Monday, June 30, 2014

Does Poliquin Understand What He Critiques?

It’s clear that Poliquin doesn’t understand CrossFit’s goals or methods. CrossFit’s ultimate goal is not “optimal technique” or to “activate high-threshold motor units”- it is to develop work capacity across broad time and modal domains. We do this by moving large loads, long distances, quickly, in a variety of different ways. Since life often demands it, CrossFitters train explosive movement while both fresh and fatigued, and with every possible load and rep scheme.
What happens if an athlete only trains explosive movements (power cleans) while fresh, and never after strength and/or conditioning work? How will he do this in real life if he never does it in the gym? The ability to move explosively when fatigued is necessary in both life and sport.
As a trainer with so much experience training sport specific athletes, don’t Poliquin’s fighters, football players, soccer players, etc. need to be able to make big plays late in the game or fight? The development of this capacity, to move explosively while fatigued, is something that fighters, football players, hockey players, and other sport-specific CrossFit athletes always mention as a primary benefit of CrossFit.
This is a tough thing for many who come from more traditional S&C background to understand.  They've spent their careers trying to do specific things - develop discrete strength and power objectives - so when they see someone who's not trying to do that, they criticize "they are not like us! They don't value what we value!"  Right.  Because we want a different outcome than you want.  My friend Russell explains the difference nicely.
If you think in terms of "deadlifts fatigue the lower back" and "cleans are for development of explosive power" and "optimal development of capacity is developed when making maximal lifts" - all of which may be true in the context they are used by traditional S&C folks and for CrossFitters too - but isn't true in the context of a metabolic conditioning WOD (aka METCON).  For a METCON, we want to find ways to work hard, and mix them in many ways, just as life, sport and combat demands.  In other words, the clean can be many tools, not just a way to develop maximally explosive hip extension.  
At some point, all the critics will "get it."  "Oh, I see what they are going for", and 1000s of pages of criticism will immediately go up in smoke.

Friday, June 27, 2014

Causing Deaths? Yes.

Their website states “Our mission is to proactively support a sustainable exercise and fitness industry in New Zealand by growing participation in structured exercise through advocacy, information and industry standards.” As one CrossFit affiliate owner in NZ puts it, the organization does this by “milking money out of gyms and trainers so that they can call themselves ‘registered and trusted.’”
My source went on to explain that “They have strong ties to (and may even own) REPS – the Register of Exercise Professionals, which is basically the fitness industry version of the Healthy Heart tick we see on cereal boxes.  There is heavy promotion through industry related media to only train at REPS registered gyms, with REPS registered trainers. But of course, obtaining this registration only requires yearly membership payments…” 
REPs registration does require certain qualifications from a list of “registered providers”, but REPs itself appears to offer no educational offerings. At CrossFit HQ, we refer to this type of behavior as “rent-seeking,” which is the practice of trying to make money without creating value. It appears that Exercise NZ is extorting money from gyms by presenting itself as a fitness-industry authority.

CF is causing the death of BS organizations like Exercise NZ, and other pretenders to authority.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Why CrossFit?

They do it for three reasons. The first and most obvious is the physical result. High intensity exercise yields results that differ in kind from moderate-intensity efforts, not just in degree. In a peer-reviewed study in which one group exercised at moderate intensity for 45 minutes on a stationary bike and the other group did high-intensity intervals for 20 minutes and burned the same number of calories, the high-intensity group lost nine times the fat. Human growth hormone (HGH) and other compounds cascade into the blood of people who sprint as though a monster is chasing them and lift heavy objects as if earthquake survivors are trapped underneath. These hormones signal the body to burn fat and build muscle. The grim trudge-to-nowhere on a cardio machine, or miles of brisk walking, does not unlock this chemical cascade.

I remember in 2007 and 2008 when I was in my first year of CrossFit, amazed at the changes I was experiencing, and wondering why there were folks who would still argue about CrossFit's efficacy.  Greg Glassman would muse about how folks speculated that it was his marketing genius or some other factor that was driving CrossFit's rabid growth, and the passion of its practitioners.  Coach would just say - "It's the results."

