The Pioppi Diet is a superficial lifestyle guide based on distorted evidence

Pioppi is a very small village in southern Italy. It is one of those places where people are reputed to live much longer than average (the authors claim life expectancy is 89 years but do not provide a citation for this claim). The gimmick behind this book is that the authors have travelled to the village, bottled its secrets and are prepared to sell them to you for a small fee.

Since the authors are both advocates of the low carb, high fat (LCHF) regime, everything is seen through the prism of the Atkins diet. They are Aseem Malhotra (a cardiologist, as he never tires of reminding you) and Donal O’Neill (director of internet-only, anti-carbohydrate movies such as Cereal Killers and Run on Fat).

In some respects, Pioppi is a surprising place to find this low carb duo as it was the home of the scientist Ancel Keys who died in 2004 at the age of 100. It was Keys who drew the world’s attention to the villagers’ longevity when he was conducting research into nutrition in the mid-twentieth century. That research helped to create the evidence that linked saturated fat to heart disease, and low carb activists have spent years portraying him as a crackpot and a bully who was probably in the pay of Big Sugar and who definitely blackmailed the scientific community into unfairly ‘demonising’ saturated fat. As a result of his junk science, they say, governments around the world changed their dietary guidelines to encourage the consumption of carbohydrates at the expense of life-saving lard. The general public, slavishly following government advice as always, took this as a green light to stuff their faces with sugar and soon became obese.

It’s a bizarre and ahistorical conspiracy theory which, as Anthony Warner says in The Angry Chef would require ‘paying off the medical establishment, the World Health Organisation, numerous charities, public health bodies and nutrition researchers around the world, and keep producing systematic reviews that show links between consumption of saturated fats and increased risk of heart disease.’ The idea that millions of people have been killed by guidelines which (a) were never followed, and (b) clearly discouraged sugar consumption, is one of the strangest memes in the world of nutritional woo.

Pioppi is at the very centre of the nutritional orthodoxy. Not only did Ancel Keys live there for many years, but it is recognised by UNESCO as the home of the Mediterranean Diet. In a sense, The Pioppi Diet is an attempt to erase the legacy of Keys and reclaim the village for the one true faith of LCHF. Keys attributed the Pioppi residents’ low rates of heart disease to the relative scarcity of saturated fat in the Mediterranean diet, but as far as Malhotra and O’Neill are concerned, saturated fat has been exonerated and their job is to discover what is really going on there.

Reading between the lines of The Pioppi Diet, it’s reasonably obvious what’s going on. It’s a rural farming and fishing community of 200 people who are engaged in manual labour from a young age and remain physically active throughout their lives. The air is clean and the local diet is dominated by fruit, vegetables, fish, pasta, olive oil and wine. The villagers have traditionally been too poor to eat a lot of red meat. Indeed, they have been too poor to eat a lot of anything, hence the low rate of obesity and its associated diseases.

The longevity of the Pioppi people is therefore entirely consistent with mainstream science and yet it forms the backdrop to a book which tells the reader to be ‘prepared for everything you know and believe to be true to be turned on its head’. But it is only a backdrop, a blank screen onto which they project whatever thoughts come to mind. They visit the village but do not conduct any research there. Instead, they stroll around drinking coffee, admiring the noble peasants and making sagelike comments such as ‘There’s not much sign of stress around here, Aseem.’

The first half of the book sees them take it in turns to crowbar in all the LCHF articles of faith: physical activity won’t help you lose weight, saturated fat is good for you, cholesterol is nothing to worry about, sugar is a poison, a calorie is not a calorie, etc. I have neither the time nor inclination to fact-check all of their claims so I will allow for the possibility that they might be right from time to time. I am quite prepared to believe that the dangers of saturated fat have been overstated; better qualified people than Malhotra and O’Neill have been critical of the evidence for years. But whenever they touch on a topic with which I am familiar, I noticed that their discussion of evidence was partial and one-sided, and sometimes totally incorrect. On the occasions when I felt moved to follow up their (rather patchy) references, I nearly always found that there was less to them than meets the eye.

