy (Help!) 14:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Fad diet?

Isn't

• Brown JE, Isaacs J, Krinke B, Lechtenberg E, Murtaugh M (2011). Nutrition Through the Life Cycle (4th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 410. ISBN 1-133-00816-X.

a good enough source for this categorization? I notice the book is now in its 6th edition; might be worth checking to see if this bit is revised. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

We have 100s of pubmed indexed review articles on the topic.[4]

Cengage Learning publishes books for K-12. They are not a notable medical publisher. So yes IMO not a sufficient source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but many of those are about Mediterranean diet (in general, covered in our Mediterranean cuisine article) rather than The Mediterranean diet. PMID 26816783 even refers to this diet specifically as a fad. But part of the problem is that these terms are very imprecise: when somebody says "Mediterranean diet" do they mean what is (was?) eaten in the Mediterranean in general, or the diet invented by Ancel Keys, or what? Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Here we have a 2017 review that looked at studies that included 12.8 million people.[5] with an impact factor of 2.7

Not seeing an impact factor for "Transl Androl Urol."

IMO that is not strong enough to say in the voice of Wikipedia that it is a fad diet.

The USDA includes it as a healthy eating style.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 08:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Citations Needed

There are several unsupported statements in this article. Are they original thought by the contributor -- if so, they should be removed. Or are these statements supported by Verifiable Sources -- if so, they should be cited. Does anyone have good citations for any of these statements, or can you propose that any of them be removed from the article?

1. "The diet is often cited as beneficial for being low in saturated fat and high in monounsaturated fat and dietary fiber."
   • What constitutes "low in saturated fat"?
   • What is "high in monounsaturaged fat"?
   • What is "high in fiber"?
   • Who asserts that these things are beneficial?
   • Any support for the statement that the diet is "often cited" for the above?
2. "Michael Pollan suggests..."
   • Page Number should be cited
   • Michael Pollan is not a primary source -- he's more like a blogger, combining information he has read from a variety of sources with his own personal opinions and preferences. Is this assertion supported by someone closer to the research?
3. "Dietary factors may be only part of the reason for the health benefits enjoyed by these cultures"
   • Are there health benefits?
   • citation for Genetics as proposed or tested reason for health benefits
   • citation for environment as proposed or tested reason for health benefits
   • Does Willett's article support "heavy physical labor" as reason for health benefits
4. "Although green vegetables, a good source of calcium and iron, as well as goat cheese, a good source of calcium, are common in the Mediterranean diet.."
   • citation: green vegetables are common in mediterranean diet (as defined above)
   • citation: green vegetables are a good source of calcium and iron
   • citation: goat cheese is common in med. diet
   • citation: goat cheese is a good source of calcium
5. "...concerns remain whether the diet provides adequate amounts of all nutrients, particularly calcium and iron"
   • citation: who is concerned about adequate nutrients?
   • citation: concern about calcium
   • citation: concern about iron

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.49.61 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

New Study Results

I feel the following major study needs to be mentioned in this page.

Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229#R21

I have gone ahead and made a small contribution, but needs to be expanded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaf forever (talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fad Diet

Wikipedia says:

A fad diet[1][2] or diet cult[3]:9–13 is a diet that makes promises of weight loss or other health advantages such as longer life without backing by solid science, and in many cases are characterized by highly restrictive or unusual food choices.[4][5][6]:296

In the reference provided in this article "fad diet" is defined as "popular weight loss programs ; many but not most are unhealthy". About the Mediterranean diet, it specifically says "some popular diets, such as the Mediterranean diet, are actually very healthful".