He was right.  If you want to be the strongest on the planet, CF may not be best for you.  If you want to be a lean, mean endurance specialist, the best in the world in your chosen endurance endeavor, CF may not be right for you.  If you are a track and field power athlete, or an NFL lineman, plain old CF may not be right for you.  CF is a core strength and conditioning program designed to make you competent across the spectrum of physical adaptations.  Specialists will need a different program.  If you want to be fit - fit for the unknown and unknowable challenge - CrossFit is the best program there is.  And if you want the most result you can get from 3-5 hours per week of training, and you are a busy mom or dad, CrossFit is outstanding.

Strangely, there's an approach to training football athletes that uses CrossFit.  There is an approach for endurance training that uses CrossFit.  MMA fighters use CrossFit and variations on the basic idea.  Boxers - even elite ones - use CrossFit.  Motorcross racers, cyclists, professional drummers and musicians, NFL players, basketball players and baseball players also have used/do use CrossFit.  In a way that doesn't make sense - they are specialists, they should be better served by a specialist's program.  And yet ....

Come see us at CrossFit Fire of the Gods, inside Coastal Performance Center (Cook's Corner).  Call 207-449-8996 (or text), or email us at cffotg at gmail dot com.  We will get your introductory lesson scheduled and launch you to elite fitness.

(Thanks to my friend Crusader for the bird dog to this article)

Monday, June 23, 2014

The Reporter Probably Knows Less About Cholesterol Than ....

"Studies showed us that high cholesterol levels were one of the most important risk factors for the development of heart attack and stroke, and we had evidence that lowering cholesterol lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke," Ridker says. "You can't say that about most everything else."
But looking at just one number doesn't provide a detailed-enough picture to precisely assess risk, because it doesn't account for the interplay among LDL, HDL and triglycerides, or the fact that each of these affects risk in a different way, Mozaffarian says.

The irony is killing me!  The scientific and medical community went a non-scientific lark for 30 years and they think "we" don't know much about cholesterol?  Expletive deleted here.

The first line of the article refers to a cardiologist who has to re-teach everyone what they should know about cholesterol - because his profession has been butchering this stuff for years.  Shame on them.  A money quote:
"There's a lot of confusion and controversy around cholesterol," says Mozaffarian, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School. "There is even confusion among the scientists who study it."
Of course there is.  That is why the scientific method is needed.  The problem was, folks used their power and positions of authority to spread conjectures about the science of cholesterol as if it were scientifically proven truth.  Why?

 "Studies showed us that high cholesterol levels were one of the most important risk factors for the development of heart attack and stroke, and we had evidence that lowering cholesterol lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke," Ridker says. "You can't say that about most everything else."

Translation: There's a weak correlation between high total cholesterol and CVD, and there's limited evidence, very little, that shows lowering cholesterol can reduce the incidence of CVD.  But there was never strong evidence that lowering blood cholesterol - either total or LDL - could be used for primary prevention of CVD.  

The author goes on to describe various results of epidemiological studies, all of which have been "shown by studies" to be junk.

To make sure the irony levels in your blood are high enough, the author dives right into unproven speculation about how to "reduce your risk" (aka how folks who do epidemiology assess risk via mathematics, which has nothing to do with actually determining how these behaviors affect live people via intervention study), by doing this, that or the other to change the numbers reflected on your lipid panel.  Which is to say - the author just continues the cycle of confusing speculation based on expert opinion, immature science and ..... bovine excrement.

Example:  Should you try to raise your HDL by medications or some magic pill (niacin, for example)?  No, that has been proved not to work, and may be harmful.  In other words, folks with high HDL generally are healthier, but if you take a sick person and manipulate their HDL it does not help.

A lovely understatement, for those who appreciate understatement:
"But there is some disagreement over which dietary changes are best for heart health, says Roger Blumenthal, director of the Ciccarone Center."
Translation:  "We don't have a freaking clue."

""For most people, cholesterol from food isn't a contributor to their cholesterol levels," Blumenthal says."
And for those whose blood cholesterol levels are affected by their dietary cholesterol intake, they have no idea whether that matters at all in the cause of CVD.

"High-fat foods, such as cheese and chocolate, have also been regarded as verboten, yet "the evidence for this may not be as strong as we once thought," he says."
Translation:  "We didn't have a freaking clue, but were unable to keep our mouths shut."
 So, in the face of all of the mis-information in just this one article, much less the rest of the web, what a guy or gal to do?

Eat meat, vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit or starch, and no sugar/wheat.

