Search Weight Loss Topics:

Page 239«..1020..238239240241..250260..»

Home » Diets that Work » Page 239

Snow leopard and Himalayan wolf diets are about one-quarter livestock Science Daily Although livestock constitutes a substantial proportion of the predator's diets, little is known about the actual predation impact on the pastoral communities. Hence, the researchers' forthcoming work focuses on estimating livestock mortality rates and ... and more »

See the original post here:
Snow leopard and Himalayan wolf diets are about one-quarter livestock - Science Daily

Posted: Feb. 7, 2017 12:01 am

I know Democrats and progressives are going nuts over President Trump's first few weeks in office -- I know the Middle East is a mess and that we have no small number of incredible challenges at home -- but I have my own worries.

Like millions of other Americans, I'm on my annual February diet.

You see, it's not easy to be trim and fit in America. Our culture is saturated with an abundance of high-calorie, processed foods that turn into instant fat.

We work long and hard in sedentary office jobs, then eat our stress away, two or three fast-food treats at a time.

We've become so fat, to quote Rodney Dangerfield, that our bathtubs have stretch marks.

We know our increasing tubbiness isn't healthy. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, obesity-associated diseases such as diabetes have soared in recent years. Gallbladder diseases, sleep apnea, high blood pressure and heart disease are all caused by carrying too much weight.

And so we are on a continuous mission to lose weight. Our challenge is that the fad diets that promise to get us there go in and out of fashion faster than the white patent leather shoes and belts my father used to wear to church.

According to the website The Daily Meal (thedailymeal.com), the Mediterranean Diet -- it features natural, plant-based foods, such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes and nuts -- is in.

So, too, is the Paleo Diet, which apparently is similar to the Mediterranean Diet, except legumes are forbidden.

Which is a shame, too, because I just learned that legumes include alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupin beans, mesquite, carob, soybeans, peanuts and tamarind -- which go well with the bourbon I am driven to drink as I try to figure out which diet to go on.

Volumetrics is another "in" diet. It encourages the consumption of low-energy-density foods, which make you feel full with fewer calories than high-energy-density foods. It also sounds like too much math is involved.

The Gluten Diet is on the outs, though, according to The Daily Meal. Apparently, it puts people at risk for "different deficiencies such as B vitamin deficiencies, calcium, fiber, vitamin D, and iron."

The Daily Meal no longer favors the Atkins Diet, either, which makes me sore.

Dr. Atkins said we could eat delicious steaks, pork, chicken and fish. He said we could eat as much eggs and cheese and other tasty no-sugar treats as we could stuff into our bellies. His diet was all the rage for years.

But now The Daily Meal says his diet is a "no go"? That it is not heart-healthy and that most users are not compliant over the long term?

Not so fast! Several prominent studies have concluded that old Doc Atkins was onto something. Low-carbohydrate diets may actually take off more weight than low-fat diets and may be surprisingly better for cholesterol, too.

One of my greatest dieting disappointments of the last 20 years, though, was the failure of the "exercise pill," which had shown promise at Duke University around 2002.

Researchers had located the chemical pathways that muscle cells use to build strength and endurance. With that knowledge in hand, there was hope that a pill could be created that would pump up muscle cells without the need for actual exercise.

Dieting Americans could have sat on the couch, chomping potato chips and dip, while their biceps got as round as cantaloupes and their abs got as hard as stone -- but this uniquely American dieting innovation wasn't to be.

I think I'll try a new, restrictive diet this February: the "Democrats in Congress Diet."

I'll deny myself everything.

Tom Purcell is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review humor columnist, syndicated by Cagle Cartoons Inc. Send comments to Tom at Tom@TomPurcell.com.

More here:
Searching for a diet panacea - New Jersey Herald

This new year is still fresh. But before we even get too deep into 2017, theres an important subject to talk about: Dont begin by falling victim to a detox because its a hoax.

As new years resolutions go, its common for many people to cleanse themselves and eliminate toxins from their bodies. But we humans already have two amazing organs that are doing this job for us: our liver and kidneys. The kidneys and liver are quite effective at filtering and eliminating most ingested toxins, says Katherine Zeratsky, R.D., L.D of The Mayo Clinic. In fact, if you think that by ingesting digestive enzymes, shakes or laxative-based teas will help speed up this process, the reality is theres no scientific evidence to prove it does assist.

The Myth:

According to Christy Brissette, M.S., R.D., and President of 80 Twenty Nutrition, the idea of detoxifying and cleansing the body and mind is not a new concept it goes back thousands of years and is still part of many religious practices such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But unlike religious fasting to attain spiritual enlightenment, the detoxes we are exposed to are done in hopes of losing weight or ridding oneself of toxins weve accumulated over the holidays. It is why we often see a plethora of new or revised detoxes (sometimes advocated by the latest celebrity or influencer) that promise that youll feel better and get what is perceived as a reset button for the body to begin the new year refreshed and rejuvenated.

Whether you hear the terms cleanse or detox, Brissette explains that theyre used interchangeably: With a cleanse, it usually involves ingesting a special product to go with the diet, items such as juices, soups and even charcoal nowin the hopes that it will not only clean your insides but that it will also assist with weight loss. In fact, Brissette says that there is often this mentality that our body is dirty and that there is a buildup of toxins we need to eliminate. Moreover, Brissette says that detoxes continue to pique the interest of many people, even those who are not regular dieters, because of the claims that this method of cleaning is completely natural and quick.

The Truth:

The Placebo Effect Detoxes and cleanses that claim to be quick, effective and natural appear to work because of the placebo effect. Brissette explains, Firstly, youve adopted the mentality that youre going to eat healthy, so when you switch from heavy indulgences to salads, nuts and fibrous foods, youre going to feel betterregardless if youre on a cleanse or not. A detox plan will also tell you to cut out alcohol, refined sugars and junk food. Any time you eliminate any of these foods, youre obviously going to feel less fatigued and have more energy. In actuality, the detox has nothing to do with you feeling better. Its just a matter of supporting what your body needs: healthy food and water.

Purging Fat From The Body The myth that your body is congested from all the fatty and rich foods consumed over the holidays doesnt exist. Brissette says that there is no evidence or research to prove this is true. Your liver and kidneys are natural filters. You dont need to clean them. If anything, we need to focus on healthy eating year-round.

Detoxes Are NOT Safe More dangerous is the fallacy that natural detoxes are safe. Oftentimes detoxes and cleanses will encourage a low-calorie diet along with the consumption of special herb shakes, laxative teas and other supplements. But this can cause more harm to your body than help it. Brissette says that if you use laxative-based products for an extended period of time, your body will begin to rely on them for bowel movement. Brissette also notes that overconsumption of laxative teas is not only stressful on the digestive system, but that youll also be dehydrated and lose electrolytes, sodium and potassium. The latter two are essential for regulating your blood pressure and heart rate. In extreme cases, if you lose too much sodium and potassium as a result of diarrhea or dilution (via excess consumption of fluids), you can actually suffer or even die from a cardiac arrest. Brissette advises that before considering any form of dieting or detox, you should always consult your physician or a dietitian.

Losing Weight And/Or Fat Despite celebrity endorsements and faux-doctors claiming that the miracle of a detox will assist with weight loss, the reverse is actually true: youll gain weight. You wont lose weight or fat, even though it may seem like you are. In fact, these individuals are most likely depleted of essential nutrients and proteins. This results in decreased muscle mass and a slower metabolism because your body thinks it has entered a state of starvation and is now trying to conserve calories rather than burn them off. Inevitably, doing this kind of detox will make you ravenous. When you succumb to your cravings and overeat, the now slowed metabolism will cause you to gain extra weight, and as a result, youll be heavier than when you began.

Realistic Practices For Good Health:

We all lead busy lives and have respective game plans to manage the chaos, so the same mentality should be adopted when it comes to our eating habits. But this doesnt mean obsessive calorie counting or shortcut detoxes which make unrealistic promises. Generally speaking, the pressure of a new years resolution is a fast-track to failure. Whats more realistic is small sustainable changes overtime, which will result in long-term, positive effects. Always strive to eat fiber-rich foods such as beans and lentils, healthy protein such as almonds and complex carbs such as whole grain bread and pasta.

How To Eat Well: Its easy to fall into mindless eating traps; from social engagements to working at your desk, the first step is to have an awareness of what youre putting into your mouthto chew and savor your food. And if you are constantly plagued with distractions, Brissette suggests keeping a simple food journal that tracks not only what you eat but notes when youre most hungry. This way, youll be ready and have a quality snack on hand, such as walnuts or almonds. This will not only prevent that 3pm energy lull, but you wont be tempted to make a trip to the coffee shop or vending machine for that cookie or bag of chips. Whether you like to snack or have several small meals a day, Brissette advises the following: Structure eating times around your schedule. And dont go more than 4 hours without eating something; otherwise, you may fall victim to a hunger attack and eat anything in sight.

Eating Healthy Should Not Mean Suffering: Eating should always be a joyful and pleasurable experience. Anything fat-free, low-fat or low carb will not offer satiation. Brissette explains: For instance, if youre having a salad for lunch, opt for full-fat dressing made with olive oil. Not only will this healthy fat keep you satisfied, but it will aid in the absorption of the leafy greens and vegetables youre eating.

Rather than succumb to the extremes of fad detoxes that can put your body into shock and make you miserable, Brissette endorses her 80/20 rule: 80 percent of the time, eat whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, beans and lentils; and 20 percent of the time, allow yourself that splurge on your favorite beer or burger.