For example, Malhotra cites the PREDIMED study, a well-regarded piece of research which appeared to show significant benefits from the consumption of nuts and olive oil. But it did not, as Malhotra claims, show the superiority of a high-fat diet over a low-fat diet; such a hypothesis was never raised nor tested. He also cites the Lyon Diet Heart Study as evidence that ‘the standard American Heart Association recommended “low-fat diet”‘ causes more heart attacks than the Mediterranean Diet. The study does indeed show benefits from the Mediterranean Diet, but it is only by reading the study that you would see that the Mediterranean Diet was lower in both total fats and saturated fats than the ‘standard’ diet.

Some of the errors in the book are risible, such as when they claim that in ‘industrialised countries between 5 and 10 per cent of GDP is spent treating dental disease’ (the entire NHS budget takes up 9 per cent of GDP). Others are just sloppy, such as when they use a graphic from a newspaper to prove that poor diets cause 35 per cent of deaths (they don’t). Nearly all of them are consistent with a systematic bias towards a desired conclusion.

The reader should not have to look up the references in a book to find out what is being concealed. The nutritional epidemiology literature is enormous. Thousands of studies have been conducted and they do not all agree with one another. If one ignores the totality of the evidence and cherry-picks a handful of studies, it is possible to argue almost anything. If the reader cannot trust the author to play with a straight bat, he might as well save his money and go on a Google binge.

Take the chapter on sugar, for instance. The scientific consensus says that obesity is a risk factor for diabetes. Insofar as there is a link between sugar and diabetes, it is the same as the link between cheese and diabetes, ie. if you eat to much of it, you will become obese and therefore be at greater risk of diabetes. It is indirect.

A handful of dissenters claim that there is a direct link and that sugar can cause diabetes even in the absence of obesity. The most famous of them is Robert Lustig, a Californian endocrinologist who has views on sugar that are extreme by any standard. He has made various wild claims about sugar being ‘toxic’ and ‘addictive’. He calls it ‘the alcohol of the child’. Amongst other strange assertions, he has said that breast milk is not sweet and that pasta was invented in America. His published research on sugar is, in my view, third rate and I don’t think anybody should take him too seriously. But he is on the low carb bandwagon and is one of Malhotra’s chums. Consequently, while the chapter on sugar only references five studies, four of them are by Lustig and his colleagues, although this is not obvious from the text.

Even if the scientific consensus is wrong and Lustig turns out to be a sort of Galileo, shouldn’t Malhotra at least acknowledge the totality of the evidence, even if only to argue against it? And if there is an independent association between sugar and diabetes, why do organisations that want people to eat less sugar – such as SACN and Diabetes UK – continue to deny it? Is everybody in the pay of Big Sugar?

Malhotra’s credentials as a cardiologist are not sufficient to persuade me to ignore so many scientists. He says himself that ‘the majority of doctors are not equipped with even basic training to give specific, evidence-based lifestyle advice’ and admits that he doesn’t recall receiving ‘a single lecture at medical school on the impact of nutrition and lifestyle on preventing and treating disease’. All of his conclusions, he says, are based on ‘my own research’. But there are experts in this field who have received ample training and have been given many lectures on nutrition. They are called dieticians, and I have yet to meet one who endorses Malhotra’s message.

It soon becomes clear that The Pioppi Diet is not a serious review of the evidence. It provides a distorted and superficial account of a tiny fraction of the evidence. It does not really attempt to overturn the scientific consensus, it simply ignores it. Meanwhile, it devotes page after page to a handful of low carb activists who are portrayed as world-leading authorities, such as Zoe Harcombe, Tim Noakes, Nina Teicholz, Jason Fung and Robert Lustig. While all these people have books to sell, Malhotra and O’Neill accuse ‘many scientists and doctors’, as well as the media, of being ‘under the financial influence of the food and pharmaceutical industry’. This, we are told, is why they ‘disseminate selected, biased and outdated information’. When your best evidence is a single study from 1956 which has never been replicated, this is a bit rich.