Make your belly smaller, increase your muscle mass, learn more each day about how to eat for health and performance.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

CrossFit Book

Sounds like it may be a good read.


The absorbing, definitive account of CrossFit's origins, its explosive grassroots growth, and its emergence as a global phenomenon.

One of the most illuminating books ever on a sports subculture, Learning to Breathe Fire combines vivid sports writing with a thoughtful meditation on what it means to be human. In the book, veteran journalist J.C. Herz explains the science of maximum effort, why the modern gym fails an obese society, and the psychic rewards of ending up on the floor feeling as though you're about to die.

The story traces CrossFit’s rise, from a single underground gym in Santa Cruz to its adoption as the workout of choice for elite special forces, firefighters and cops, to its popularity as the go-to fitness routine for regular Joes and Janes. Especially riveting is Herz’s description of The CrossFit Games, which begin as an informal throw-down on a California ranch and evolve into a televised global proving ground for the fittest men and women on Earth, as well as hundreds of thousands of lesser mortals.

In her portrayal of the sport's star athletes, its passionate coaches and its “chief armorer,” Rogue Fitness, Herz powerfully evokes the uniqueness of a fitness culture that  cultivates primal fierceness in average people. And in the shared ordeal of an all-consuming workout, she unearths the ritual intensity that's been with us since humans invented sports, showing us how, on a deep level, we're all tribal hunters and first responders, waiting for the signal to go all-out.

Friday, June 20, 2014

What is Risk and Why Do You Care

What's more risky, swimming pools at the house or guns in the house?  What's more risky, driving to the gym or the most dangerous workout program known to man?  What kills more kids than guns?  What kills more folks annually than were killed in ten years of US involvement in Viet Nam?

My fellow CF professional Russell Burger takes a stab at quantifying the "risk" question in this blog post.

Click Bait. Photo Credit: Scott Wallace

"With a long enough time frame, the fatality rate for all activities is 100%. An injury rate without a time frame is meaningless.A 74% injury rate over one workout is very different from a 74% rate over years of training.
"Outside Magazine is a first-class source for bad reporting on fitness. They made this mistake recently:
"Studies have pegged the CrossFit injury rate from as low as 16 percent to as high as 74 percent." (The 16 percent figure has never been substantiated, but the Outside reporter failed to seriously investigate that fact.)
"Furthermore, the 16 percent figure comes from a 6-week study, whereas the 74 percent figure comes from a study where the average CrossFit experience was 18.6 months. In other words, the 74 percent figure came from a study with a time frame over 13 times as long as the other study. It's not a fair comparison.
"One way to address time is find the number of injuries per 1000 hours of participation. This is the incidence rate."

An interesting fact Russell cites:  "At least 52 Americans have died competing in triathlons since 2007."  Americans killed because they were doing CrossFit since 2007 - none that I know of.  But that's a meaningless comparison because we don't know how many folks are doing these things, or the causes of death.  If half the triathlon deaths were cause by auto accident, that would change the meaning of the stat, as it would if half of the triathlon/auto death accidents were caused by dehydrated athletes jumping in front of cars due to confusion.

Russell points out that "The "general fitness training" source the researchers cite found a rate of 5.92 injuries per 1000 hours of training. That's nearly twice what the researchers found for CrossFit."

In the end, you get to pick - is CrossFit too dangerous for you?  How about parachuting?  Swimming in the ocean?  Mountain climbing?  Cliff diving?  After 7 years I'm very clear about the risk/reward curve for myself.  Most folks who do CrossFit know the risks, just like they know the risks for driving to the gym, and choose to take them.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Jimmy Moore on Time Article

As for the Time column by Walsh, he did an amazing job of explaining that there was never any science that proved any of the gloom and doom predictions about fat's impact on our health. We grew up on fat-free and low-fat everything because the United States government decided to start meddling in the nutritional affairs of Americans by offering up dietary advice based on propaganda and not on any solid science. Once that happened in earnest beginning in 1980, the fat-phobia was underway and we're still living under those auspices in 2014. Food companies attempted to cash in on this new trend and pumped out more and more products that have been stripped of fat. Did we get healthier as a result? You already know the answer.
The statistics Walsh cites are mind boggling. We think we have a healthcare crisis, but what we have is a preventative disease epidemic that a low-carb, high-fat diet could help with. My Cholesterol Clarity and Keto Clarity coauthor Dr. Eric Westman was quoted in this story explaining that "the studies to support (low-carb, high-fat diets) do exist." There was a hope that when people cut their saturated fat intake that they would replace those foods with more fruits and vegetables. That didn't happen. Instead, they ate more carbohydrates, grains, sugar and other sweeteners than ever before!

