Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xchrom

(108,903 posts)
Tue Mar 25, 2014, 06:03 AM Mar 2014

Science Compared Every Diet, and the Winner Is Real Food

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/

?n2yeuu
Ornamental cabbage and kale in Langley, Washington (Dean Fosdick/AP)

***SNIP

Scientific publisher Annual Reviews asked Katz to compare the medical evidence for and against every mainstream diet. He says they came to him because of his penchant for dispassionate appraisals. "I don't have a dog in the fight," he told me. “I don’t care which diet is best. I care about the truth."

Katz and Yale colleague Stephanie Meller published their findings in the current issue of the journal in a paper titled, "Can We Say What Diet Is Best for Health?" In it, they compare the major diets of the day: Low carb, low fat, low glycemic, Mediterranean, mixed/balanced (DASH), Paleolithic, vegan, and elements of other diets. Despite the pervasiveness of these diets in culture and media, Katz and Meller write, "There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding. For many reasons, such studies are unlikely." They conclude that no diet is clearly best, but there are common elements across eating patterns that are proven to be beneficial to health. "A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention."



Among the salient points of proven health benefits the researchers note, nutritionally-replete plant-based diets are supported by a wide array of favorable health outcomes, including fewer cancers and less heart disease. These diets ideally included not just fruits and vegetables, but whole grains, nuts, and seeds. Katz and Meller found "no decisive evidence" that low-fat diets are better than diets high in healthful fats, like the Mediterranean. Those fats include a lower ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids than the typical American diet.

The Mediterranean diet, which is additionally defined by high intake of fiber, moderate alcohol and meat intake, antioxidants, and polyphenols, does have favorable effects on heart disease, cancer risk, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and "is potentially associated with defense against neurodegenerative disease and preservation of cognitive function, reduced inflammation, and defense against asthma."
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Silent3

(15,254 posts)
1. I think the title of the article spoils the point of the article a bit
Tue Mar 25, 2014, 06:59 AM
Mar 2014

"Real" might be a punchy way to try to summarize a "diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants", but I think that word has too much baggage, with different people having their own ideas of what "real" means that don't necessarily have anything to do with the actual scientific analysis that was done here.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
2. Coincidence - my 19 YO grandson has mentioned that NOT ONCE have I ever bought him
Tue Mar 25, 2014, 07:30 AM
Mar 2014

Pop-Tarts. (He has lived with me for most of his life). This morning I surprised him with some strawberry-cream cheese toaster strudel pastries, the kind he saw on TV with the bizarre lederhosened pop-up kid magically hovering at a breakfast table. Those commercials are weird - I would call 911 or, at least, Ghost Hunters, if a yodeling kid bearing toaster pasties just popped up unexpectedly
Grandson just came in and said they were gross, they tasted like chemicals and too much sugar, and please don't serve them again.
Yes!!!!!!!!!

I always feel so much better when I stick to my Atkins foods. Another plus is reaching the high 60's without a trace of diabetes, one or two, and blood tests showing everything medicare tests for just fine, along with low blood pressure. Not a family trait, my two aunts were five feet tall and about five feet wide, with all the problems I used to think just happened inevitably when people got older. I use plenty of butter and olive oil, too.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
11. +1. All the indices used as benchmarks for health are exceptional for me,
Tue Mar 25, 2014, 02:33 PM
Mar 2014

and like you, I do a modified kind of Atkins, with plenty of butter and olive oil.

Berlum

(7,044 posts)
3. Unreal Food: How “Extreme Levels” of Roundup in Food Became the Industry Norm
Tue Mar 25, 2014, 08:26 AM
Mar 2014

"Shut up and eat your Genetically Mutant, Chemically-Saturated Foodlike Crapola Rations." - Big Science, Inc.


Published Monday, March 24, 2014 on Independent Science News:

How “Extreme Levels” of Roundup in Food Became the Industry Norm
By Prof. Thomas Bøhn and Marek Cuhra

http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/how-extreme-levels-of-roundup-in-food-became-the-industry-norm/

Synopsis: Many GMO crops are resistant to the chemical herbicide Roundup (active ingredient: glyphosate). This allows farmers to spray the herbicide over the crop to control weeds.

