Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

trantheman713 t1_iy8j65e wrote

Reply to comment by Moont1de in "Green Mediterranean diet” high in polyphenols and fiber can reduce that visceral fat. After 18 months, those subjected to the diet saw a visceral fat reduction of 14 percent; eaters of the Mediterranean Diet saw a 7 percent drop. Visceral fat among “healthy eaters” was reduced by 4.5 percent by Wagamaga

Not that I don’t find that phenomenal, but the Green-Mediterranean diet here is not a plant based diet.

73

Moont1de t1_iy8ut5b wrote

It does substitute red meat for mostly vegetables

> The green protein shake was partially substituted for dinner, replacing beef/poultry protein sources

−12

trantheman713 t1_iy929hr wrote

I don’t gather that from the article. It states “reduced red meat consumption”, which could still equate to poultry and fish consumption.

It does add the greens shake, but it does not discuss overall animal product consumption.

27

[deleted] t1_iy9batz wrote

[removed]

−5

trantheman713 t1_iy9ilor wrote

I think you’re misreading my comment, friend. I’m suggesting that the reduction of red meat does not mean that overall meat consumption is reduced (including animals of non-land habitation).

10

ecafsub t1_iy9qxx3 wrote

If my weekly meat consumption is 3 kilos and I eliminate the red meat bringing my weekly consumption down to 2 kilos, then my overall meat consumption is reduced. If I replace that with a kilo of fish or fowl, then overall meat consumption is not reduced. Does the diet say to replace the red with non-red?

Fish and fowl are demonstrably healthier than red meat and are better for you. Increasing non-red meat consumption would be beneficial despite your vegan protestations.

−4

trantheman713 t1_iy9t68i wrote

The parent comment was discussing a plant-based diet, which excludes food sources from animals - land, fish, or fowl. I was simply clarifying that this study does not examine a plant-based diet, though it does support one that is vegetable-rich.

No one is arguing the merit of reducing red meat consumption - only that the article does not explicitly discuss overall meat consumption. You are correct in asserting the article does not state participants replaced red meat with poultry or fish, but the article does not explicitly state that they did not either.

3

Moont1de t1_iy9u740 wrote

> You are correct in asserting the article does not state participants replaced red meat with poultry or fish, but the article does not explicitly state that they did not either.

In the contrast with the traditional Mediterranean diet vs the green Mediterranean diet, it was replaced with vegetables.

0

trantheman713 t1_iy9vvpn wrote

Please provide a quote from the article that asserts there was a replacement involved. This seems to be a misinterpretation and does not defer to the verbiage used in the article.

Edit: Thanks to u/Moont1de for showing me the part where it was replaced for some red meat, which reduces the overall meat consumption. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

0

Moont1de t1_iy9wvoc wrote

sigh

> The green protein shake was partially substituted for dinner, replacing beef/poultry protein sources

2

trantheman713 t1_iy9zpdv wrote

Excellent. Thank you. Just reread the methods and spotted this.

1

Moont1de t1_iya03y9 wrote

Are you going to edit your other comments? This is very buried

0

trantheman713 t1_iya1rs3 wrote

Although some red meat consumption was substituted for the Mankai shake, it still does not make the case for a plant based (vegan) diet, only one rich in polyphenols.

2

Moont1de t1_iya293b wrote

I am referring to your comments where you accuse me of misinterpretation and the comment where you say there was no substitution

0

Moont1de t1_iy92o0b wrote

Then keep reading, they contrast MED (which has poultry and fish and red meat) and green MED (which has poultry and fish and more vegetables). Guess which one performed better

−15

trantheman713 t1_iy94vc8 wrote

If you could point to where it discusses overall protein substitution or meat reduction between the two MED diets, I’d love to concede, but it simply does not. The reduction of red meat consumption and the addition of the plant shake does not equal to reduced poultry and fish consumption.

12

Moont1de t1_iy95h4j wrote

I misexpressed myself so I edited my comment to better reflect what I thought I had said.

The poultry and fish consumption across both MED diets is the same, but the green MED has less red meat and more vegetables.

It would make no sense (and be a terrible control) if they changed other variables beyond the one they are trying to test (red meat vs. vegetables)

3

Discowien t1_iy9jayr wrote

That doesn't make it a plant based diet though, does it?

11

NeilOffTheYoungOnes t1_iya27ti wrote

>Green Mediterranean diet

It depends on how you define plant based. If you define it as a diet mostly focused on plants, then it is plant based. If you define it as a diet with no animal products, then it's not. Seeing as both are common usages of the word, my take away is that plant based is pretty much meaningless.

3

L1ngo t1_iya12nd wrote

It substitutes nothing, because it never included red meat to start with.

−2

Moont1de t1_iya24vg wrote

/r/confidentlyincorrect

The green protein shake was partially substituted for dinner, replacing beef/poultry protein sources

3