jvican

Spain has some of the best and some of the worst olive oil in the world, mostly because it has about 45% of total world supply, and because people in the country care a lot about EVOOs.

It’s true that Italian olive oil has traditionally had a lot better marketing. When we talk about p70 and p80 olive oil quality, Spain wins hands down over Italy and other producers. Don’t get me wrong, Italy and Greece have excellent olive oil too, but it’s much harder to find and usually a lot more expensive. If you’re at a supermarket and have to decide between Italian and Spanish olive oil, chances are that the Spanish olive oil will be much better and, sometimes, even cheaper. A common practice in Italy, even though they don’t like to admit is, is that they import Spanish olive oil, relabel it, and sell it as their own.

One thing Italy, Greece, and other parts of the Mediterranean have is different and more diverse olive tree varieties. Frantoio is a good example.

The most important thing when buying great extra virgin olive oil is to buy straight from a well-known producer. If you buy from an intermediary, the chances that they’ve cut the EVOO with other oils (a common practice in markets outside of Southern Europe, like the US) to cheapen them is high.

To give an idea of the massive contribution that Jaen (and marginally the rest of Spain) gives to olive oil supply, Spain olive oil exports are about ~45% of world supply. There’s a lot of olive oil in Jaen, and most of it is some of the best olive oil you can try. Most of the worldwide award winners in EVOO competitions are from Jaen, though not all, as other parts of Spain also contribute excellent olive oil.

Thanks for sharing! Will definitely watch.

I'd agree, but alcohol isn't necessarily highly addictive. The addiction depends on the dose quantity and frequency. I'm talking, a beer or wine, not necessarily liquor. I mean, let's look at the real word: for every alcoholic addict, there must be _at least_ one person that casually drinks one drink a week or two.

One could argue that small exposure to these metals is what caused us our body to develop defenses against them. If you remove the "small" exposure, you remove the cure, so to speak. Similar to how small quantities of cyanide create an adaptation in your body, but a slightly bigger one would kill you. Minimizing exposure can be net negative for us, as humans, and four our future children.

Fair, but it depends on how far you want to go down the memory lane. It's not unheard of that Greeks would live until they're 60 or 70yo. That's about 2500 years ago. Not as much as 100s of thousands of years ago, but the selection pressure is still present, and who knows how far back it might have gone.

No, no. You got this backwards. You and others arguing your point have to find solid evidence that small alcohol quantities have that “risk” or “harm”.

In absence of evidence, it’s a better default to think that it’s not harmful as explained by my arguments above. I’m not arguing selection pressure is a strong argument in favor of no harm, I’m arguing that it's a better argument in absence of strong evidence saying otherwise.

The linked document explains how there’s not such thing as strong evidence in habit of the small alcohol quantities are harmful hypothesis. Making papers and running studies is hard, they depend on small sample sizes and statistical analysis that more often than not is flawed.

Maybe — I haven't looked at the evidence.

But, alcohol is something that has been present in our ancestral environment (e.g. fermented fruits). If anyone's telling me, our bodies didn't learn to at least tolerate small amounts of it without any major side effects, I'm going to be asking a lot of follow-up questions.

I think it's much easier to argue this case than, say, tobacco or "drugs", which are arguably more recent inventions, depending on your exact definition of drug.

Agreed - it's all in the dose and the response. Not even mentioning the selection pressure for us to adapt to at least small amounts of alcohol in our diet, which has been present in basic things such as fermented fruits that we had to eat in our ancestral environment.

I think nobody would argue drinking a lot of alcohol, or substantial alcohol, is detrimental for health.

The question being argued is whether drinking a small amount of alcohol is detrimental to your health. This is a different matter altogether.

We, humans, have been drinking alcohol for millenia. I'm skeptical to the idea that a small amount, say, a glass of wine for lunch every day or so, can harm us, especially for active individuals. There has been a natural selection process for us to adapt.

I believe what Taleb is doing here is of great public value, and I commend him for that.

In constitutional monarchy systems like the UK, the king/queen serves a merely representative and largely symbolic role. Morocco's king actually rules over the country. That is a big difference.

I'm indeed bringing something to the discussion. And I'm not Algerian, or from another imaginary "side".

I'm flagging that every little bit he's uttering in his comment should be fact-checked by a serious, educated reader if it is to be believed, as it's framed as a "casual" catchup on the situation of Western Sahara.

I don't have neither the time nor the interest to fact check, but I know enough to know that much of this perspective he's sharing is wrong, so my comment simply serves as a warning for those that want to take it. If you don't, that's fine.