Trust the wisdom and design of your body; thank your liver and kidneys for a job well done, and for the new year, try Brissettes mindful method of eating and avoid being ensnared by a detox trap.

Tiffany Leigh is a Toronto-based food, travel, and science writer.

Read more:
Why Detox Diets Don't Work - Paste Magazine

Remnants of holiday season-indulgences may have crept onto your waistline and stuck around long after the party was over. If youre looking to have the numbers on the scale decrease before temperatures increase, local experts say the key is making gradual changes.

You have to discipline yourself to make those small changes, said Zandrea Stephens, assistant division manager at Frances Meadows Aquatic Center in Gainesville, a fitness facility with two indoor pools, a seasonal outdoor water park and water and land exercise classes.

What has worked for me is not going into a diet abruptly, she said, adding that she doesnt start a diet suddenly changing her eating habits. I like to gradually go into a diet.

By not taking a hard approach to a diet, it allows you to evaluate your eating habits and see which foods you may need to eat more or less of.

For example, Stephens found she needed to add more greens and nutrients to her diet. As she added the greens, she took out some of the breads and french fries.

Then your body isnt in shock and you dont feel the fatigue, she said.

Jennifer Way, a registered dietitian at North Georgia Physicians Group Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, said to start a more healthy lifestyle, set small, realistic goals. Huge goals can seem unattainable and cause you to give up.

She also suggests having a support person or someone else make the lifestyle change with you. Whether its a dietary plan or a workout buddy, (having a buddy) will keep people motivated, she said. Start slow when it comes to working out, too, Stephens said. She recommends working out at least 30 minutes each day.

Way said to stay away from quick-fix diets, as theyll likely be temporary and youll gain the weight back. Focus more on the gradual weight decrease, she said. If they dont meet a goal within a certain week, people tend to get frustrated or lose motivation.

Stephens recommends drinking plenty of water to flush the body of sugars and starches from the holiday overeating.

She also recommends introducing more fruits and vegetables into your diet. She brings two apples to work with her each day and has cut back from snacking on pretzels and granola bars.

Stay away from fast food every day or multiple times a week.

Sometimes you have to go, so when you do look for the healthy option, Stephens said. Look for the salad or wrap that you can incorporate into your eating habits.

Choose goals that will make eating healthier easier in the long-term.

Do more grilling options, add more fruits or vegetables or eat out less, Way said.

When you deprive yourself of something, youre more likely to want cheat days where you get off track.

Read more from the original source:
Setting realistic goals helps shed holiday weight - Gainesville Times

Have you heard of the concept of food as medicine? Have you ever wondered about the Blood Type Diet or the Ketogenic Diet? These are the three questions covered in this week's Housecall.

Food as Medicine

Our first question comes from Chrysanne who asked, "Is it really worth it to spend extra money on good food? Does it make a difference?"

The food industry likes to trick us into thinking that eating healthy is expensive, but this is far from the truth. My friends at the Environmental Working Group created an easy-to-use, comprehensive guide, called Good Food on a Tight Budget, to help consumers make the best food choices without breaking the bank.

When people tell me they cannot afford organic produce or healthy cuts of meat, I ask them to consider the gargantuan markup of many convenience foods. Manufacturers package them in "value-priced jumbo sized" containers and grocery stores promote them with price cuts to create the illusion that we are getting value.

Relying on inexpensive, overly processed food is tempting, given our demanding lifestyles and schedules, but the cost to our health is quite large. Feasting on the sodium, fat and sugar bombs disguised as food can lead to serious diseases that cost hundreds of dollars in doctor's visits and prescription drugs.

Food is not just calories; food is information. I've seen thousands of people transform simply by changing their diet, so why not give it a shot? You will only feel better. Here are my tips for eating well on a tight budget.

The Blood Type Diet

Our next question comes from Jenna who asked, "Eating for your blood type advocates say that those with O blood type shouldn't eat anything with coconut, but it's so good for you. What are your thoughts on this?"

I believe in the personalization of our diets. We are learning more and more about how to customize diets for every individual based on their genetics, metabolic type and more. The blood type diet was one of the first customizable diets, but it only focuses on one bit of information: your blood type.

Instead, I recommend looking at the whole picture. When I see a patient, I look at their genetics, predisposition to diabetes, food intolerances, detoxification symptoms and other factors.

My hope is that in five years or less, we will be able to customize our diets based on a simple drop of blood. But until then, my advice is to look at the whole picture instead of just one factor. You can do this by working with a Functional Medicine practitioner who can test you for food intolerances, check out the state of your gut, identify nutritional deficiencies among other factors, to give you a complete picture of the state of your body. From there, they can create a plan to customize your diet to get you back on track and optimize your nutritional intake.

Also, you know your body better than anyone else. If coconut oil works for you, use it. The smartest doctor in the whole room is your own body. Take note of how you feel after you eat certain foods. If you dig a bit deeper, you can find out what works for you and what doesn't.

The Ketogenic Diet

Our final question comes from Deanna who asked, "Is there such a thing as a vegetarian or a vegan ketogenic diet?"

I'm not going to lie to you, it is absolutely tougher to be vegan or vegetarian on a ketogenic diet, but it is possible.

You need to focus on two important groups to maintain a vegetarian ketogenic diet: proteins and fats. In fact, studies have shown that a low-carb vegan diet with higher amounts of plant-based fats and proteins has advantages over a high-carb, low-fat dietincluding increased weight loss and improvement in heart disease risk factors.

Sources of vegetarian protein include:

Sources of plant-based fats:

Here's an easy guide to a vegan ketogenic diet.

View post:
The Blood Type Diet: Does It Work? - EcoWatch - EcoWatch

100+ pounds lost on The Slow-Carb Diet.

If you want to lose fat in 2014, how about we do it together? I need to work off some Danish butter cookies.

Last year, the Lift team helped me test The Slow-Carb Diet with 3,500 readers. The result: 84% of people lost weight and the average weight loss was 8.6 pounds over four weeks. Many people lost more than 20 pounds. This didnt surprise me, given the case studies of people whove lost 100+ pounds.

Working alongside UC Berkeley, Lift is now launching the largest study of popular diets ever performed. You can choose from 10 different diets (Paleo, vegetarian, gluten-free, etc.), and the study includes control groups and a randomized trial. The Slow-Carb Diet is one option.

I will be participating, cheering you onand advising. Heres what you should do today:

For more background on this study, I asked Tony Stubblebine, CEO of Lift, to tell the story. Here it is! Its a quick read, and I suggest it

A year ago, we ran 3,500 readers of Tims blog through a four-week study of the Slow-Carb Diet, tracking their progress throughLift.

The results were amazing:84% of people who stuck to the diet lost weight and the average weight loss was 8.6 pounds over four weeks.Those stats are crazy, right?Some people lose 100+ lbs going Slow-Carb, but I never dreamed that peoples success rate would be so consistent.

After seeing the results, I wondered whether people fail to adopt healthy habits due to lack of independently testing. Getting people to change isnt just about giving good advice; its also about giving them confidence in the advice. Our study showed that Slow-Carb definitely works. But what about the rest of the diet world?

As soon as we published the Slow-Carb Diet results, a young researcher at UC Berkeley reached out. The proposal: that we turn the Slow-Carb Diet study into a full blown scientific research project, or, as he coined it, The Manhattan Project of diet research.

Tim is unique, in that he had the vision and the guts to put his diet to the test. Very few (probably zero) other diet authors have tried this. What if we could replicate this on an epic scale with other approaches? Real objective data?

Unfortunately, academia doesnt move fast enough to keep up with popular diets. By the time a study comes out, weve all moved on to the next thing.The research that we did on The 4-Hour Body was pioneering in its speed. Tim and I conceived the study in October, ran it in November, and published the results in December.

Taking that rapid, crowd-sourced approach to diet experimentation would be like dropping a nuclear bomb on the existing diet industry. This sort of research could completely change our notion of what worksand for whom.

Our UC Berkeley advisors had just one concern: we had to get more rigorous about our experimental design.

This second study, which were calling The Quantified Diet Project, includes a comparison of ten different approaches to healthy diet, a control group, and another group going through a randomized trial.

With your help, we can start getting scientifically-valid measurements for all popular diet advice. What works and what doesnt? The results might surprise you.

When you join, youll be presented with ten approaches to healthy diet, along with two control groups. All of these approaches have been vetted for healthiness, but youll have a chance to opt out of any that dont fit your lifestyle.

And, of course, if you are a strong believer in The Slow-Carb Diet, you can go straight to that option (Slow-Carb obviously works).

This is a chance to lose weight, increase your health, boost your energy, and make a real contribution to science. Join the Quantified Diet Studytoday! It could change your life and change how scientific studies are performed. Win-win.

Heres to an incredible 2014, starting now,

Tony Stubblebine

Advice, motivation, and tracking for more than 100,000 goals.

Posted on: January 5, 2014.

Please check out Tools of Titans, my new book, which shares the tactics, routines, and habits of billionaires, icons, and world-class performers. It was distilled from more than 10,000 pages of notes, and everything has been vetted and tested in my own life in some fashion. The tips and tricks in Tools of Titans changed my life, and I hope the same for you. Click here for sample chapters, full details, and a Foreword from Arnold Schwarzenegger!

More here:
Ten Popular Diets Which Work and Which Are Hype? | The ...

This post contains affiliate links. Click here to see what that means!

That being said, we only promote authors, products, and services that we wholeheartedly stand by!