The day is coming when folks will snicker under their breath "that health care professional still thinks saturated fat is bad for you."

Monday, June 16, 2014

What Is A "Third Place"?

This is a big part of what made my old dojo great, and it's a big part of what makes a good CrossFit gym great.

Following the cultural move toward isolation and anonymity, the fitness industry has built gyms where people work out in parallel, sealed off from each other by headphones and personal television screens.
But CrossFit affiliates are different. Applying Oldenburg’s criteria for third places to boxes (such as a welcoming atmosphere, a diverse membership and a low-key physical space) yields a shockingly apt fit—as though affiliates were designed as gathering spaces first and gyms second.
CrossFit is not just a novel workout; its boxes offer a new community space, an alternative to the village tavern or the general store, with the power to reconnect us to our communities and to each other.

Open Now in Brunswick, Maine

Many of my readers are not local, so I have not used the blog as a way to reach folks that are here and could actually walk into my gym now and train with us here at CrossFit Fire of the Gods.  That's all different now!

Today we are open for business inside Coastal Orthopedics at Cook's Corner.

I was here from 1992 to 1998, which is when I met Janet.  I thought we'd be able to come back to Maine for another tour with the Navy, but the Navy had other plans.  So we're back, just 14 or so years later than I'd hoped.

It took a strange turn of events to get here, but our business partner here is an old friend, Patrick Nelson, that I trained with at Wu Hsing Shan martial arts.  We lost our teacher, Al Gardner, in 2006, but still have the passion for movement and community that we learned at Al's dojo.  It has been exciting to join forces with Patrick and get to work.

We are scheduling 1 on 1 sessions to find out if CrossFit is right for you.  Give us call/text at 207-466-8996, or email cffotg at gmail .com so we can get you on track for a summer of rapid improvement in fitness and health!

Sunday, June 15, 2014

The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show With Jimmy Moore

Check out this cool episode:

Have a listen to podcast 823 in which Nina Teicholz lays it out about how we came to think saturated fat was bad, how polyunsaturates were a sickening substitute, and how vegetable oils can make your uniform spontaneously combust.  Unbelievable.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Dietary Cure for Acne: Interview with Dr. Loren Cordain by Robb Wolf

I understand you have some projects relating to intermittent fasting and autoimmunity. Can you share any tidbits about those or any other projects in the works our readers should know about?

Meal timing and frequency are poorly studied topics. Despite the almost complete lack of scientific evidence, many nutritionists and physicians as well believe that many small meals are more healthful and may help to promote weight loss than fewer larger meals. Once again I look to the evolutionary template to help unravel difficult diet/health questions. We have preliminarily compiled data from hunter-gatherers, and their meal patterns typically involve a single large meal at the end of the day and sometimes a light morning meal. They almost never eat three large meals a day with snacking in between—a pattern that seems to have become the norm in the U.S.

Experimentally, we have on our plates a project that will examine whether or not dietary lectins (in particular, wheat germ agglutinin [WGA]) can cross the intestinal barrier and enter the bloodstream. We suspect that dietary lectins may play a key role in certain autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, multiple sclerosis and others.

This is a great and short read.  When a dietary change affects something as pernicious and obvious as acne, that's is what you might think of as "a clue".  

Monday, June 9, 2014

CrossFit Bashers, Can You Be More Constructive? | Eva M. Selhub, M.D.

I remember this time last year, I spent a weekend going to watch the CrossFit Northeast Regionals competition. It was truly an amazing experience. I couldn't decide where to feast my eyes, the athletes competing, or the athletes in the spectator stands. The entire Reebok CrossFit One field was swimming with fit people. It was such a thrill for this doc to witness, especially since the night before I found myself walking amongst an ocean of obesity in the streets of Boston's North End.
In my two years of being part of CrossFit, I have witnessed more couch potatoes getting fit either because of CrossFit or because they were influenced by my or a friend's change in fitness level from participating in CrossFit. My friends and parents, for example have stopped eating high levels of grains and sugars and have started exercising regularly. Do you have any idea how many years I have been trying to get them to do so? This time around, I didn't push them to do anything.  They merely started because they saw how much healthier and fitter, not to mention happier I became.

