Slashdot Mirror


New Study Finds 'Mediterranean' Diet Significantly Reduces Brain Shrinkage (bbc.com)

schwit1 writes that 562 elderly research subjects cut their brain shrinkage in half just by changing their diet. (Paywalled article here). The BBC reports: A study of pensioners in Scotland found that those with a diet rich in fresh fruit, vegetables and olive oil had healthier brains than those with different eating habits. They suffered less brain shrinkage than those who regularly ate meat and dairy products. The study was carried out by University of Edinburgh researchers.... Scientists found that those who adhered most closely to the diet retained significantly greater brain volume after three years than those who did not... Lead researcher Dr Michelle Luciano said: "As we age, the brain shrinks and we lose brain cells, which can affect learning and memory. This study adds to the body of evidence that suggests the Mediterranean diet has a positive impact on brain health."

23 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. And the next food craze starts by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It starts to remind me of the old times in the East Bloc where "scientists" came up with any sort of revelation every time something was in shortage or for some odd reason there was suddenly a surplus. You could bet your ass that the revelation was that eggs are an important source for any kind of vitamins but meat makes you sick.

    Same shit now. What happened, did the olive harvest turn out to be the harvest of the century?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:And the next food craze starts by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't get me wrong, I certainly ain't anti-science. But with this kind of research we get contradicting results every other year. First milk was important for you, now milk is harmful. Eggs used to be the way to an early grave, now eggs are the fountain of youth. Cholesterol was deadly, now we need it like a drug.

      Or maybe it is already the other way around again, I don't keep track to be honest.

      And in between all that we have various other food crazes from low-carb to neanderthal diet. What the fuck, people?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: And the next food craze starts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You could drown in it.

    3. Re:And the next food craze starts by SNRatio · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whether or not research proves it to be the "best" diet for most people, the Mediterranean diet has been recommended and researched for ~50 years now. So not exactly a craze.

    4. Re: And the next food craze starts by rfengr · · Score: 2

      Seems though that poor people eat mostly carbs. Spaghetti is cheap and filling, and tastier with greasy meat sauce. Ditto for rice and potatoes.

    5. Re:And the next food craze starts by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right that we keep getting contradictory information, but the problem often isn't that the studies are bad in themselves, it's that the reporting on the study is bad.

      One group does a study that shows a correlation between diet and "brain shrinkage". That's all. One study finds some kind of statistical correlation. Further study is needed. First, the study should be replicated before really trusting the results. Someone would also have to hypothesize what the causal link is, and then study that, because (sorry, I know it has become a cliche, but...) correlation does not equal causation.

      But ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that it's determined that the exact diet described here as the "Mediterranean diet" prevents "brain shrinkage". Ok. Now what? What is "brain shrinkage"? Is brain shrinkage bad? What are the negative effects of it? Are their positive effects of brain shrinkage? Oh, and are there other negative effects of the Mediterranean diet that outweigh the benefits of preventing brain shrinkage?

      Nobody really knows. I'm sure an expert could provide some information in response to their answers, but they won't have a complete answer.

      But reporters don't necessarily understand all of that, and in any case, that kind of nuanced and intelligent reporting won't sell ad time on CNN. You know what will grab people's attention? The headline, "Drinking olive oil will make you smarter!" So that's what they report, and suddenly the common wisdom is that we should all be guzzling a gallon of olive oil per day.

      And then a few years later, there will be another study where there's some correlation between olive oil and an increased risk of some particular rare form of cancer. There will be all the same uncertainties and complications of interpreting the results of the study, but reporters won't report on the complications. There will just be a headline, "Olive oil causes cancer!" Now everyone decides we're supposed to cut olive oil our of our diets.

      Science may eventually find that the studies themselves were flawed, or the results were misinterpreted, or the correlation was just a statistical anomaly. Or we may eventually find that there is a correlation, but the causal link is something unexpected. Maybe people who cook with olive oil are less likely to eat butter, and butter causes brain shrinkage. Or, it's possible, just possible, that olive oil does in fact help to prevent brain shrinkage as well as increase the risk of a rare form of cancer, but that it does each of these things to such a minor degree that it's not worth considering when choosing what to eat.

      It's also true that some studies are bad. Unfortunately, we don't put much priority on repeating studies to confirm results. However, the far bigger problem is that most of our news outlets suck. Even the respectable ones like the BBC and New York Times are just awful. Honestly, I'm not sure how to improve them, because another big piece of the problem is that *we, the audience*, suck. We insist on clicking on clickbait, watching tabloid junk, and superstitiously believing whatever our chosen news outlet reports.