So what is this Pioppi Diet that promises a ‘life-changing journey taking just 21 days’? The first thing to understand is that it is not a diet, it is a lifestyle. From wandering around Pioppi, Malhotra and O’Neill come to the profound conclusion that it is important to socialise with friends, take plenty of exercise, be relaxed and get some sleep. They can’t help you with socialising or stress relief, but they suggest you get at least seven hours sleep (which is also what the National Sleep Foundation recommends). With regards to exercise, O’Neill spends several pages waxing lyrical about high intensity interval training, but is forced to admit that they don’t do that kind of thing in Pioppi and so recommends getting up from your desk every 45 minutes to stretch your legs.

So much for the lifestyle. What about the food? Malhotra and O’Neill recommend that you avoid desserts, all sugars (including fruit juice and honey) and many of the most common sources of calories, including bread, rice, pasta, cereals, potatoes, noodles, couscous and ‘anything flour based’. You should also fast for 24 hours once a week and think about skipping breakfast every day (because the authors were told that Pioppi people used to be so poor that they sometimes went to work hungry). If you do all this, plus lots of walking and go to the gym five times a week (as Malhotra does) or engage in regular high intensity training (as O’Neill does), they reckon you will lose weight. And do you know what? I think they might be right. Behold the miracle of the Pioppi Diet!

The trouble with this whole concept is that Malhotra and O’Neill’s interpretation of the Pioppi Diet does not reflect what the people of Pioppi eat. It is basically an ultra-low carb version of the Mediterranean Diet with a few trendy ingredients, such as coconut oil, thrown in. Coconuts have never been part of the Italian diet and nor have ‘full-fat fermented dairy products’ but the authors include the latter anyway because – as they say – ‘the Greek cohort in Ancel Keys’s original studies enjoyed [them] … so there is no reason we shouldn’t be doing likewise!’

Do you know what the people of Pioppi actually eat? Processed carbohydrates. Farm workers in rural Italy do not – could not – survive on a diet of fish and seasonal vegetables. Pasta is as central to the Italian diet as potatoes are to Britain’s. So too is bread. This is the elephant in the room for anyone trying to pretend that Italians eat a low carb diet. As a 94 year old Pioppi resident said last year: ‘Pasta is my favourite food. I don’t understand why so many people try to cut that and bread out of their diets – it is like medicine for the heart and it is silly not to eat it.’

Once you accept that pasta and bread are important elements of Mediterranean cuisine, the actual Pioppi diet involves lots of fruit, vegetables, fish, starchy carbohydrates, mushrooms, nuts and eggs, but little or no cake, biscuits, processed meat, crisps and red meat. In other words, it is the UK government’s Eatwell Guide with extra virgin olive oil. Maybe those official dietary guidelines are not so deadly after all?


  • Nostents4me
    • whimsical

      Excellent article! Thank you 😙

      Father always said “Potatoes make you stupid,” and now there’s a study that proves it.

  • Callipygian

    Isn’t the Atkins diet low-carb, moderately high fat and moderately high protein? Don’t forget the protein. And the New Atkins diet (authored by people other than the originator himself) makes the point that bingeing on fat is NOT the goal of the diet — and will undermine fat loss if you do it.

    • Lentigo

      That is probably the Asian influence in which most dishes (especially meat) include a few spoons of palm sugar. Traditional Asian bottled sauces are also high in sugar.

      • Callipygian

        No, it’s tacos. I’m very familiar with both Asian and Indian cuisine, neither of which likes gratuitous sugar as Americans do.

      • Nefarious Purple Badger

        Ignoramous.

    • Jab

      They put sugar into the tomato sauce on Pizza in New York, it was inedible.Thats the sugar addiction in the US where corn sugar is big business and its cheap to eat take away food that is bad for you

      • Hmm, I’ve had plenty of pizza in New York and never had that misfortune. You should have tried one of the several ‘Ray’s’ (it’s not a chain, just the original Rays and lots of pretenders!).

  • Arnold

    ##The scientific consensus says that obesity is a risk factor for diabetes. Insofar as there is a link between sugar and diabetes, it is the same as the link between cheese and diabetes, ie. if you eat to much of it, you will become obese and therefore be at greater risk of diabetes. It is indirect.##
    I think this is very superficial. Firstly, the impact on insulin of cheese vs sugar is very different. Secondly, one has to eat a lot less cheese to feel full and not be hungry for several hours than is the case with sugar rich food. (again, it has to do with how this food impacts blood-sugar/insulin).

