Talk:Mediterranean diet

Criticisms

This article is pretty weak and doesn't discuss the results of research or scientific consensus. Most dietitians and nutritionists seem to believe there's something to it, and there are studies showing a benefit (more for people with pre-existing heart problems or other conditions).[1][2][3] However it's not clear what exactly is causing the benefit: olive oil, nuts, fish, lower meat consumption, wine, fruit and veg, maybe even eating more slowly or communally. So the article should explain what benefits are proven and for whom (results for patients recovering from heart attacks may not translate to the general population), and then discuss what possible components of the diet might be involved. And it should discuss problems with the positive studies (e.g. the difficulty of blinding when you're giving people a whole new diet.) --Annanoon (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This article misrepresents the type of foods and their relative importance to the diet. A more honest representation to correct this problem would support the observation that it can be an model for reducing dietary saturated fat and that reducing such fats is an effective approach to lowering LDL cholesterol. LDL is an established risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease. The one-sided nature of the article and its categorization as woo does not facilitate an objective understanding of the diet in favor of snarky humor based on its misrepresentation of what the diet actual consists of. ^{— Unsigned, by: Rovyovan / talk / contribs}

Perhaps we could add a subsection mentioning this, like “Grain of Truth?” or something like that. We just need links to relevant research to back it up. --Goatspeed. _{See what I'm up to}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 20:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the other criticisms here. I had added a much more rational general summary of this diet along with its criticisms and issues. It was reverted back entirely to where it started. This content is misleading and cherry picked to disparage. A rational interpretation of this type of eating would include the benefits and issues. Acting like there is no data supporting this diet is intellectually dishonest. Whoever reverted the changes back - without AT LEAST keeping some of what I added cannot try to say it was done from a sincerely rational place. - Intellectual Blackhole