    6. Re:And the next food craze starts by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "How, exactly, is milk harmful?"

      It's sugary, fatty water, with about the same calories as soda, destined to give a calf a nice pelt.

      BTW, I like your hair.

    7. Re: And the next food craze starts by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since when have nutritionists pushed starch? Fats were indeed treated as bad - first all fats because studies showed links between fat-rich diets and heart disease. It was later shown that it wasn't "all fats", just saturated fats. And nothing has changed that; it's still widely accepted my medical science that saturated fats are associated with heart disease. The problem was all in manufacturer responses. Manufacturers largely responded to requests for fat reduction not with increases in fiber, protein and healthy fats (monounsaturated, omega-3) as nutritionists preferred, but with with carbohydrate increases and replacing saturated fats with trans fats - both of which were on their own harmful, and in some cases worse.

      The fact that the negative health effects of things like saturated fats were discovered later than the negative health effect was a consequence of them being little used previously but increasingly used after the health effects of saturated fats. So it's not negligence on the part of nutritionists, they were just investigating the health issues in the diets that were the most common at the time. To be fair, it would be nice if the food industry would do a lot more of the precautionary principle (including nutritionists).

      Concerning this: note that you almost have to have either some dairy, egg, or meat in your diet; or, to take supplements. Because primarily of B12. It's not produced by plants. It's not even found in many unicellular species like spirulina. It's only produced by certain types of primary unicellular producers that are not generally consumed by humans.

      --
      Dear Diary...today I was pompous and my sister was crazy.
    8. Re:And the next food craze starts by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're right that we keep getting contradictory information, but the problem often isn't that the studies are bad in themselves, it's that the reporting on the study is bad.

      I agree with this, but I don't quite agree with the restricting the blame as you do...

      But reporters don't necessarily understand all of that, and in any case, that kind of nuanced and intelligent reporting won't sell ad time on CNN. [...] However, the far bigger problem is that most of our news outlets suck.

      Etc.

      That may all be true, but it's a far deeper problem than that. It's fundamentally tied up with science funding. Here's what actually happens:

      (1) Researchers do research and write detailed findings. ("A correlates with B.")

      (2) Researchers know that studies which get citations will help their careers, and studies that get more attention will help get them future funding. So, they include a lot of stuff in the "Discussion" section of their study that's incredibly speculative, but it makes it look like their findings will lead to a cure for cancer or something. (E.g., "We've shown correlation between A and B, but some preliminary studies show a connection among B, C, and D, and if C and D are true, then we might even have future research leading to E," where E is "curing cancer.")

      (3) A university press office wants to draw attention to its faculty and its prominence as a university, so when it writes up the findings, it plays up the "MAY lead to cancer cure!" angle. The press office interviews the faculty member in charge, who gives an interview agreeing about what the study "MAY" ultimately lead to, but this gets bumped to the first paragraph of the press release, while the hedging "this is just a preliminary finding..." quote gets buried in paragraph 4 of the press release (whereas the hedging was integrated in the discussion section of the original paper). Now we effectively have the correlation between A and B buried deep in the press release, while C and D (which most people will have heard of) get the main story, and the speculation on E is foregrounded.

      (4) Now science reporters finally get a crack at this. They see the university press release and its "may cure cancer!" in the first paragraph, which the mainstream news reporters now upgrade to the headline. They bury any hedging even further into the story, where few people will ever read it. They also find three other "experts" who are eager to get their names in the press, and who also present somewhat hedging statements, but the quotations are selected and broken up in ways that exaggerate the importance. In this case, A and B are now completely left out of the story (even though that's what the study measured) because average people don't know about them and wouldn't understand that. E becomes the headline, and C and D are used to support it.

      So, while I agree with you that the news media is sensationalizing things, it's actually endemic to the whole process. Everyone from the actual researchers to the university press offices to the mainstream news media wants to get the study noticed.

      Moreover, if you look at what actually happens AMONG SCIENTISTS is the same thing. Unless they are specialists in the particular area, they often just read the abstract of the old study, and if the original researchers includes some speculative sentence about the "broad ramifications" of the study in the abstract, the study frequently gets cited as if it PROVED this. I've seen instances of this in some fields where some "well-known" fact gets cited all the time, but when you track it back to the original study, what you actually find is a hedging very preliminary claim made in a discussion section that was never very well supported by the data (and the original researchers often explicitly hedge and SAY "more research is needed" or whatever).

      I'll definitely agree with you that there are problematic elements here. And the news media is a part of it. But it's certainly not the only (and maybe not even the main) part of how bad science becomes accepted dogma.