One of the most common questions I get about the Autoimmune Protocol is Why should I do AIP instead of a ketogenic diet, GAPS, SCD, low-FODMAP, or the Candida Diet? or Should I do AIP with SCD/low-FODMAPs etc.? With this article, I am going to share with you the differences between these approaches, and why you should or shouldnt layer them (or use them instead of!) the AIP.

A low-carb diet has a few variations, but the biggest distinction is whether or not the amount of carbs one eats is enough to put one into ketosis or not. This is a state where the body relies on ketones as well as glucose to produce energy, and is achieved by eating less than 30-50 grams of carbohydrate per day. This threshold is individualsome people are able to achieve ketosis with a higher level of carbs, others need to eat less. Most people consider a diet that is between ketosis and 100 grams of carbohydrate per day a low carb diet (depending who you talk toIm certainly not an expert here!). Some practitioners say to try low-carb or ketogenic diets because they have been shown to be effective against neurological disorders as well as some types of cancer. Others have better success with weight loss or regaining insulin sensitivity with this approach.

There has been much heated debate in the Paleo community about what carb intake is optimal for good health, and if we even need carbs at all. Some believe that a ketogenic diet is optimal for everyone, while others believe that it is necessary to eat carbohydrates, and that ketogenic diets need only be used in specific circumstances. Dr. Sarah Ballantyne writes in The Paleo Approach that studies of those using ketogenic diets and autoimmunity show a worsening of symptoms. Ive both had a negative personal experience layering a ketogenic approach with AIP, as well as worked with many autoimmune clients and havent found anyone who seems to thrive eating this way, especially with Hashimotos (this isnt to say there isnt anyone out there I just havent come across them yet!).

So why do we need carbs, and why do some people feel bad on a low-carb approach? Well, first off, vegetables containing carbohydrate are our main source of fiber, which is necessary to feed a wide range of bacteria in our gut (here is a fantastic series about fiber from The Paleo Mom). This is why I think a lot of people fail on low-carb diets long termthey are not nourishing their gut flora! Secondly, insulin is needed to make the conversion of thyroid hormones, and low-carb diets can actually cause hypothyroidism symptoms in some people, even after the carb flu period is over. I personally experienced a worsening of my hypothyroid symptoms when I tried a ketogenic diet for six weeks in 2013, and finally gave up because I was so incredibly fatigued. My recommendation is not to layer a low-carb approach with the autoimmune protocol unless a person is dealing with a specific situation that would warrant it, like neurological disease or certain types of cancer.

The SCD and Candida diets have different protocols, but they both share a pathogen-specific approach. This means their purpose is to eliminate the foods that feed pathogenic overgrowths in the gut, like all starches (including those that would be included on AIP like sweet potato, squash, and tapioca), fruit, sweeteners, fruit juice, milk, and grains, among other foods.

These approaches can be very effective at eliminating symptoms for those that have overgrowths, but neither of these diets are very effective at eliminating pathogens on their own. If someone is experiencing symptoms when eating these foods, instead of blindly going on one of these variations of a pathogen-specific diet I would encourage them to test, dont guess! Most who are successful at recovering from these overgrowths do so knowing specifically what pathogen they are fighting. Some need to be dealt with from more than one angleprescription or herbal antibiotics, anti-fungals, and probiotics can be helpful here (and it is important to work with a practitioner who is experienced in this area!).

Another issue I have with these approaches is that they dont eliminate a lot of allergens shown to be a problem for some people with autoimmunitymost notably eggs, dairy, and nightshades. In addition, these approaches end up being a low-carb diet, which is not advisable because of the reasons in the section above.

A lot of people ask me if I recommend layering the Autoimmune Protocol with SCD or the Candida diet just in case. I dont think this is a good idea. If you suspect you have a pathogenic overgrowth going on, I recommend comprehensive gut testing and a skilled practitioner to help you navigate this issue. Many people waste their time on a restricted diet (you can read my story about this here) when really, they need medical treatmentI dont want you to be one of them!

The GAPS Diet is similar to the SCD and Candida diets in that it also incorporates a pathogen-specific approach, but emphasizes the pinpointing of allergens as well as gut-healing nutrients. The GAPS intro diet consists of well-cooked meat, vegetables and broth for a period of time until additional foods are added in one by one to assess tolerance. The first foods that are added in are fermented vegetables, probiotics, egg yolks, fermented dairy, ghee, and nuts. The diet was developed for use with autism and other neurological conditions, and since has been used by people with a variety of chronic health conditions.

What I like about the GAPS diet is that like AIP, it is also an elimination diet, and emphasizes gut-healing foods at the same time as removing triggers. That being said, I dont believe the protocol is ideal for those with autoimmunity many of the first foods reintroduced can be problematic for people, and I believe these reintroductions come too soon in the process. The intro is also too low-carb for most folks, and they usually dont feel well if they try to apply the diet long-term (over a couple of months).

The Autoimmune Protocol, if done in a nutrient-dense was as Sarah Ballantyne suggests in The Paleo Approach (fermented foods, bone broth, organ meats, etc.) is very similar to GAPS, except the protocol is much more refined and tailored to those with autoimmunity. Some people, especially those with acute digestive symptoms, can benefit from a GAPS intro-like start to the Autoimmune Protocol. If this is what you want to do, I just recommend that you follow Sarahs recommendations for reintroducing foods outlined in The Paleo Approach.

The Low-FODMAP diet eliminates short-chain fermentable carbohydrates that can feed an overgrowth in the gut. Many with digestive symptoms like IBS, constipation, diarrhea, bloating, gas, and cramps turn to this protocol in order to get their digestive issues under control. All of these high-FODMAP foods are eliminated for a couple of weeks and then reintroduced to assess tolerance. There are a few different categories of FODMAPs, and some people react badly to one category while sparing another.

The low-FODMAP diet has been used for those with fructose malabsorption, SIBO, Candida, and other gut imbalances. While it can help with the symptoms of digestive overgrowth, it is not an autoimmune-specific diet, and includes some potential allergens like eggs, nuts, and nightshade vegetables. For those who suffer from digestive issues that are not relieved by AIP, layering a low-FODMAP approach on top for a couple weeks can be helpful. (To learnhow to do sosafely and effectively, Christina Feindels amazing eBook, 28 Days of Low-FODMAP AIP is a must-have!)

While a low-FODMAP diet can be effective at managing the symptoms of an overgrowth, it is not usually effective on its own to treat an overgrowth. The same advice above applies here if a person discovers they are sensitive to these foods, this is a clue to get tested for the underlying cause of sensitivity. Most often, those who are sensitive to FODMAPs are suffering from Small Intestine Bacterial Overgrowth (more info on SIBO, testing, and treatment here!), fructose malabsorption, Candida, or another type of overgrowth. While not everyone with autoimmunity suffers from SIBO, it seems to be quite common and a low-FODMAP approach can help clue a person in to if that is something they are suffering from.

That being said, I think the low-FODMAP diet would be the best pathogen-specific diet for those to layer with the Autoimmune Protocol (not instead of) in order to start getting to the bottom of their digestive issues. Aglaee Jacob, author ofDigestive Health with Real Food has a great list of FODMAP foods that you can print out here! And definitely check out28 Days of Low-FODMAP AIP.

The Autoimmune Protocol is a science-based protocol designed to simultaneously remove triggers as well as nourish the body to heal from chronic illness. The elimination diet must be done 100% because the immune system needs time to heal from potential food triggers. This makes the protocol quite difficult (but not impossible!) to adhere to. Because of this difficulty, I do not recommend that people layer pathogen-specific or low-carb modifications with AIP to start out with. The only caveat here is if someone is working with a practitioner who has tested, diagnosed, and treated a gut infection and has recommended a specific dietary protocol (like the low-FODMAP diet).

If a person has done AIP for a month or two and is still having digestive issues, it may be time to do some further testing, while considering a trial of a pathogen specific approach. I believe getting tested for SIBO, a comprehensive stool test, and the low-FODMAP diet is a great starting place in addition to finding someone to work with that is experienced in this area.

I get contacted by a lot of people who want to start the Autoimmune Protocol by layering two or more of these approaches just in case, or because they think that it will save them time in the long run. I dont think this is wise, and I believe more people who take this approach end up not being able to complete the elimination diet because their variation of the protocol is too restricted. My motto is always set yourself up for success. Although there is a wealth of information out there about AIP, someone elses journey is not your journey. Take things one step at a time, and remember that in time, you will make discoveries about your health that will enable you to make progress, but it may not happen all at once!

REFERENCES

Here is the original post:
The Autoimmune Protocol vs. Other Healing Diets ...