It is an obvious fringe usage of the term fad diet to actually mean "popular diet". Ffaffff (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Read the source used to support this content. No one here cares what you (or I) think. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you take some minutes to read the 6 sources in first sentence of the fad diet article? Like this one (A fad diet is the kind of plan where you eat a very restrictive diet with few foods or an unusual combination of foods for a short period of time and often lose weight very quickly.)? You can fish other sources with a cursory 30 seconds search on $fav_search_engine:

* "Promises a quick fix, promotes 'magic' foods or combinations of foods, implies that food can change body chemistry, excludes or severely restricts food groups or nutrients, such as carbohydrates, has rigid rules that focus on weight loss, makes claims based on a single study or testimonials only." in betterhealth

Again, with a 30 seconds cursory search for "Is the Mediterranean diet a fad diet" I find this: "Research continues to show the Mediterranean Diet, based on healthy foods and physical activity, is the best prescription for a long, healthy life. It is an excellent, enjoyable diet plan that is easy to follow, and flexible. Even if you don’t follow the diet faithfully, simply eating more of the foods on the plan, dining more leisurely, and being more active are superb health goals."

tl;dr: the vast majority of sources don't conflate "fad" with "popular", as shown in the Fad diet page. Picking the single one that doesn't to label the Mediterranean Diet as "fad" is WP:UNDUE. Ffaffff (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I wrote a bunch of the fad diet article. The fad diet article is not relevant here. Please stop talking about it. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The "fad diet" aspect, that the source cited in this article talks about, is stuff like this. A bunch of crap like that grew up around this diet, which is a sound way to eat. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The article you linked to is called "The Advanced Mediterranean Diet", whatever "Advanced" might mean. In any case I know nothing of it, and has zero relevance in a discussion about the "Mediterranean diet".

The sources on Fad diet are very relevant to check whether the Mediterranean diet it considered/listed as fad diet or not! You (or me, or anyone else) writing some of it has little relevance, tough.

Here are three reliable, secondary sources illustrating the Mediterranean diet (mayo clinic, NHS, heartuk). None of them uses the term "fad".

Essential Concepts for Healthy Living does not list it on its "fad diet" table, nor does this UPMC guide.

Association of UK dietitians talks about a modification of the Mediterranean diet which is a fad, MD itself being "healthy choice".

I could obviously go on for a long time, since every public-health body in the world agrees with the above. The overwhelming majority of reliable, secondary sources does not list, consider or describe the "Mediterranean diet" as "fad diet". Labeling it as such is, simply put, not true.

What you personally think is "growing around" the Mediterranean diet is WP:OR. I welcome you to bring to the discussion a body of published, reliable sources stating the Mediterranean diet is a fad diet, embracing the most prominent health organisations (WHO, NHS, ISS, NHS, etc.); otherwise what's written in this article is a big big case of WP:UNDUE. Ffaffff (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It isn't what "I think" is growing around. It is what the source cited in this article says. You are not dealing with what the source cited in this article actually says. Please do. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You are also not catching the distinction that this WP article makes, between the mediterranean diet as a) a way to eat - a long term thing (both something cultural in the mediterranean basin, and something people can adapt as a long term healthy diet), and b) something people jump on to lose weight. It is both things at once. The "fad diet" aspect refers only to the latter. The exact language is "By 2010 the diet had become a fad diet". Nine words, about that aspect. It is not UNDUE and is not a global description of the mediterranean diet, but rather an aspect of it.Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Whether you think the MD is a healthy diet, a fad diet or "both things at once" is not for us to discuss (WP:OR). What you think the "aspects" of the MD are, is not for us to discuss (same). I brought to the table some six links to reliable, published sources that don't describe/list the MD as fad diet at all. I can literally link to a thousands more of them, because that's where the academic and professional consensus lies.

There are a ton of lists of fad dies by each of the dietitians' associations on this planet. Go wild! If you can't bring more than that single publication, it is clear where the "prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" lies. Ffaffff (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not about what I think; this is what sources in the article say. It is unclear why you have become so intense over nine words in the body of the article, very well sourced (and more sources could be brought for this), about an aspect of this diet. People do become irrational over food issues.