    9. Re: And the next food craze starts by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Well, it's a tad (more) complicated. Yes, at first glance, saturated fats are (relatively) bad, fiber is good (although, as you point out, we're aren't ruminants), you need some carbs, some protein.

      Deciding what is 'best' for a population is damnably hard. Humans grow slowly relatively to human attention spans. So it's difficult to time experiments well. Ethics boards tend to frown on sticking people in metal cages for the entirety of their lives (although the same can't be said for the US legal system, those nasty ethics folks frown on experimenting on prisoners). Fruit flies likes like a banana. Rats like Big Macs, but then again, they like the wrappers as well.

      Running experiments for three years means your using proxy measurements. With lots of assumptions. And those are higher quality experiments.

      Coupled with the usual bias and weird financial incentives you are ripe for a giant mess that ends up looking like Soylent (or meat loaf).

      Fortunately, humans are pretty omnivorous so a varied, slightly calorie limited diet will probably suffice for most folks.

      But if following some weird ass diet turns you on, go for it. Life is short, no matter what your diet is....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re: And the next food craze starts by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since when have nutritionists pushed starch?

      First off, the parent post didn't say "nutritionists push starch" -- the post referred to SPECIAL INTERESTS. And the post you're responding to specifically cited the food pyramid, which was endorsed by the U.S. government and nutritionists. The base of that pyramid (i.e., the largest portion of daily food intake) was "Bread, Cereal, Rice and Pasta."

      This is what one of the leading nutritionists at the USDA said later about what happened in the 1980s:

      When our version of the Food Guide came back to us revised, we were shocked to find that it was vastly different from the one we had developed. As I later discovered, the wholesale changes made to the guide by the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture were calculated to win the acceptance of the food industry. For instance, the Ag Secretary's office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it'd hurt sales of full-fat products; it also hugely increased the servings of wheat and other grains to make the wheat growers happy. [...]

      Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard). Our recommendation of 3-4 daily servings of whole-grain breads and cereals was changed to a whopping 6-11 servings forming the base of the Food Pyramid as a concession to the processed wheat and corn industries. Moreover, my nutritionist group had placed baked goods made with white flour -- including crackers, sweets and other low-nutrient foods laden with sugars and fats -- at the peak of the pyramid, recommending that they be eaten sparingly. To our alarm, in the "revised" Food Guide, they were now made part of the Pyramid's base.

      Normally I'm not a believer in "conspiracy theories," but here we have the story told by a former director of nutrition at the USDA. To my knowledge, no one has come out to contradict her account in the years since she made those claims.

    11. Re:And the next food craze starts by Ralgha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Milk was never important for you. It started because somebody, somewhere was starving, decided that they liked it, and kept drinking it. Once it became a growth industry, that industry started marketing it as, "good for you," because they wanted more money. Would you drink human milk? No? Then why would you drink milk from a different species? Milk that's designed to develop a tiny baby into a two-thousand pound being. There's nothing good about it, people just like it, and grasp at straws to make themselves think it's not bad for them.

    12. Re:And the next food craze starts by zieroh · · Score: 2

      "How, exactly, is milk harmful?"

      It's sugary, fatty water, with about the same calories as soda, destined to give a calf a nice pelt.

      BTW, I like your hair.

      The difference between milk and soda is that the fat in milk will slow down the glycemic reaction, whereas soda is just sugar and water (and a bit of flavor) and so the glycemic reaction is higher. The glycemic index for 250ml of both milk and skim milk is 31. The glycemic index for 250ml of Coca Cola is 63. (Source)

      On top of that, milk contains protein, which also slows down the glycemic reaction.

      So yes, we can objectively point to well-tested and (importantly) repeatable scientific experiments (glycemic indexes are calculated and published by a number of different organizations around the world) that point to the fact that milk is healthier than sugary soda drinks.

      Shocking.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    13. Re: And the next food craze starts by Rei · · Score: 2

      As for what AHA says about saturated fat, link.

      In particular, the end:

      There’s a lot of conflicting information about saturated fats. Should I eat them or not?

      The American Heart Association recommends limiting saturated fats – which are found in butter, cheese, red meat and other animal-based foods. Decades of sound science has proven it can raise your “bad” cholesterol and put you at higher risk for heart disease.

      The more important thing to remember is the overall dietary picture. Saturated fats are just one piece of the puzzle. In general, you can’t go wrong eating more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and fewer calories.

      When you hear about the latest “diet of the day” or a new or odd-sounding theory about food, consider the source. The American Heart Association makes dietary recommendations only after carefully considering the latest scientific evidence.