Milk & Milk Products Measure Calories Kilojoules Full-fat milk 1 cup 150 630 Low fat milk (1%) 1 cup 102 428.4 Cows milk 1 cup 157 659.4 Goat milk 1 cup 264 1108.8 Sweetened Condensed Milk from can 28 g 123 516.6 Full cream milk powder Half a cup 635 2667 Skim milk powder Half a cup 435 1827 Full-fat chocolate milk 1 cup 208 873.6 Strawberry Milk 1 cup 244 1024.8 Cheddar cheese slices Slice, 28 gm 114 478.8 Feta cheese 28 g 75 315 Finuta cheese 25 g 110 462 Gouda cheese 28 g 101 424.2 Mozzarella cheese 28 g 80 336 Kraft Cheese blocks 28 g 80 336 Edam cheese 28 g 98 411.6 Blue cheese 28 g 104 436.8 Mascarpone cheese 28 g 128 537.6 Ricotta cheese Half a cup 216 907.2 Ricotta cheese low fat Half a cup 171 718.2 Parmesan cheese 28 g 130 546 Camembert cheese 28 g 86 361.2 Cottage cheese 100 g 99 415.8 Halloumi cheese 100 g 363 1524.6 Cream focused 1 spoon 52 218.4 Cream Medium 1 spoon 37 155.4 Greek yogurt full-fat 1 spoon 141 592.2 Greek yogurt low fat 1 spoon 114 478.8 Ice Cream Clabber 1 cup 99 415.8 Vanilla ice cream 10% fat Half a cup 135 567 Vanilla 1 ball 240 1008 Cocoa 1 ball 280 1176 Strawberries 1 ball 220 924 Drinks & Juices Apple juice Half a cup 60 252 Apricot juice, canned Half a cup 72 302.4 Grape juice, canned Half a cup 78 327.6 Lemon juice canned Spoon to eat 3 12.6 Fresh orange juice Half a cup 59 247.8 Canned orange juice Half a cup 52 218.4 Grapefruit juice, canned local Half a cup 58 243.6 Grapefruit juice, unsweetened Half a cup 47 197.4 Canned peach juice Half a cup 67 281.4 Canned pear juice Half a cup 75 315 Canned pineapple juice Half a cup 70 294 Canned tomato juice Half a cup 21 88.2 Canned juice Islands Half a cup 49 205.8 Guava juice One cup 175 735 Mango juice One cup 110 462 Hot Drinks Nescafe coffee without sugar Teaspoon 5 21 Instant coffee without caffeine Teaspoon 5 21 Tea without sugar One cup 1 4.2 Soft Drinks Pepsi-Cola 240 ml cup 100 420 Diet Pepsi-Cola 240 ml cup 0 0 Seven Up 240 ml cup 90 378 Sprite 240 ml cup 96 403.2 Fanta 240 ml cup 119 499.8 Coca-Cola 240 ml cup 97 407.4 Diet Coca-Cola 240 ml cup 1 4.2 Cream soda 240 ml cup 126 529.2 Drink grape gas 240 ml cup 107 449.4 Luncheon Meat Beef Approx. 42 g 142 596.4 Pastrami turkey 28 g 40 168 Pepperoni beef 28 g 141 592.2 Salami turkey 28 g 56 235.2 Salami beef 28 g 72 302.4 Turkey 28 g 57 239.4 Beef 28 g 88 369.6 Chicken meat 42 g 116 487.2 Eggs Egg whites, (fresh or iced) One, big 17 71.4 Fresh egg yolk One, big 59 247.8 Full cook boiled eggs One, big 79 331.8 Fried eggs One, big 91 382.2 Omelet One, big 92 386.4 Omelet with cheese and vegetables 113 g 252 1058.4 Duck eggs One, big 130 546 Goose eggs One, big 267 1121.4 Turkey eggs One, big 135 567 Quail eggs One, big 14 58.8 Nuts & Legumes Nuts Half a cup, 60 g 380 1596 Almonds, dry Quarter a cup 209 877.8 Cashew, roasted, dry 28 g 160 672 Cashew, roasted, oily 28 g 165 693 Nuts, roasted, dry 28 g 170 714 Hazelnut, roasted, oily 28 g 176 739.2 Lentils, whole, green Half a cup 215 903 Lentils, cooked One cup 210 882 Oils & Fats Margarine 1 Tablespoon 105 441 Olive oil 1 Tablespoon 120 504 Sunflower oil 1 Tablespoon 120 504 Sheep fat 1 Tablespoon 114 478.8 Vegetable oil 1 Tablespoon 126 529.2 Beef fat 1 Tablespoon 125 525 Butter 1 Tablespoon 36 151.2 Corn oil 1 Tablespoon 120 504 Fresh Fruits Apples Medium, 140 g 81 340.2 Apricot Medium, 30 g 17 71.4 Banana Medium, 100 g 105 441 Fig One, 40 g 37 155.4 Grapefruit Half 38 159.6 Cherries 10 beads 49 205.8 Avocado Half 162 680.4 Grapes Half a cup 53 222.6 Guava One, 85 g 45 189 Kiwi One, 76 g 46 193.2 Mango Half, 85 g 68 285.6 Orange One, 110 g 62 260.4 Papaya Medium 117 491.4 Peach One, 85 g 37 155.4 Pear Medium, 170 g 98 411.6 Pineapple Slice, 82 g 42 176.4 Plum One, 60 g 36 151.2 Pomegranate Medium, 150 g 110 462 Nectarine Medium, 142 g 67 281.4 Watermelon Piece, 100 g 26 109.2 Melon Piece, 100 g 33 138.6 Strawberries Half a cup 23 96.6 Tangerine One, 85 g 37 155.4 Blueberry One cup 122 512.4 Ripe dates 10 beads 150 630 Plum 100 g 52 218.4 Lemon One, 60 g 17 71.4 Sweet Lemon Fruit size 53 222.6 Black berry One cup 117 491.4 Quince Medium 60 252 Tamarind Half a cup 82 344.4 Canned Fruits Canned apricots (with sugar syrup) Half a cup 111 466.2 Fruit salad (with sugar syrup) Half a cup 94 394.8 Canned cherry (with thick sugar syrup) Half a cup 107 449.4 Canned peaches (with sugar syrup) Half a cup 95 399 Canned pear with (with sugar syrup) Half a cup 94 394.8 Canned pineapple (with sugar syrup) Half a cup 100 420 Dried Fruits Dried dates One 26 109.2 Dried figs 100 g 288 1209.6 Raisins Half a cup 109 457.8 Dried plum Half a cup 113 474.6 Dried Apricots Half a cup 169 709.8 Spices Cardamom 1 teaspoon 7 29.4 Dried hot red pepper 3 teaspoons 13 54.6 Cinnamon 1 teaspoon 7 29.4 Cloves 1 teaspoon 6 25.2 Latency 1 teaspoon 6 25.2 Ginger powder 1 teaspoon 1 4.2 Ginger root One, medium 20 84 Nutmeg powder 1 teaspoon 9 37.8 Black pepper 1 teaspoon 8 33.6 Red Meat Lamb shoulder, cooked with fat 63 g 220 924 Lamb shoulder, cooked without fat 48 g 135 567 Lamb thigh, roasted with fat 85 g 205 861 Lamb thigh, roasted without fat 73 g 140 588 Lamb rib, grilled without fat 85 g 200 840 Lamb rib, grilled with fat 85 g 307 1289.4 Beef, chest, cooked 85 g 189 793.8 Beef shoulder, without fat 85 g 183 768.6 Beef, minced and cooked 85 g 245 1029 Beef steak without fat 85 g 174 730.8 Sosaties 85 g 226 949.2 Slices without fat 85 g 182 764.4 Cow heart, cooked 85 g 148 621.6 Cow kidney, cooked 85 g 122 512.4 Cow tongue, cooked 85 g 241 1012.2 Vegetables Carrot Medium, 60 g 31 130.2 Carrot, cooked Half a cup 35 147 Cauliflower, cooked Half a cup 15 63 Cauliflower, uncooked Half a cup 12 50.4 Cucumbers, chopped Half a cup 7 29.4 Fried eggplant Half a cup 100 420 Eggplant, cooked Half a cup 13 54.6 Green beans, cooked Half a cup 20 84 Green beans, canned Half a cup 25 105 Cabbage, cooked Half a cup 16 67.2 Cabbage, uncooked Half a cup 8 33.6 Celery Half a cup 10 42 Corn One, medium 77 323.4 Mushrooms, fresh Half a cup 9 37.8 Mushroom, canned Half a cup 19 79.8 Lettuce Half a cup 4 16.8 Mixed vegetables (variety cooked) Half a cup 54 226.8 Okra, cooked and chopped Half a cup 25 105 Fresh onions, chopped Half a cup 27 113.4 Green onions, chopped Half a cup 16 67.2 Green peas, cooked Half a cup 67 281.4 Peppers, chopped Half a cup 12 50.4 Hot pepper One, 30 g 18 75.6 Baked potato, with the peel 195 g 220 924 Baked potato, without the peel 195 g 162 680.4 Fried potato 10 pieces, 42 g 158 663.6 Shalgam kale, boiled Half a cup 14 58.8 Watercress Half a cup 2 8.4 Squash Half a cup 41 172.2 Red radish 10 grains, 40 g 7 29.4 Red radish, leaves 10 leaves, medium 9 37.8 Chopped spinach Half a cup 6 25.2 Zucchini, chopped and cooked Half a cup 18 75.6 Sweet potatoes, mashed Half a cup 111 466.2 Red tomatoes One, medium 26 109.2 Green beans One cup 73 306.6 Beet One cup 46 193.2 Cabbage One cup 73 306.6 Leek 1 Spoon, minced 1 4.2 Coriander 1 package 97 407.4 Fenugreek, leaves 1 package 25 105 Garlic 5 pieces of garlic peeled 7 29.4 Grape leaves 1 cup 146 613.2 Mint Package, medium 84 352.8 Black olives 10 grains, medium 95 399 Green olives 10 grains, medium 66 277.2 Parsley 1 cup, minced 34 142.8 Parsley Package, medium 25 105 White radishes Package, medium 58 243.6 Spinach 1 Cup, chopped 14 58.8 Zucchini 1 cup, chopped 31 130.2 Zucchini One, medium 40 168 Basil 100 g 50 210 Legume 100 g 32 134.4 Sugar-cane 20 g 82 344.4 Grains Bread, cereals 100 g 17 71.4 Whole wheat bread One, 50 g 130 546 Cake 50 g 150 630 Pasta with sauce Small, 130 g 190 798 Corn flakes Cup, 25 g 95 399 French bread Quarter of a loaf, 115 g 333 1398.6 Plain biscuits 4 pieces, 55 g 178 747.6 White rice, cooked (tastic) Half a cup 131 550.2 Brown toast A slice 61 256.2 Plain white toast A slice 64 268.8 Spaghetti, cooked or pasta Half a cup 99 415.8 Spaghetti, cooked with minced meat and tomato Half a cup 110 462 Lasagna with meat sauce Half a cup 154 646.8 Barley One cup 672 2822.4 Pasta One cup 344 1444.8 Cornstarch One cup 471 1978.2 Rice, uncooked One cup 675 2835 Rice powder One cup 354 1486.8 Wheat One cup 485 2037 Meat & Chicken Chicken leg (hip), without skin, grilled 85 g 167 701.4 Chicken leg (hip), with skin, grilled 85 g 223 936.6 Chicken breast, without skin, grilled Half a breast 142 596.4 Chicken breast, with skin, grilled Half a breast 193 810.6 Chicken breast, without skin, fried Half a breast 161 676.2 Chicken wings, with skin, grilled 35.5 g 99 415.8 Chicken pieces, vacuum, fried 104 g 290 1218 Chicken gizzards, fried 85 g 238 999.6 Chicken livers, cooked 85 g 135 567 Duck meat, without skin, roasted 85 g 173 726.6 Red dark meat, without skin 85 g 161 676.2 Red dark meat, with skin 85 g 190 798 Red light meat, meat without skin 85 g 135 567 Red light meat, meat with skin 85 g 169 709.8 Fish and Shellfish Sardines, canned in oil 28 g 58 243.6 Anchovies, canned in oil 21 g 42 176.4 Tuna, canned in water 85 g 104 436.8 Tuna, canned in oil 85 g 169 709.8 Smoked salmon 85 g 99 415.8 Grilled Fish 85 g 136 571.2 Fish fried with rusk 85 g 228 957.6 Shrimp fried with rusk 85 g 206 865.2 Crab, canned 85 g 84 352.8 Shrimp, cooked 85 g 83 348.6 Oyster, uncooked 28 g 23 96.6 Oysters, fried 28 g 46 193.2 Oysters, fried with rusk 85 g 84 352.8 Caviar, black or red 1 tablespoon 40 168 Legumes Beans, boiled One cup 187 785.4 Dry beans Half a cup 349 1465.8 Beans Half a cup 37 155.4 Chickpeas, boiled One cup 269 1129.8 Flour Half a cup 339 1423.8 Lentil 28 g 192 806.4 Nuts mixed with roasted and dry peanuts 28 g 170 714 Mixed nuts roasted in oil 28 g 175 735 Sunflower seeds, roasted and dry 28 g 170 714 Sunflower seed, roasted in oil Half a cup 175 735 Pistachios, dry and roasted 28 g 357 1499.4 Peanuts, dry and roasted 28 g 165 693 Peanuts, roasted in oil 1 tablespoon 170 714 Peanut butter 28 g 95 399 Roasted chestnut 28 g 44 184.8 Coconut 28 g 100 420 Grated coconut 28 g 59 247.8 Roasted pumpkin seeds 28 g 127 533.4 Dried watermelon seeds 28 g 158 663.6 Circuit pills 28 g 102.2 429.24 Sesame 28 g 174.16 731.472 Pine 1 cup 172.7 725.34