Greg Glassman has said from the first days I was exposed to what he was teaching - "It's the results that matter."

So CrossFit has a "high injury rate"?  Well, not according to the insurance company CrossFit built to protect CrossFit affiliates (  But suppose it is true that some folks get injured because they do CrossFit, and of course that is true, the bigger question is "compared to what"?

You would need to know the injury rate per hour of activity, and the effectiveness of the program.  We evaluate risk in a context.  Cars are the most dangerous thing for humans.  If you had a friend who chose not to drive due to the danger of cars, you'd think they were a loony.  Why?  Because we judge the utility of cars to be worth the risk.  Likewise, if CrossFit is the most effective physical training system, folks might easily judge a high injury rate worth the risk.  Others might not see it that way.  As the man said, "you pays your money, you takes your chances."  So I like this author's perspective, and I hope as she does that we can find better critics for CrossFit.

In the mean time it is time to get my WOD on!

Jimmy Reviews Nina T - It's a Hit

But what Teicholz does so brilliantly throughout her book is offer up illustrations and actual statistical data that underscores why Keys was wrong, how he got it so inexplicably wrong, and why the mistakes he made in his research never got corrected despite the fact it is well-known that he omitted statistical data that disproved his theory. It’s quite the sordid tale that is worth the price of this book just to get that history behind the worldwide launch of the low-fat diet fad. This should be required reading for every doctor, dietitian and nutritional health researcher so they don’t go down the same path that Keys did.
But Teicholz goes beyond the story of Ancel Keys and turns her attention to what actually happened (the unintended consequences) as a result of what he promoted as fact a half century ago. The low-fat lie became deeply entrenched into every fiber of our being as an absolute, unassailable truth and yet there was never one iota of solid research (randomized, controlled, clinical trials are the gold standard for making claims in science) ever conducted. But when you repeat an untruth over and over and over again so many times, even the perpetrator of the lie can become convinced it’s actually true. And that’s exactly where we are with saturated fat today.

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Correlations Are Awfully Interesting

Did you know that fat ingestion causes cancer and heart disease?  Well, not only that, but crude oil imports from Norway cause an increase in death due to drivers crashing into trains in the US.
Here's the proof:  Tyler Vigen Spurious Correlations

This guy's page of correlations is how dietary advice is largely reported - folks get money to test for correlations, and report their findings.  When the information is interesting, or uninteresting, reporters make it into a story, usually by pretending that correlations mean more than they do.

Why are we stuck with this sort of immature science about diet and health?  Why don't they conduct more expensive and definitive studies?  Cost and complexity - both are so high such studies may never be done.  Medicare and Medicaid - designed to provide needed care to the poor and elderly - is eating the federal government, and leaving politicians with very little of other people's money to spend.  As the demand on these medical care systems grows the incentive to create feasible studies that yield usable information will increase.  

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Low/No Equipment WODs

Taken from the link below, these are great examples of how to get a smashing workout with no/low equipment.

Accumulate 5 minutes in a handstand against a wall, and every time you kick down, do a certain number of air squats (I did sets of 15 squats because I suck at handstands and had to kick down about 300 times)

4 rounds for time:
400-meter treadmill run
20 one-arm 50-lb. dumbbell snatches (alternating arms) 20 front squats with both dumbbells
(I would change the snatches to 30 per round)

In a hotel with six floors, 20 minutes of stair sprints and bunny hopping up the stairs 

5 rounds:

40-meter treadmill run
15 hang power cleans at 135 lb. 

Monkey-bar Cindy in a park at night 

100 over-the-bench burpees with 50-lb. dumbbells

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Experts, Expert Opinion, and Science - May They Never Meet