    • Stella Barbone

      Protein triggers insulin release too. Gary Taubes’ insulin and obesity hypothesis, while popular and widely disseminated, is nonsense.

      • Arnold

        Why is it nonsense?

      • Stanlycam

        Moderate protein not high

    • Michael Siddle

      You have it back to front. Cheese will satisfy hunger very quickly. Sugar creates an insatiable craving. You will lose weight eating as much cheese as you want and avoiding carbs but you will always put on weight if you eat sugar to excess or in combination with anything else. I have been on the new Atkins for years. I have lost over 30 kilos and maintained the loss. My blood pressure and cholesterol levels are better than average. Reality speaks for itself.

  • vapingpoint

    I am SUCH a fan of yours, but I cringe when you write about diet. You absolutely havent a clue! Anyone who trashes LCHF eating, has not had personal health problems solved by LCHF eating. I have this dream that something might illuminate you – and (unfortunately) it’s usually personal experience. You have influence and clout so your words are believed by those more ignorant than you. Anyone who can say “In other words, it is the UK government’s Eatwell Guide with extra virgin olive oil. Maybe those official dietary guidelines are not so deadly after all?” shows that they don’t know, the same “plate” is supposedly right for diabetics! The NHS guidelines for eating show a HUGE inability for the system to change – and you are just promoting ignorance. As for the science to back up LCHF eating – there is much. What is stonger than any science (that needs a generational death before it seems to change) are anecdotes and word of mouth. LCHF eating solves real problems, for diabetics, for arthritics, for digestive problems, for weight loss, for epileptics, for allergies and for many other conditions. I don’t know why you are so rigid in your thinking. It’s truly disappointing.

    • Nefarious Purple Badger

      “What is stonger than any science (that needs a generational death before it seems to change) are anecdotes and word of mouth. LCHF eating solves real problems, for diabetics, for arthritics, for digestive problems, for weight loss, for epileptics, for allergies and for many other conditions.”

      – This essentially translates to:

      “Heresay and conjecture trumps empiricle evidence because I/we said so”.

      Seriously, go sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done.

      • vapingpoint

        Science BEGINS with anecdotes. An hypothesis is made. It’s proved or disproved. But, with food, “proof” of anything is very difficult, and is easy to manipulate to your own bias.The old ideas are persisting too long, to the detriment of people’s health. LCHF eating solves real problems, for diabetics, for arthritics, for digestive problems, for weight loss, for epileptics, for allergies and for many other conditions.That is not heresay and conjecture. It can be PROVED. Dont be silly!

        • Nefarious Purple Badger

          “But, with food ‘proof’ of anything is very difficult and easily to manipulate to your own bias”

          You then go on to say that a
          all the health benefits you are claiming can indeed be proved or should I say PROVED (because putting it in capitals lends your heresay and conjecture more gravitas?)

          It staggers me that you can talk about personal bias without even considering your own.

          I assume the proof of which you speak is the anecdotal ‘evidence’ that you so vehemently espouse.

          Nutrition & health and the intersections and interactions therin are multifaceted and complicated. Varying drastically from one person to the next.

          The claims you are making are outrageously sensationalist, are not based on scientific study. Furthermore your supposed evidence or proof is that it works for you and you’ve heard stories of it working for others.

          And you suggest that I am the one being silly.

          I wouldn’t speak out if I thought your comments were wrong but harmless, but people like you espousing your anecdotal so called ‘evidence’ can and will result in suffering or worse for others out their that are vulnerable to this kind of B/S.

          Don’t waste your time responding, I have no further interest in anything said by people that do not understand the difference between speech marks and inverted commas but insist on using them anyway. If your written English is anything to go by, I’d not trust anything you say or do.

          I strongly suggest you take remedial English and science classes. Not just for your own sake but for the sanity of those around you.

          Good day to you madam.

          • vapingpoint

            “Don’t waste your time responding” Oh good idea! As they say – don’t feed the trolls – so I won’t.
            Blessings, dear.