Read more:
Kilojoules & Calories Food Table - Diet & Weight Loss

Low-carbohydrate diets or low-carb diets are dietary programs that restrict carbohydrate consumption, often for the treatment of obesity or diabetes. Foods high in easily digestible carbohydrates (e.g., sugar, bread, pasta) are limited or replaced with foods containing a higher percentage of fats and moderate protein (e.g., meat, poultry, fish, shellfish, eggs, cheese, nuts, and seeds) and other foods low in carbohydrates (e.g., most salad vegetables such as spinach, kale, chard and collards), although other vegetables and fruits (especially berries) are often allowed. The amount of carbohydrate allowed varies with different low-carbohydrate diets.

Such diets are sometimes 'ketogenic' (i.e., they restrict carbohydrate intake sufficiently to cause ketosis). The induction phase of the Atkins diet[1][2][3] is ketogenic.

The term "low-carbohydrate diet" is generally applied to diets that restrict carbohydrates to less than 20% of caloric intake, but can also refer to diets that simply restrict or limit carbohydrates to less than recommended proportions (generally less than 45% of total energy coming from carbohydrates).[4][5]

Low-carbohydrate diets are used to treat or prevent some chronic diseases and conditions, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, auto-brewery syndrome, high blood pressure, and diabetes.[6][7]

Gary Taubes has argued that low-carbohydrate diets are closer to the ancestral diet of humans before the origin of agriculture, and humans are genetically adapted to diets low in carbohydrate.[8] Direct archaeological or fossil evidence on nutrition during the Paleolithic, when all humans subsisted by hunting and gathering, is limited, but suggests humans evolved from the vegetarian diets common to other great apes to one with a greater level of meat-eating.[9] Some close relatives of modern Homo sapiens, such as the Neanderthals, appear to have been almost exclusively carnivorous.[10]

A more detailed picture of early human diets before the origin of agriculture may be obtained by analogy to contemporary hunter-gatherers. According to one survey of these societies, a relatively low carbohydrate (2240% of total energy), animal food-centered diet is preferred "whenever and wherever it [is] ecologically possible", and where plant foods do predominate, carbohydrate consumption remains low because wild plants are much lower in carbohydrate and higher in fiber than modern domesticated crops.[11] Primatologist Katherine Milton, however, has argued that the survey data on which this conclusion is based inflate the animal content of typical hunter-gatherer diets; much of it was based on early ethnography, which may have overlooked the role of women in gathering plant foods.[12] She has also highlighted the diversity of both ancestral and contemporary foraging diets, arguing no evidence indicates humans are especially adapted to a single paleolithic diet over and above the vegetarian diets characteristic of the last 30 million years of primate evolution.[13]

The origin of agriculture brought about a rise in carbohydrate levels in human diets.[14] The industrial age has seen a particularly steep rise in refined carbohydrate levels in Western societies, as well as urban societies in Asian countries, such as India, China, and Japan.

In 1797, John Rollo reported on the results of treating two diabetic Army officers with a low-carbohydrate diet and medications. A very low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet was the standard treatment for diabetes throughout the 19th century.[15][16]

In 1863, William Banting, a formerly obese English undertaker and coffin maker, published "Letter on Corpulence Addressed to the Public", in which he described a diet for weight control giving up bread, butter, milk, sugar, beer, and potatoes.[17] His booklet was widely read, so much so that some people used the term "Banting" for the activity usually called "dieting".[18]

In 1888, James Salisbury introduced the Salisbury steak as part of his high-meat diet, which limited vegetables, fruit, starches, and fats to one-third of the diet.[original research?]

In the early 1900s Frederick Madison Allen developed a highly restrictive short term regime which was described by Walter R. Steiner at the 1916 annual convention of the Connecticut State Medical Society as The Starvation Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus.[19]:176177[20][21][22] People showing very high urine glucose levels were confined to bed and restricted to an unlimited supply of water, coffee, tea, and clear meat broth until their urine was "sugar free"; this took two to four days but sometimes up to eight.[19]:177 After the person's urine was sugar-free food was re-introduced; first only vegetables with less than 5g of carbohydate per day, eventually adding fruits and grains to build up to 3g of carbohydrate per kilogram of body weight. Then eggs and meat were added, building up to 1g of protein/kg of body weight per day, then fat was added to the point where the person stopped losing weight or a maximum of 40 calories of fat per kilogram per day was reached. The process was halted if sugar appeared in the person's urine.[19]:177178 This diet was often administered in a hospital in order to better ensure compliance and safety.[19]:179

In 1958, Richard Mackarness M.D. published Eat Fat and Grow Slim, a low-carbohydrate diet with much of the same advice and based on the same theories as those promulgated by Robert Atkins more than a decade later. Mackarness also challenged the "calorie theory" and referenced primitive diets such as the Inuit as examples of healthy diets with a low-carbohydrate and high-fat composition.

In 1967, Irwin Stillman published The Doctor's Quick Weight Loss Diet. The "Stillman diet" is a high-protein, low-carbohydrate, and low-fat diet. It is regarded as one of the first low-carbohydrate diets to become popular in the United States.[23] Other low-carbohydrate diets in the 1960s included the Air Force diet[24] and the drinking man's diet.[25]Austrian physician Wolfgang Lutz published his book Leben Ohne Brot (Life Without Bread) in 1967.[26] However, it was not well known in the English-speaking world.