Dr. Eckel describes himself as “a scientist and professing six-day creationist and a member of the technical advisory board of the Institute for Creation Research…” Many scientists are religious. This is not to question Dr. Eckel’s religious beliefs, but to question his ability to think scientifically. He believes there is scientific proof that the world was created in six days and that evolution does not exist. This should at least raise eyebrows when the co-chair of an influential panel charged with giving scientifically sound dietary advice has a financial conflict of interestand proselytizes for beliefs that are anti-scientific.
Practice guidelines affect both public policy and medical practice. We should expect professional medical organizations—like the American Heart Association—to examine all the evidence relating to diet and heart disease risk.
The American people should be able to trust that only impartial scientists write guidelines. We should be confident that those experts are not working to advance corporate interests and that they do not espouse beliefs that are well outside the scientific mainstream. An avowed creationist who consults for a food lobby hardly seems an appropriate choice to fulfill these criteria.
For the last several decades, the AHA has promoted a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet as a cornerstone of heart health. It has taken a very public position that saturated fats are a major driver of heart disease risk and the mounting tide of evidence that this is dead wrong must put them it in a very uncomfortable position. And yet a fundamental requirement of science—as opposed to propaganda—is that when evidence that contradicts a hypothesis is replicated over and over again, that hypothesis must be abandoned.
This writer is very confused.  She says we should be able to trust that only impartial scientists write guidelines.  There is no such thing as an "impartial scientist", and if there were, there would be no way to identify one.  Further, the scientific method is very clear about the problem with truth - people.  The point of the scientific method is to remove the influence of humans on determining what is or is not true as regards scientific inquiry. 
She says we should be confident those experts are not working to advance corporate interests, but come on - how will that happen?  Many of them are, and it's ridiculous to think that we can figure out which which is which.  We should look at experts and politicians and corporations and their products and perform due diligence - including considering the opinions of "experts" who will judge everything created by any corporation as being a bad thing.  
As for this assertion, that we should be confident that they [scientists] do not espouse beliefs that are well outside the scientific mainstream, that's another laugher.  If that was the criteria for trusting a scientist, we might all still believe the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around us.  But it is also just an extension of the writer's underlying confusion - that we lay persons should be able to trust all knowing, all caring and all loving experts with our health, since we're all too stupid to sort out our own self interest and they practically were put on the earth to help us and ignore their own self interest.
There are no simple answers and there is not likely to be a solution that will remove from our plates the job of figuring this stuff out for ourselves.  
Good science can be executed by idiots with bad intentions and crazy beliefs.  Bad science is often the result of caring and highly informed people with great intentions.  The underlying assumption of the scientific method is that we cannot trust humans.  
Let the buyer beware.  The AHA has little to do any longer (and it may have never had anything to offer in that arena) with helping you keep your heart healthy, but that is not new news and has nothing to do with who their experts are.  It's a result of, or the cause of, the AHA's refusal to acknowledge how little we have proven by science about diet and health; and the AHA's assertion that it knows what is good/bad for heart health; and the AHA's refusal to admit to being wrong when there is now plenty of evidence that contradicts the AHA's advocacy of a low fat diet.
The AHA is just another institution gone wrong, of which there are plenty of other examples, and the idea - prestigious and influential institutions which are found to be self serving vice purposeful - is one of the less surprising discoveries in this time.  Raise your fist and be thankful that we have equal access to information, and need no longer be dependent on experts and institutions.

Sunday, June 1, 2014

Eades on Big Fat Surprise, 3

The story of how these scientists, using Keys’ bogus data from Crete (which in and of itself is a unbelievable story), teamed up with what amounted to a PR firm for the olive oil industry to seduce scores of American scientists and food writers is one of more fascinating parts of BFS. It was a perfect storm. The scientists and food writers were ripe to be lured into spending time on the Mediterranean coast, imbibing wine and eating the food. These all expense paid trips were ostensibly medical conferences, but in reality, they were marketing ploys. Food writers and journalists were looking for something new and exciting to write about. The masses, wearied of their tasteless low-fat fare, were ready to start adding fat back into their diets, even if it was in the form of olive oil. And the olive oil industry was more than ready to oblige. And to fund.
A handful of researchers started working on studies of the Mediterranean Diet, but there really wasn’t a Mediterranean Diet. There were a lot of people around the Mediterranean eating diverse diets, but no single Mediterranean Diet. So each research group basically created its own idea of the Mediterranean Diet and studied it.
To say you will be surprised to learn not only the structures of these various Mediterranean Diets but the outcome of the studies is a vast understatement.
I’m forever being accosted at parties and other events with questions about diet. When I explain what I do, I can’t tell you how many people then tell me they eat a Mediterranean Diet or that their doctor put them on a Mediterranean Diet. Even doctors believe the Mediterranean diet is the one diet that has stood the test of vigorous scientific investigation.