          • Nefarious Purple Badger

            Cunt.

    • Lynne Timm

      well said

    • Gretchen Saaduddin

      Clean up our carbs, and you might have better health. We all need to complain about grains being dosed with glyphosate preharvest. Because they don’t need to reveal this on packaging, even non GMO, organic labels are sneaking this grain into their product. It is called poisoning….People that want to eat occasional carbs get slammed by this.

      • vapingpoint

        Well – that’s a REALLY important point! Yes.

  • David_Brown

    “It was Keys who drew the world’s attention to the villagers’ longevity when he was conducting research into nutrition in the mid-twentieth century. That research helped to create the evidence that linked saturated fat to heart disease,…”

    How does one create evidence? Evidence consists of facts. A fact is always true. Is it possible to fabricate facts? I don’t think so. I’ve been following the saturated fat controversy for nearly 20 years and, in the words of Michael Chu, ” I have been unable to discover any evidence that there is evidence that saturated fats are bad for you.” http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/40/Saturated-Fats-Cholesterol-and-Heart-Disease

    The big problem is the cult of scientific authority that perpetuates beliefs based on unsubstantiated claims about cholesterol levels and heart attack. http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2009/12/total-cholesterol-and-cardiovascular.html

    • Callipygian

      The lies about fats have led to shorter and worse lives, but Keyes is still treated as an authority and a giant of nutrition, instead of the criminally self-seeking fraud that he was.

  • whimsical

    “The reader should not have to look up the references in a book to find out what is being concealed.”

    So true.

    • Jack Brien

      But if your going to write a long winded decimation of the said article and have it published, maybe you should be bothered to look up the referencing. Otherwise you look like you’re just lazy, don’t really care to address the issues your writing about and have no objectivity.

      • whimsical

        I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make.

        Obviously, Mr. Snowdon did check the references and found them to be not at all what the authors purported.

  • post_x_it

    So it appears that at least part of the secret of longevity is to avoid being rich enough to fall victim to lifestyle diseases caused by excess consumption. The hapless folk of Pioppi are about to rake in a mahusive windfall from Pioppi Diet tourism. Let’s hope they spend it wisely.

  • Terry Clay

    Methinks the writer protests too much. Was it Epicurus who said, “No man is a hypocrite about his indulgences”? Assuming Christopher Snowdon is not a hypocrite, I wonder what his indulgences are!

  • Firebird7478

    The writer leaves out the part that towards the end of Keys’ life, he retracted his own lipid hypothesis and even wrote a paper about it. The problem is, he did such a great job snowing the medical establishment the first time that they refused to publish the article.

    What the writer also leaves out is that the Mediterranean Diet is based upon different regions. People eat what is available in their region. The Pioppis are on the water so naturally they would have plenty of access to fish. However, if they were up in the mountains and only lamb was available, then that is what they would eat.

    • Jab

      If you go to Italy you will see that most populations are near the coast except in the North which is not the med and have a very different diet with lots of cheese and ham

  • Jab

    Having lived with my Italian family in a small town in southern Italy for 15 years I can tell you that they do have good general health, most are slim and live long lives.They do eat quite a bit of white bread but it is good bread using flour like ciabatta bread you get in the UK.They eat dessert on sundays and the children rarely ask for sweets, they have very high quality fruit and veg.Salads are good and lots of olive oil.
    They are quite stressed because of family and poverty so its a different kind of stress.
    I think this book is a waste of money.I prefer, as a medical professional the book on the cholesterol myth by Mckendrick.Thats real science.I find it worrying that this man is a consultant cardiologist.

  • Gretchen Saaduddin

    There really can be no discussion of carbs vs low carb until our carbs are cleaned up, and I don’t mean gluten manipulation. Humans have been eating both carbs and fat for centuries (including the gluten). However, the recent spike in gut issues which has partially fueled the low carb debate could be remedied if Big Ag would quit spraying glyphosate on crops preharvest as a dessicant. The rise in gut issues, malabsorption and many other problems (probably including insulin resistance) have started with the inclusion of “dirty” farming practices. Why do children need probiotics (advertised daily)???