In 1972, Robert Atkins published Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution, which advocated the low-carbohydrate diet he had successfully used in treating patients in the 1960s (having developed the diet from a 1963 article published in JAMA).[27] The book met with some success, but, because of research at that time suggesting risk factors associated with excess fat and protein, it was widely criticized by the mainstream medical community as being dangerous and misleading, thereby limiting its appeal at the time.[28] Among other things, critics pointed out that Atkins had done little real research into his theories and based them mostly on his clinical work. Later that decade, Walter Voegtlin and Herman Tarnower published books advocating the Paleolithic diet and Scarsdale diet, respectively, each meeting with moderate success.[29][not in citation given]

The concept of the glycemic index was developed in 1981 by David Jenkins to account for variances in speed of digestion of different types of carbohydrates. This concept classifies foods according to the rapidity of their effect on blood sugar levels with fast-digesting simple carbohydrates causing a sharper increase and slower-digesting complex carbohydrates, such as whole grains, a slower one.[30] The concept has been extended to include the amount of carbohydrate actually absorbed, as well, as a tablespoonful of cooked carrots is less significant overall than a large baked potato (effectively pure starch, which is efficiently absorbed as glucose), despite differences in glycemic indices.

In the 1990s, Atkins published an update from his 1972 book, Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution, and other doctors began to publish books based on the same principles. This has been said to be the beginning of what the mass media call the "low carb craze" in the United States.[31] During the late 1990s and early 2000s, low-carbohydrate diets became some of the most popular diets in the US. By some accounts, up to 18% of the population was using one type of low-carbohydrate diet or another at the peak of their popularity,[32] and this use spread to many countries.[citation needed]Food manufacturers and restaurant chains like Krispy Kreme noted the trend, as it affected their businesses.[33] Parts of the mainstream medical community has denounced low-carbohydrate diets as being dangerous to health, such as the AHA in 2001,[34] the American Kidney Fund in 2002,[35] Low-carbohydrate advocates did some adjustments of their own, increasingly advocating controlling fat and eliminating trans fat.[36][37]

Proponents who appeared with new diet guides at that time like the Zone diet intentionally distanced themselves from Atkins and the term 'low carb' because of the controversies, though their recommendations were based on largely the same principles .[38][39] It can be controversial which diets are low-carbohydrate and which are not.[citation needed] The 1990s and 2000s saw the publication of an increased number of clinical studies regarding the effectiveness and safety (pro and con) of low-carbohydrate diets (see low-carbohydrate diet medical research).

In the United States, the diet has continued to garner attention in the medical and nutritional science communities, and also inspired a number of hybrid diets that include traditional calorie-counting and exercise regimens.[7][40][41][42] Other low-carb diets, such as the Paleo Diet, focus on the removal of certain foods from the diet, such as sugar and grain.[43] On September 2, 2014 a small randomized trial by the NIH of 148 men and women comparing a low-carbohydrate diet with a low fat diet without calorie restrictions over one year showed that participants in the low-carbohydrate diet had greater weight loss than those on the low-fat diet.[44] The low-fat group lost weight, but appeared to lose more muscle than fat.[45]

No consensus definition exists of what precisely constitutes a low-carbohydrate diet.[46] Medical researchers and diet advocates may define different levels of carbohydrate intake when specifying low-carbohydrate diets.[46][not in citation given]

The American Academy of Family Physicians defines low-carbohydrate diets as diets that restrict carbohydrate intake to 20 to 60 grams per day, typically less than 20% of caloric intake.[47]

The body of research underpinning low-carbohydrate diets has grown significantly in the decades of the 1990s and 2000s.[48][49] Most research centers on the relationship between carbohydrate intake and blood sugar levels (i.e., blood glucose), as well as the two primary hormones produced in the pancreas, that regulate the blood sugar level, insulin, which lowers it, and glucagon, which raises it.[50]

Low-carbohydrate diets in general recommend reducing nutritive carbohydrates, commonly referred to as "net carbs", i.e., grams of total carbohydrates reduced by the non-nutritive carbohydrates[51][52] to very low levels. This means sharply reducing consumption of desserts, breads, pastas, potatoes, rice, and other sweet or starchy foods. Some recommend levels less than 20g of "net carbs" per day, at least in the early stages of dieting[53] (for comparison, a single slice of white bread typically contains 15g of carbohydrate, almost entirely starch). By contrast, the U.S. Institute of Medicine recommends a minimum intake of 130g of carbohydrate per day.[54] The FAO and WHO similarly recommend that the majority of dietary energy come from carbohydrates.[55][56]

Although low-carbohydrate diets are most commonly discussed as a weight-loss approach, some experts have proposed using low-carbohydrate diets to mitigate or prevent diseases, including diabetes, metabolic disease, and epilepsy.[57][58] Some low-carbohydrate proponents and others argue that the rise in carbohydrate consumption, especially refined carbohydrates, caused the epidemic levels of many diseases in modern society, including metabolic disease and type 2 diabetes.[59][60][61][62]

A category of diets is known as low-glycemic-index diets (low-GI diets) or low-glycemic-load diets (low-GL diets), in particular the Low GI Diet.[63] In reality, low-carbohydrate diets can also be low-GL diets (and vice versa) depending on the carbohydrates in a particular diet. In practice, though, "low-GI"/"low-GL" diets differ from "low-carb" diets in the following ways: First, low-carbohydrate diets treat all nutritive carbohydrates as having the same effect on metabolism, and generally assume their effect is predictable. Low-GI/low-GL diets are based on the measured change in blood glucose levels in various carbohydrates these vary markedly in laboratory studies. The differences are due to poorly understood digestive differences between foods. However, as foods influence digestion in complex ways (e.g., both protein and fat delay absorption of glucose from carbohydrates eaten at the same time) it is difficult to even approximate the glycemic effect (e.g., over time or even in total in some cases) of a particular meal.[64]

The low-insulin-index diet, is similar, except it is based on measurements of direct insulemic responses i.e., the amount of insulin in the bloodstream to food rather than glycemic response the amount of glucose in the bloodstream. Although such diet recommendations mostly involve lowering nutritive carbohydrates, some low-carbohydrate foods are discouraged, as well (e.g., beef).[65] Insulin secretion is stimulated (though less strongly) by other dietary intake. Like glycemic-index diets, predicting the insulin secretion from any particular meal is difficult, due to assorted digestive interactions and so differing effects on insulin release.[citation needed]

At the heart of the debate about most low-carbohydrate diets are fundamental questions about what is a 'normal' diet and how the human body is supposed to operate. These questions can be outlined as follows.

The diets of most people in modern Western nations, especially the United States, contain large amounts of starches, including refined flours, and substantial amounts of sugars, including fructose. Most Westerners seldom exhaust stored glycogen supplies and rarely go into ketosis. This has been regarded by the majority of the medical community in the last century as normal for humans.[citation needed] Ketosis should not be confused with ketoacidosis, a dangerous and extreme ketotic condition associated with type I diabetes. Some in the medical community have regarded ketosis as harmful and potentially life-threatening, believing it unnecessarily stresses the liver and causes destruction of muscle tissues.[citation needed] A perception developed that getting energy chiefly from dietary protein rather than carbohydrates causes liver damage and that getting energy chiefly from dietary fats rather than carbohydrates causes heart disease and other health problems. This view is still held by the majority of those in the medical and nutritional science communities.[66][67][68] However, it is now widely recognized that periodic ketosis is normal, and that ketosis provides a number of benefits, including neuroprotection against diverse types of cellular injury.[69]

People critical of low-carbohydrate diets cite hypoglycemia and ketoacidosis as risk factors. While mild acidosis may be a side effect when beginning a ketogenic diet,[70][71] no known health emergencies have been recorded. It should not be conflated with diabetic ketoacidosis, which can be life-threatening.

A diet very low in starches and sugars induces several adaptive responses. Low blood glucose causes the pancreas to produce glucagon,[72] which stimulates the liver to convert stored glycogen into glucose and release it into the blood. When liver glycogen stores are exhausted, the body starts using fatty acids instead of glucose. The brain cannot use fatty acids for energy, and instead uses ketones produced from fatty acids by the liver. By using fatty acids and ketones as energy sources, supplemented by conversion of proteins to glucose (gluconeogenesis), the body can maintain normal levels of blood glucose without dietary carbohydrates.

Most advocates of low-carbohydrate diets, such as the Atkins diet, argue that the human body is adapted to function primarily in ketosis.[73][74] They argue that high insulin levels can cause many health problems, most significantly fat storage and weight gain. They argue that the purported dangers of ketosis are unsubstantiated (some of the arguments against ketosis result from confusion between ketosis and ketoacidosis, which is a mostly diabetic condition unrelated to dieting or low-carbohydrate intake).[75] They also argue that fat in the diet only contributes to heart disease in the presence of high insulin levels and that if the diet is instead adjusted to induce ketosis, fat and cholesterol in the diet are beneficial. Most low-carb diet plans discourage consumption of trans fat.

On a high-carbohydrate diet, glucose is used by cells in the body for the energy needed for their basic functions, and about two-thirds of body cells require insulin to use glucose. Excessive amounts of blood glucose are thought to be a primary cause of the complications of diabetes, when glucose reacts with body proteins (resulting in glycosolated proteins) and change their behavior. Perhaps for this reason, the amount of glucose tightly maintained in the blood is quite low. Unless a meal is very low in starches and sugars, blood glucose will rise for a period of an hour or two after a meal. When this occurs, beta cells in the pancreas release insulin to cause uptake of glucose into cells. In liver and muscle cells, more glucose is taken in than is needed and stored as glycogen (once called 'animal starch').[76] Diets with a high starch/sugar content, therefore, cause release of more insulin, and so more cell absorption. In diabetics, glucose levels vary in time with meals and vary a little more as a result of high-carbohydrate meals. In nondiabetics, blood-sugar levels are restored to normal levels within an hour or two, regardless of the content of a meal.