As weeds in the US and elsewhere have progressively gained resistance to Roundup, farmers have been spraying higher doses of the herbicide and spraying them more often. By implication, there will be concomitant effects on food and the environment.

However, even though there is increasing concern about the health impacts of Roundup/glyphosate, little is known about current levels in food and animal feed. Now, a new study has found that glyphosate in GMO soybeans is at levels higher than many vitamins.

Victor_c3

(3,557 posts)
6. To me, it seems so intuitive
Tue Mar 25, 2014, 09:34 AM
Mar 2014

Who would have thought that if you put less chemicals and crap into your body that you'd be healthier than a person who consumes a generous amount of chemicals and crap??

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
8. This is why the new "low-carb" diet is a bad idea.
Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:06 AM
Mar 2014

Because it follows the same footsteps as the "low-fat" diet - the name massively oversimplifies the diet, and that name is all people are being taught.

So what happens? The food companies market their processed crap as low-(food component). Low-fat Pop-Tarts aren't healthy. Now that low-carb is the name of the recommended diet, we have Low-carb Pop-Tarts. They're still not healthy.

I have no idea why the folks making these recommendations are insisting on making the exact same mistake they made in the 1970s. "Let's do the same thing. I'm sure it will end up different this time!!!"

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
9. Because it's not "they"
Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:22 PM
Mar 2014

The same mistakes are made because it isn't the same "they". The folks that made the mistakes in the '70s are long gone and a new fresh set of folks are doing it again. Not studying the history of ones own profession is not all that uncommon.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
12. As a low-carber, I would never buy low-carb pop-tarts or ice cream.
Tue Mar 25, 2014, 03:13 PM
Mar 2014

First, I try to avoid gluten whenever possible.
Second, I get a big laugh at the carbs and net carbs per serving - 1/2 cup of ice cream? Shoot. Why bother. I always always calculate net carbs times number of servings so I can see what the damage is if I eat the whole damned thing.

Not to mention - as I got more entrenched in low-carb, I started buying less and less packaged crap.
Just as easy to make a smoothie with unsweetened coconut-almond milk, vanilla, stevia, and chia seeds than mess around with low-carb packaged and processed food. I can make a giant bowl of kale salad, add mushrooms and olives and tomatoes and Walden farms dressing - and live off of that for a few days. I can roast fresh asparagus and pour on the homemade Hollandaise sauce - and not have to measure a thing. pfft! to packaged stuff that says low carb. No need for it, really, too many chemicals, and the number of servings is iffy at best. Cook with almond meal and flax seeds. Skip the labels.

Short version - no need to buy processed crap no matter what "diet" you are on!

ladyVet

(1,587 posts)
13. Now I'm hungry! That all sounds so good, I'll need to hit the grocery again.
Tue Mar 25, 2014, 03:49 PM
Mar 2014

I'm another who low-carbs without all the processed food. It's not required, nor recommended (except by the people selling the crap). There are so many wonderful, tasty things to eat, who needs Pop Tarts? Or rice. Or flour/grains (whole or otherwise). Or potatoes.

I tried being a vegetarian, because my doctor recommended it. In a year, I'd gained 60 lbs, was hurting everywhere, mentally and physically worn out. Never again.

I did the low calorie/low fat thing for years. Gained more weight, felt even worse, nearly killed myself trying to lose that 60+ lbs. Never again.

My belief is that eating as naturally as possible, avoiding as much artificial stuff as I can -- and trying to grow my own/raise my own food to get rid of the rest -- is best. It's just that some of us can't eat carbohydrates. We get fat, and we get sick.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
14. And that's the point.
Tue Mar 25, 2014, 04:19 PM
Mar 2014
Short version - no need to buy processed crap no matter what "diet" you are on!

And that's the point.

Sticking a "low carb" label on the diet says "low carb" is the important part. Just like sticking "low fat" on a diet said "low fat" is the important part.

"Low carb" or "low fat" isn't the important part of either diet. It's a component, but all the other parts are more important. "First, eat healthy food. Then reduce your percentage of carbs/fat".

It's an attempt to market that diet by oversimplifying to meaninglessness.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Science Compared Every Di...