Others will weigh in with time. At this point there is no consensus to remove this. Others may agree with you, but at this point I doubt it. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I agree we have reached a stalemate, I will require a WP:3O. Ffaffff (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

btw i think the thing you are missing is the different nuances of the word "diet" here. The whole notion of "try this diet to lose weight" is where the "fad diet" thing comes in. "Diet" as in "long term eating pattern" is something else. Sources talking about the mediterranean diet in the latter sense, all say that it can be a very healthy long term pattern, and almost the entire WP article reflects that. It is also hyped as a "weight loss diet" and it is in that sense, that it is a fad diet, as stupid as any other, or perhaps, can be used as stupidly as any other. It's just the different senses of "diet" that seem to be throwing you. There is so much out there pitching this as a "weight loss diet'. This is what the cited source says. You don't seem to have really engaged with what that source is saying, in all your pounding away at this. In any case, if you post at 3O, post neutrally. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

As neutral as I could :). For anyone reading this, my proposed edits would be one of these (in order of preference): 1. to remove this, 2. to change "fad diet" to "popular diet" (and remove the link to Fad diet) or 3. to list that a minority viewpoint considers it as "fad diet", while the overwhelmingly majority does not.

I will go to sleep now, let us all enjoy some beautiful football tomorrow! Ffaffff (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, I see now that the article is listed in Category::Fad Diets. I would definitely remove that too! Ffaffff (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"Fad diet" is used appropriately here per sourcing. "Popular diet" is an obfuscation. WP:EW isn't the solution. Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, answering your request for a third opinion. I don't have any problem with the use of the term "fad diet" in this article, but I do think the sentence is a little strange. The book doesn't say anything about 2010 and seems like a strange benchmark, maybe even WP:SYNTH. It implies to me some significance around 2010. Please provide us with a quote from the source if I am incorrect, as I only read the fad diet section. I would change the sentence to, " While regarded as generally healthy, the Mediterranean diet is considered by some to be a fad diet."^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 07:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

2010 - the date of the source - is presumably used in an attempt to differentiate from the "Renaissance period" of the previous para. Have tweaked. "Considered by some" is weasel wording not supported by the source (which is reliable for its use). Alexbrn (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for the opinion/edit, Alexbrn and Basilosauridae. Ffaffff (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't say "today" anywhere in WP. The date of the book is there per WP:RELTIME. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

POV prolems

Hey @Alexbrn: I see you reverted my edit with "POV problems". Can you please explain it a bit more thoroughly? The content is straight from the three sources; do you want me to find different/more citations? Ffaffff (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Where to start? As an initial issue, what text in the source supports your text "While a few researchers referred to it as fad diet due to its popularity"? I'm not seeing anything about "only a few" anything! WP:V is core policy, remember. Alexbrn (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand. I can find many many reliable sources on the Mediterranean diet being linked to good health, from major health organisations (e.g.: [7]). This qualifies it as a majority view, I think we should include that. Otherwise, how do you think the paragraph should be edited to follow WP:RSUW? Ffaffff (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Remember such claims have to come from WP:MEDRS. The BBC source you used is not such a source. We have many good sources already in the article satying it is a healthy diet. As a means of weight loss it is also a fad diet, as RS says. Alexbrn (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I have removed the BBC reference and, as suggested by WP:MEDRS, added a meta-analysis from a medical journal and (WP:MEDORG) one from a professional society. I also slightly reworded the sentence. Let me know what you think. Ffaffff (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Still unacceptable. What is your source for "The majority of experts"? Really this is a claim needing WP:RS/AC. I'm not sure what you are trying to do here, but we already cover weight loss by citing PMID PMID 26721635 (which IS reliable). This aspect has no bearing on the diet being a fad diet, so it appears to be your intent to try and "disprove" it's a fad diet? Or what? Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I took some time to find the last edition of Nutrition Through the Life Cycle [8], to "ensure that book is up to date" WP:MEDBOOK: no mention of the Mediterranean diet being a fad diet. A cursory search on Google Scholar for "mediterranean diet fad" came empty of useful result, same on PumMed. So, as 2018, there are no up-to-date reliable sources which label the Mediterranean diet ad a "fad diet" (please provide those if you find them). If you agree, I would edit out that sentence, or at most keep it only as historical perspective. What do you think? Ffaffff (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you consulted the real book, or just the Google scan of parts of it? If you want another source for this being a fad weight loss diet (a rather unexceptional fact), this should do you:

• Gilman SL (2008). Phytochemicals. Routledge. p. 214. ISBN 978-1-135-87068-3. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

(in fact, I'll add it!). PUBMED is unlikely to turn up sources since this categorisation is not biomedical, but more in the realm of social science. 12:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"Sander L. Gilman, PhD, is a distinguished professor of the Liberal Arts and Sciences as well as Professor of Psychiatry at Emory University". Interesting biography, but as per WP:MEDRS, sources should come from "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" (bold mine). The editor too (Routlege) specialises in humanities, behavioural science, education, law and social science, so still no dice. I am reverting it, let's see if we can find better sources! Ffaffff (talk)

As I wrote above, whether this is a "fad" or not is not a biomedical question, so MEDRS does not apply. Sander Gilman has a focus on medicine, was selected by a good publisher to edit on this cultural aspect of dieting, and so is well-qualified to comment on this question of categorisation. So I am not sure why you removed this spot-on source for a "reception" section? This is beginning to look like a POV push. Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I went through every citation in Fad diets: almost each author is either a professional body (British Dietetic Association), a professor/researcher of Public Health/Nutrition/Nutritional Science/any other medical science, a national institution on health matters or a journalist quoting one of those three; searching for "what is a fad diet" (mind you: definitions, not effects or medical outcome) on Google Scholar similarly leads to biomedical publications. So yeah, the definition of "what a fad diet is" is definitely a matter of biomedical expertise and sources relating to it should follow WP:RS/MC and the caveats of WP:AGE MATTERS. I am in no rush to edit though. Ffaffff (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:Biomedical information what wht falls under the scope of MEDRS. How "faddish" a diet is, does not; definitions are explicitly not in scope. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Not part of "policies and guideline". Even if it were, the section you are referring to ("The words that society, groups, or individuals use to indicate a condition") does not apply here. Ffaffff (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, but it represents the consensus of many medical editors, and is linked from WP:MEDRS. Feel free to ping WT:MED if you want to argue that the "fad diet" classification requires MEDRS sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

More recent peer reviewed work

Material deleted by orthodox medical editor User:Zefr ¿¿¿who presumably??? seems to think Robert DuBroff (Cardiologist research, University Of New Mexico) and Michel de Lorgeril ( Docteur en Médecine et Chercheur au Centre National de Recherche Scientifique, Expert international en cardiologie et nutrition – Membre de la Société Européenne de Cardiologie) and a broad selection of Spanish University researchers are not very credible ¿¿¿perhaps because they are outsiders and foreigners who do not toe the official English speaking medical line??? (but maybe I am being too severe, since in IMHO the practice of medicine is merely an art, not real, hard controversial science? Anyway, for the record, this is what I inserted....Timpo (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No, calm down, the reasons are not those. It's because of Wikipedia policies. We need secondary sources, not primary ones. Please, see WP:MEDRS.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 13:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

France

The Lyon Diet Heart Study was a randomized secondary prevention trial aimed at testing whether a Mediterranean type diet may reduce the rate of recurrence after a first myocardial infarction. It claimed a 70% improved success rate compared to conventional interventions. Its final report appeared in in 1998 Mediterranean Diet, Traditional Risk Factors, and the Rate

of Cardiovascular Complications After Myocardial Infarction

Spain

The PREDIMED study of 2005 (Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea) reported some improvement in the survival and quality of life prospects for patients with heart disease,cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease Timpo (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

References

None of these are WP:MEDRS, so of no use to us here when we have ample good sources to pick from. Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: TT in NYU.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Confusing grammar

"a set of skills, knowledge, rituals, symbols and traditions concerning crops, harvesting, fishing, animal husbandry, conservation, processing, cooking, and particularly the sharing and consumption of food", not as a particular set of foods. What a kind of this confusing grammar? Has so much linking nouns that chained by comma? Please solve this hardest grammar i have ever seen? I hope someone can correctly solve this grammar with quotation.2404:8000:1027:85F6:E48C:D3A4:C091:E5E (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Tweaked. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NutritionalSock (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by NutritionalSock (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)