However, the ability of the body to store glycogen is finite. Once liver and muscular stores are full to the maximum, adipose tissue (subcutaneous and visceral fat stores) becomes the site of sugar storage in the form of fat.[citation needed] The body's ability to store fat is almost limitless, hence the modern dilemma of morbid obesity.

While any diet devoid of essential fatty acids (EFAs) and essential amino acids (EAAs) will result in eventual death, a diet completely without carbohydrates can be maintained indefinitely because triglycerides (which make up fat stored in the body and dietary fat) include a (glycerol) molecule which the body can easily convert to glucose.[77] It should be noted that the EFAs and all amino acids are structural building blocks, not inherent fuel for energy. However, a very-low-carbohydrate diet (less than 20 g per day) may negatively affect certain biomarkers[78] and produce detrimental effects in certain types of individuals (for instance, those with kidney problems). The opposite is also true; for instance, clinical experience suggests very-low-carbohydrate diets for patients with metabolic syndrome.[79]

Because of the substantial controversy regarding low-carbohydrate diets and even disagreements in interpreting the results of specific studies, it is difficult to objectively summarize the research in a way that reflects scientific consensus.[80] Although some research has been done throughout the 20th century,[81] most directly relevant scientific studies have occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s. Researchers and other experts have published articles and studies that run the gamut from promoting the safety and efficacy of these diets[82][83] to questioning their long-term validity[84][85] to outright condemning them as dangerous.[86][87] A significant criticism of the diet trend was that no studies evaluated the effects of the diets beyond a few months. However, studies emerged which evaluate these diets over much longer periods, controlled studies as long as two years and survey studies as long as two decades.[82][88][89][90][91]

A systematic review published in 2014 included 19 trials with a total of 3,209 overweight and obese participants, some with diabetes. The review included both extreme low carbohydrate diets high in both protein and fat, as well as less extreme low carbohydrate diets that are high in protein but with recommended intakes of fat. The authors found that when the amount of energy (kilojoules/calories) consumed by people following the low carbohydrate and balanced diets (45 to 65% of total energy from carbohydrates, 25 to 35% from fat, and 10 to 20% from protein) was similar, there was no difference in weight loss after 3 to 6 months and after 1 to 2 years in those with and without diabetes. For blood pressure, cholesterol levels and diabetes markers there was also no difference detected between the low carbohydrate and the balanced diets. The follow-up of these trials was no longer than two years, which is too short to provide an adequate picture of the long term risk of following a low carbohydrate diet.[5]

A 2003 meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials found that "low-carbohydrate, non-energy-restricted diets appear to be at least as effective as low-fat, energy-restricted diets in inducing weight loss for up to one year."[92][93][94] A 2007 JAMA study comparing the effectiveness of the Atkins low-carb diet to several other popular diets concluded, "In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight and experienced more favorable overall metabolic effects at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets."[89] A July 2009 study of existing dietary habits associated a low-carbohydrate diet with obesity, although the study drew no explicit conclusion regarding the cause: whether the diet resulted in the obesity or the obesity motivated people to adopt the diet.[95] A 2013 meta-analysis that included only randomized controlled trials with one year or more of follow-up found, "Individuals assigned to a very low carbohydrate ketogenic diet achieve a greater weight loss than those assigned to a low fat diet in the long term."[96] In 2013, after reviewing 16,000 studies, Sweden's Council on Health Technology Assessment concluded low-carbohydrate diets are more effective as a means to reduce weight than low-fat diets, over a short period of time (six months or less). However, the agency also concluded, over a longer span (1224 months), no differences occur in effects on weight between strict or moderate low-carb diets, low-fat diets, diets high in protein, Mediterranean diet, or diets aiming at low glycemic indices.[97]

In one theory, one of the reasons people lose weight on low-carbohydrate diets is related to the phenomenon of spontaneous reduction in food intake.[98]

Carbohydrate restriction may help prevent obesity and type 2 diabetes,[99][100] as well as atherosclerosis.[101]

Potential favorable changes in triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values should be weighed against potential unfavorable changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol values when low-carbohydrate diets to induce weight loss are considered.[102] However, the type of LDL cholesterol should also be taken into account here, as it could be that small, dense LDL is decreased and larger LDL molecules are increased with low-carb diets.[citation needed] The health effects of the different molecules are still being elucidated, and many cholesterol tests do not account for such details, but small, dense LDL is thought to be problematic and large LDL is not. A 2008 systematic review of randomized controlled studies that compared low-carbohydrate diets to low-fat/low-calorie diets found the measurements of weight, HDL cholesterol, triglyceride levels, and systolic blood pressure were significantly better in groups that followed low-carbohydrate diets. The authors of this review also found a higher rate of attrition in groups with low-fat diets, and concluded, "evidence from this systematic review demonstrates that low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets are more effective at six months and are as effective, if not more, as low-fat diets in reducing weight and cardiovascular disease risk up to one year", but they also called for more long-term studies.[103]

A study of more than 100,000 people over more than 20 years within the Nurses' Health Study observationally concluded a low-carbohydrate diet high in vegetables, with a large proportion of proteins and oils coming from plant sources, decreases mortality with a hazard ratio of 0.8.[104] In contrast, a low-carbohydrate diet with largely animal sources of protein and fat increases mortality, with a hazard ratio of 1.1.[104] This study, however, has been met with criticism, due to the unreliability of the self-administered food frequency questionnaire, as compared to food journaling,[105] as well as classifying "low-carbohydrate" diets based on comparisons to the group as a whole (decile method) rather than surveying dieters following established low-carb dietary guidelines like the Atkins or Paleo diets.[106]

Opinions regarding low-carbohydrate diets vary throughout the medical and nutritional science communities, yet government bodies, and medical and nutritional associations, have generally opposed this nutritional regimen.[citation needed] Since 2003, some organizations have gradually begun to relax their opposition to the point of cautious support for low-carbohydrate diets. Some of these organizations receive funding from the food industry.[citation needed] Official statements from some organizations:

The AAFP released a 'discussion paper' on the Atkins diet in 2006. The paper expresses reservations about the Atkins plan, but acknowledges it as a legitimate weight-loss approach.[107]

The ADA revised its Nutrition Recommendations and Interventions for Diabetes in 2008 to acknowledge low-carbohydrate diets as a legitimate weight-loss plan.[108][109] The recommendations fall short of endorsing low-carbohydrate diets as a long-term health plan, and do not give any preference to these diets. Nevertheless, this is perhaps the first statement of support, albeit for the short term, by a medical organization.[110][111] In its 2009 publication of Clinical Practice Recommendations, the ADA again reaffirmed its acceptance of carbohydrate-controlled diets as an effective treatment for short-term (up to one year) weight loss among obese people suffering from type two diabetes.[112]

As of 2003 in commenting on a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association reiterated the association's belief that "there is no magic bullet to safe and healthful weight loss."[113] The Association specifically endorses the high-carbohydrate diet recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. They have stated "Calories cause weight gain. Excess calories from carbohydrates are not any more fattening than calories from other sources. Despite the claims of low-carb diets, a high-carbohydrate diet does not promote fat storage by enhancing insulin resistance."[114][bettersourceneeded]

As of 2008[update] the AHA states categorically that it "doesn't recommend high-protein diets."[115] A science advisory from the association further states the association's belief that these diets "may be associated with increased risk for coronary heart disease."[34] The AHA has been one of the most adamant opponents of low-carbohydrate diets.[citation needed] Dr. Robert Eckel, past president, noted that a low-carbohydrate diet could potentially meet AHA guidelines if it conformed to the AHA guidelines for low fat content.[116]

The position statement by the Heart Foundation regarding low-carbohydrate diets states, "the Heart Foundation does not support the adoption of VLCARB diets for weight loss."[46] Although the statement recommends against use of low-carbohydrate diets, it explains their major concern is saturated fats as opposed to carbohydrate restriction and protein. Moreover, other statements suggest their position might be re-evaluated in the event of more evidence from longer-term studies.

The consumer advice statements of the NHS regarding low-carbohydrate diets state that "eating a high-fat diet could increase your risk of heart disease" and "try to ensure starchy foods make up about a third of your diet"[117]

In 2008, the Socialstyrelsen in Sweden altered its standing regarding low-carbohydrate diets.[118] Although formal endorsement of this regimen has not yet appeared, the government has given its formal approval for using carbohydrate-controlled diets for medically supervised weight loss.