      Yes, because recommending eating "fruits, vegetables, whole grains and fewer calories" is totally a recipe for "almost single-handedly made America obese". Damn those fattening fruits, vegetables, whole grains and reduced-calorie diets.

      --
      Dear Diary...today I was pompous and my sister was crazy.
  2. But did they account for the people? by KreAture · · Score: 2

    What about mediterranean people living and eating elsewhere?
    Do they exhibit the same effects?

    1. Re:But did they account for the people? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      These were pensioners in Scotland.

      Maybe it's all the cursing that reduces brain shrinkage.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. A wee joke by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 4, Funny

    Q. What's the Scottish definition of a salad?
    A. Cold chips.

  4. Good by azav · · Score: 3, Funny

    More meat for me.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  5. Re: Rich People Diet by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

    The unit cost doesn't begin to capture what's going on here. Meat is amazingly cheap if you consider what a meat animal is: an extraordinarily complex, balky, and inefficient converter of commodity crops like feed corn to concentrated protein. I don't say this because I'm anti-meat -- I love meat and eat a lot of it. But boneless pork chops for $3.99/pound are a by-product of federal agricultural policies that include over twenty billion dollars of subsidies.

    The influence of industry political contributions distorts the US food supply, making commodity crops like corn, soy, and sugar beets over-plentiful and cheap and actually discouraging farmers from growing vegetables and fruit to be marketed directly to consumers. So it turns out that high quality produce, which is not subsidized, can actually cost more than meat.

    Consider an apple. Unlike a peach (if you've never had an actual ripe peach off the tree you don't know what you're missing), apples ship and store extremely well. So it's not particularly remarkable that a Red Delicious apple cost only 25% as much on a weight basis as a boneless pork chop if you consider the labor inputs. It ought to cost even less.

    The real problem is that "Red Delicious" as a term is a triumph of marketing mendacity. A Red Delicious is indeed red, but it tastes like Styrofoam. If you want a good eating apple, say a Honey Crisp, you'll be paying as much on a weight basis as you would for a pork chop. Last year Honey Crisps hit $4.50 a pound. And the tomato -- normal market price is about $0.75 per pound, but if you want a tomato that is marginally tastier than the plastic it's packaged in you've got to go for a hothouse tomato that cost twice that. And for a good tomato you're paying almost as much as you would for a piece of meat.

    No wonder people hate vegetables. Very few people will buy a tomato if it costs as much as a pork chop, and since the pork chop is subsidized and tomatoes aren't, that means most people have never tasted a good tomato. Or a really good peach. Many have never even tasted a good apple.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Anti-inflammatory by ArtemaOne · · Score: 2

    I've been greatly increasing the amount of anti-inflammatory foods over the last many years. It is very good for every part of your body. Doctors who have studied the right mixture of nutrition and diseases can attest that most things are the result of inflammation, including many chronic diseases. People in the Mediterranean areas often have much lower instances of these inflammation related diseases, and that is largely due to their diet of olives and use of (real) extra-virgin olive oil.

  7. Re: Rich People Diet by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    I made a tomato sauce with garden tomatoes and it was so strong and acidic that none of the processed-food-eaters could even keep it in their mouths; they would just spit it right out onto the plate!

    Of course, people used to eating traditional foods really loved it. That's why Italian pizza has less sauce; you only need to smear it across the bread, you don't need a whole drippy water layer.

  8. Re: Rich People Diet by Blaskowicz · · Score: 2

    That's interesting! Must be why some (people or recipes) call for sweetening the sauce with carrot or even sugar, but I would hate to do that. Not only that I don't like sweet much ; there's just no need, as there isn't much anything acidic in the tomatoes.

    I did try some canned "tomato sauce" that was sweetened, contained only tomato, carrot and some starch or syrup (!), and was the lowest end I've ever seen. *That* one was worth spitting out. Small jars with bolognese, napolitan, provençal sauce are very common in supermarkets, are popular and a lot better than the absolute worst I was talking of.. but still worse than cooking with low quality ingredients.
    I'm sort of craving soup right now.. :)

  9. Re: Rich People Diet by Jaime2 · · Score: 2

    Tip - blueberries are cheap twice a year in the US. Once when the US harvest comes in (exactly when depends on your latitude) and once when the South American harvest comes in (around now). They drop from $10 per pound to $3.25 per pound and the quality goes way up. Stop mold growth with a vinegar/water rinse and dry thoroughly and they'll keep for a week. Freeze them and they'll be good enough to use for cooking until the next season comes around - but don't expect them to be suitable for snacking.

    Also, for anything but snacking, consider buying frozen. I always buy the cherries I use in my breakfast frozen. I can get big, sweet, pitted cherries for $3 per pound any time of the year.