Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Wagamaga OP t1_iy8c7ym wrote

Background Mediterranean (MED) diet is a rich source of polyphenols, which benefit adiposity by several mechanisms. We explored the effect of the green-MED diet, twice fortified in dietary polyphenols and lower in red/processed meat, on visceral adipose tissue (VAT).

Methods In the 18-month Dietary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trial PoLyphenols UnproceSsed (DIRECT-PLUS) weight-loss trial, 294 participants were randomized to (A) healthy dietary guidelines (HDG), (B) MED, or (C) green-MED diets, all combined with physical activity. Both isocaloric MED groups consumed 28 g/day of walnuts (+ 440 mg/day polyphenols). The green-MED group further consumed green tea (3–4 cups/day) and Wolffia globosa (duckweed strain) plant green shake (100 g frozen cubes/day) (+ 800mg/day polyphenols) and reduced red meat intake. We used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to quantify the abdominal adipose tissues.

Results Participants (age = 51 years; 88% men; body mass index = 31.2 kg/m2; 29% VAT) had an 89.8% retention rate and 79.3% completed eligible MRIs. While both MED diets reached similar moderate weight (MED: − 2.7%, green-MED: − 3.9%) and waist circumference (MED: − 4.7%, green-MED: − 5.7%) loss, the green-MED dieters doubled the VAT loss (HDG: − 4.2%, MED: − 6.0%, green-MED: − 14.1%; p < 0.05, independent of age, sex, waist circumference, or weight loss). Higher dietary consumption of green tea, walnuts, and Wolffia globosa; lower red meat intake; higher total plasma polyphenols (mainly hippuric acid), and elevated urine urolithin A polyphenol were significantly related to greater VAT loss (p < 0.05, multivariate models).

18

PolyDipsoManiac t1_iy8xwu9 wrote

“Can reduce that abdominal fat?” Why editorialize the title?

Actual title: The effect of high-polyphenol Mediterranean diet on visceral adiposity: the DIRECT PLUS randomized controlled trial

14

Moont1de t1_iy99ws0 wrote

Why not editorialize? It’s literally a conclusion of the paper

−6

smart_stable_genius_ t1_iybk01t wrote

I'd rather just get the facts and not someone's interpretation of it. There's probably a science opinions subreddit for that kind of content.

1

Moont1de t1_iybkj97 wrote

> I'd rather just get the facts and not someone's interpretation of it.

OP is citing a literal conclusion to the paper.

> There's probably a science opinions subreddit for that kind of content.

The content of this thread is a scientific paper. Perhaps you might want to click on it

1

smart_stable_genius_ t1_iyblfrh wrote

It's also explicitly against community guidelines, so the post will likely - and rightfully - be removed anyway.

1

Moont1de t1_iyblkg6 wrote

I wouldn't hold my breath, it's been up for 13 hours and every single post in the front page has similar editorialization.

1

smart_stable_genius_ t1_iybl1a1 wrote

>The content of this thread is a scientific paper. Perhaps you might want to click on it

No. The content of the post is a scientific paper.

The content of the thread is the unnecessary editorialization of the content. My opinion stands.

−1

Moont1de t1_iybldfl wrote

The title of the thread contains 1 (one) editorialized sentence that accurately describes part of the results of the paper linked in the thread. The title includes 4 other sentences that are not editorialized in any way.

You're complaining about 1 (one) a sentence that is not even the opinion of OP, rather just a rewording of the authors' conclusion to make it more palatable to broad audiences.

Looking at the front page of /r/science right now, every single thread has an editorialized title to make it more accessible.

You're grasping at straws

2

smart_stable_genius_ t1_iyblsoy wrote

It's literally against the subs rules to do exactly what they did.

I'm not grasping at anything. The title of the post should be the title of the study, period. I didn't post the original complaint, so it's not just me. Nobody wants someone's swayed portrayal of what the study is about when an actual factbased title is already available and required. It's a gratuitous spin and it's unnecessary.

−2