In a recommendation for diets suitable for diabetes patients published in 2011 a moderate low-carb option (3040%) is suggested.[119]

The HHS issues consumer guidelines for maintaining heart health which state regarding low-carbohydrate diets that "they're not the route to healthy, long-term weight management."[120]

Low-carbohydrate diets became a major weight loss and health maintenance trend during the late 1990s and early 2000s.[121][122][123] While their popularity has waned recently from its peak, they remain popular.[124][125] This diet trend has stirred major controversies in the medical and nutritional sciences communities and, as yet, there is not a general consensus on their efficacy or safety.[126][127] Many in the medical community remain generally opposed to these diets for long term health[128] although there has been a recent softening of this opposition by some organizations.[129][130]

Because of the substantial controversy regarding low-carbohydrate diets, and even disagreements in interpreting the results of specific studies, it is difficult to objectively summarize the research in a way that reflects scientific consensus.[131][132][133]

Although there has been some research done throughout the twentieth century, most directly relevant scientific studies have occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s and, as such, are relatively new and the results are still debated in the medical community.[132] Supporters and opponents of low-carbohydrate diets frequently cite many articles (sometimes the same articles) as supporting their positions.[134][135][136] One of the fundamental criticisms of those who advocate the low-carbohydrate diets has been the lack of long-term studies evaluating their health risks.[137][138] This has begun to change as longer term studies are emerging.[82]

A 2012 systematic review studying the effects of low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors showed the LCD to be associated with significant decreases in body weight, body mass index, abdominal circumference, blood pressure, triglycerides, fasting blood sugar, blood insulin and plasma C-reactive protein, as well as an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) and creatinine did not change significantly. The study found the LCD was shown to have favorable effects on body weight and major cardiovascular risk factors (but concluded the effects on long-term health are unknown). The study did not compare health benefits of LCD to low-fat diets.[139]

A meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2013 compared low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, vegan, vegetarian, low-glycemic index, high-fiber, and high-protein diets with control diets. The researchers concluded that low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, low-glycemic index, and high-protein diets are effective in improving markers of risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.[140]

In the first week or two of a low-carbohydrate diet, much of the weight loss comes from eliminating water retained in the body.[141] The presence of insulin in the blood fosters the formation of glycogen stores in the body, and glycogen is bound with water, which is released when insulin and blood sugar drop.[citation needed][142] A ketogenic diet is known to cause dehydration as an early, temporary side-effect.[143]

Advocates of low-carbohydrate diets generally dispute any suggestion that such diets cause weakness or exhaustion (except in the first few weeks as the body adjusts), and indeed most highly recommend exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle.[142][144] A large body of evidence stretching back to the 1880s shows that physical performance is not negatively affected by ketogenic diets once a person has been accustomed to such a diet.[145]

Arctic cultures, such as the Inuit, were found to lead physically demanding lives consuming a diet of about 1520% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.[145][146][147][148] However, studies also indicate that while low-carb diets will not reduce endurance performance after adapting, they will probably deteriorate anaerobic performance such as strength-training or sprint-running because these processes rely on glycogen for fuel.[144]

Many critics argue that low-carbohydrate diets inherently require minimizing vegetable and fruit consumption, which in turn robs the body of important nutrients.[149] Some critics imply or explicitly argue that vegetables and fruits are inherently all heavily concentrated sources of carbohydrates (so much so that some sources treat the words 'vegetable' and 'carbohydrate' as synonymous).[150] While some fruits may contain relatively high concentrations of sugar, most are largely water and not particularly calorie-dense. Thus, in absolute terms, even sweet fruits and berries do not represent a significant source of carbohydrates in their natural form, and also typically contain a good deal of fiber which attenuates the absorption of sugar in the gut.[151] Lastly, most of the sugar in fruit is fructose, which has a reported negligible effect on insulin levels in obese subjects.[152]

Most vegetables are low- or moderate-carbohydrate foods (in the context of these diets, fiber is excluded because it is not a nutritive carbohydrate). Some vegetables, such as potatoes and carrots, have high concentrations of starch, as do corn and rice. Most low-carbohydrate diet plans accommodate vegetables such as broccoli, spinach, cauliflower, and peppers.[153] The Atkins diet recommends that most dietary carbs come from vegetables. Nevertheless, debate remains as to whether restricting even just high-carbohydrate fruits, vegetables, and grains is truly healthy.[154]

Contrary to the recommendations of most low-carbohydrate diet guides, some individuals may choose to avoid vegetables altogether to minimize carbohydrate intake. Low-carbohydrate vegetarianism is also practiced.

Raw fruits and vegetables are packed with an array of other protective chemicals, such as vitamins, flavonoids, and sugar alcohols. Some of those molecules help safeguard against the over-absorption of sugars in the human digestive system.[155][156] Industrial food raffination depletes some of those beneficial molecules to various degrees, including almost total removal in many cases.[157]

The major low-carbohydrate diet guides generally recommend multivitamin and mineral supplements as part of the diet regimen, which may lead some to believe these diets are nutritionally deficient. The primary reason for this recommendation is that if the switch from a high-carbohydrate to a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet is rapid, the body can temporarily go through a period of adjustment during which it may require extra vitamins and minerals. This is because the body releases excess fluids stored during high-carbohydrate eating. In other words, the body goes through a temporary "shock" if the diet is changed to low-carbohydrate quickly, just as it would changing to a high-carbohydrate diet quickly. This does not, in and of itself, indicate that either type of diet is nutritionally deficient. While many foods rich in carbohydrates are also rich in vitamins and minerals, many low-carbohydrate foods are similarly rich in vitamins and minerals.[158]

A common argument in favor of high-carbohydrate diets is that most carbohydrates break down readily into glucose in the bloodstream, and therefore the body does not have to work as hard to get its energy in a high-carbohydrate diet as a low-carbohydrate diet. This argument, by itself, is incomplete. Although many dietary carbohydrates do break down into glucose, most of that glucose does not remain in the bloodstream for long. Its presence stimulates the beta cells in the pancreas to release insulin, which has the effect of causing about two-thirds of body cells to take in glucose, and causing fat cells to take in fatty acids and store them. As the blood-glucose level falls, the amount of insulin released is reduced; the entire process is completed in non-diabetics in an hour or two after eating.[citation needed] High-carbohydrate diets require more insulin production and release than low-carbohydrate diets,[citation needed] and some evidence indicates the increasingly large percentage of calories consumed as refined carbohydrates is positively correlated with the increased incidence of metabolic disorders such as type 2 diabetes.[159]

In addition, this claim neglects the nature of the carbohydrates ingested. Some are indigestible in humans (e.g., cellulose), some are poorly digested in humans (e.g., the amylose starch variant), and some require considerable processing to be converted to absorbable forms. In general, uncooked or unprocessed (e.g., milling, crushing, etc.) foods are harder (typically much harder) to absorb, so do not raise glucose levels as much as might be expected from the proportion of carbohydrate present. Cooking (especially moist cooking above the temperature necessary to expand starch granules) and mechanical processing both considerably raise the amount of absorbable carbohydrate and reduce the digestive effort required.

Analyses which neglect these factors are misleading and will not result in a working diet, or at least one which works as intended. In fact, some evidence indicates the human brain the largest consumer of glucose in the body can operate more efficiently on ketones (as efficiency of source of energy per unit oxygen).[160]

The restriction of starchy plants, by definition, severely limits the dietary intake of microbiota accessible carbohydrates (MACs) and may negatively affect the microbiome in ways that contribute to disease.[161] Starchy plants, in particular, are a main source of resistant starch an important dietary fiber with strong prebiotic properties.[162][163][164] Resistant starches are not digestible by mammals and are fermented and metabolized by gut flora into short chain fatty acids, which are well known to offer a wide range of health benefits.[163][165][166][167][168][169] Resistant starch consumption has been shown to improve intestinal/colonic health, blood sugar, glucose tolerance, insulin-sensitivity and satiety.[170][171][172] Public health authorities and food organizations such as the Food and Agricultural Organization, the World Health Organization,[173] the British Nutrition Foundation[174] and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences[175] recognize resistant starch as a beneficial carbohydrate. The Joint Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization Expert Consultation on Human Nutrition stated, "One of the major developments in our understanding of the importance of carbohydrates for health in the past twenty years has been the discovery of resistant starch."[173]

In 2004, the Canadian government ruled that foods sold in Canada could not be marketed with reduced or eliminated carbohydrate content as a selling point, because reduced carbohydrate content was not determined to be a health benefit. The government ruled that existing "low carb" and "no carb" packaging would have to be phased out by 2006.[176]

Some variants of low-carbohydrate diets involve substantially lowered intake of dietary fiber, which can result in constipation if not supplemented.[citation needed] For example, this has been a criticism of the induction phase of the Atkins diet (the Atkins diet is now clearer about recommending a fiber supplement during induction). Most advocates[who?][dubious discuss] today argue that fiber is a "good" carbohydrate and encourage a high-fiber diet.[citation needed]

More:
Low-carbohydrate diet - Wikipedia

Detoxification (detox) diets are popular, but there is little evidence that they eliminate toxins from your body.

Specific detox diets vary but typically a period of fasting is followed by a strict diet of raw vegetables, fruit and fruit juices, and water. In addition, some detox diets advocate using herbs and other supplements along with colon cleansing (enemas) to empty the intestines.

Some people report feeling more focused and energetic during and after detox diets. However, there's little evidence that detox diets actually remove toxins from the body. Indeed, the kidneys and liver are generally quite effective at filtering and eliminating most ingested toxins.

So why do so many people claim to feel better after detoxification? It may be due in part to the fact that a detox diet eliminates highly processed foods that have solid fats and added sugar. Simply avoiding these high-calorie low-nutrition foods for a few days may be part of why people feel better.

If you're considering a detox diet, get the OK from your doctor first. It's also important to consider possible side effects. Detox diets that severely limit protein or that require fasting, for example, can result in fatigue. Long-term fasting can result in vitamin and mineral deficiencies.

Colon cleansing, which is often recommended as part of a detox plan, can cause cramping, bloating, nausea and vomiting. Dehydration also can be a concern.

Finally, keep in mind that fad diets aren't a good long-term solution. For lasting results, your best bet is to eat a healthy diet based on fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and lean sources of protein.

If you do choose to do a detox diet, you may want to use it as a way to jump-start making healthier food choices going forward every day.

.

Continued here:
Detox diets: Do they work? - Mayo Clinic

Page 239«..1020..238239240241..250260..»

Home » Diets that Work » Page 239