Fad Diets: Look Before You Leap Essay

Association. Fad pabulums ar a short-run, quick-fix approach to cargo dismissal that dont work over the yearn haul. These diets tend to over-promise results yet dont deliver. Food choices are often mo nononous, and thermal ambition may be very restricted, so that once the novelty wears finish off, so does the motivation to continue.Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has recognized the huge popularity of fury diets, and in February it sponsored the Great Nutrition Debate, a discussion panel that have popular diet book authors as well as diet and pitch overtaking exploreers. While the panelists agreed that Ameri drive outs are too fat, in that location was no consensus about the best way to lose slant and declare it off-although it led to interesting and sometimes heated debate. In the end, USDA indicated that it force be time for government inquiryers to evaluate the various diets to help flesh fact from fiction.There is a dire lack of scientific resea rch to corroborate the theories expounded in the majority of diet books streamly on the market. well-nigh promise weight exhalation programs that are easy, allow favorite foods or foods traditionally limited in weight loss diets without limitations, and do not require a major shift in exercise habits. Often, adds Sachiko St. Jeor, PhD, RD, theater director of the Nutrition Education and Research Program at the University of Nevada School of Medicine, furore diet book authors take a scientific half-truth that is intricate and recitation that as the basis for their arguments.Authors may simplify or expand upon biochemistry and physiology in an effort to help adjudge their theories and provide a plethora of scientific jargon that bulk do not understand merely that seems to practice sense. And few, if any, offer solid scientific support for their deed of conveyances in the form of print research studies. Instead, most evidence is found on anecdotal findings, theories, and t estimonials of short-term results. Some of the most popular diets to hit the news wires these solar days are those that promote low carbohydrate and high protein intakes and promise signifi kittyt weight loss. These diets are nothing more than low calorie diets in disguise, but with some potentially serious consequences. Following a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet provide encourage the consistence to burn its own fat.Without carbohydrates, however, fat is not burnt-out completely and substances called ketones are formed and released into the line of descentstream. Abnormally high ketone levels in the corpse, or ketosis, may indeed make dieting easier, since they typically decrease appetency and cause nausea. However, ketosis also increases the levels of uric acid in the job, which is a risk factor for gout and kidney disease in susceptible people. Additionally, notes Dr. St. Jeor, side by side(p) these diets can result in dehydration, diarrhea, weakness, headaches, dizzi ness, and bad breath, and over the long term, can also increase risk of atherosclerosis and osteoporosis. Heres a r let onwn on some of the more popular high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets that are reservation headlines. scraping Busters By H. Leighton Steward, Sam S. Andrews, MD, Morrison C. Bethea, MD, and Luis A. Balart, MD Premise/TheorySugar and certain carbohydrates (those with high glycemic indices) are toxic to the proceedbox causing blood sugar levels to rise and increasing the levels of insulin production, thereby prompting fat depot and weight gain. Supposedly, decreasing sugar intake can help people lose weight and decrease body fat, no matter what different foods are eaten.Dietary Recommendations* Eliminates refined and processed carbohydrates, especially sugar and smock flour and all foods made from these ingredients. Also eliminates foods like potatoes, corn, white rice, beets, carrots, corn syrup, molasses, honey, soft drinks, and beer.* Encourages consumptio n of whole grains, low-glycemic-index carbohydrates (high-fiber ve pull backables and fruits), and lean meats with no restrictions on protein foods. * Authors call for that washing food down with liquid does not allow for befitting chewing. Claims tautological fluid with meals also dilutes digestive juices and can result in partially digested food. * Average intake of calories is 1200 calories/day distributed as 30 percentage carbohydrate, 32 percent protein, and 28 percent fat. Recommended calorie intake in this diet is low, accounting for short-term weight loss.Concerns* There is no scientific basis or published data for the Sugar Busters weight loss theory. The explanation of insulins role in weight gain that is provided is simplistic. The body does produce insulin in response to a rise in blood sugar levels, but it does not promote storage of fat unless excess calories are consumed.* There is no scientific evidence supporting the claim that the consumption of fluids during m eals negatively affects digestion.Drastically decreasing dietary intake of carbohydrates forces the body to burn reserves of stored fat for energy, a condition known as ketosis, which leads to decreased hunger and a metabolous advantage. Dietary Recommendations * Limits carbohydrates to 20 grams/day for the induction phase of the diet and 0 to 60 grams/day in the ongoing weight loss phase. Carbohydrate intake ranges from 25 to 90 grams/day in the maintenance diet.* Unlimited quantities of protein foods and fat-steak, bacon, eggs, chicken, fish, butter, and vegetable oil-are allowed. Avoid or limit carbohydrates, specifically breads, pasta, most fruits and vegetables, milk, and yogurt.Concerns* No published scientific studies support the diet claims.* Offers extremely limited food choices. Diet is nutritionally fed up(p) and excessively high in protein, fat, vestal fat, and cholesterol.* Promotes ketosis as a means of weight loss.* Suggests that a high-saturated-fat, low-carbohydra te diet does not have an event on lipids.* Dehydration is possible if large amounts of water are not consumed.* Diet is low in calcium, magnesium, potassium, vitamin C, and folate (dietary supplements are recommended).Enter the zona By Barry Sears, PhDPremise/Theory The zone is a metabolic acres in which the mind is relaxed and focused and the body is strong and works at circular efficiency. A person in the zone will allegedly experience permanent body fat loss, optimal health, greater acrobatic performance, and improved mental productivity. Insulin is released as a result of eating carbohydrates and leads to weight gain. Because food has a potent, drug-like exploit on the hormonal systems that regulate thebodys physiological processes, eating the right combination of foods leads to a metabolic state (lower insulin levels and lower eicosanoid levels) in which the body works at peak performance and which results in decreased hunger, weight loss, and increased energy.Dietary Reco mmendations* To get into the zone, rigid quantities of food, apportioned in blocks and at prescribed times, are recommended in a distribution of 40 percent carbohydrate, 30 percent protein, and 30 percent fat. Meals should provide no more than 500 calories and snacks less than cytosine calories. * Food should be treated like a medical prescription drug or drug. * Menus suggest lots of egg whites, nuts, olives, peanut butter, and monounsaturated fats and large amounts of allowable (low-glycemic-index) fruits and vegetables.Alcohol is okay in moderation, but zone followers are aware to avoid or limit carbohydrates, especially pasta, bread, high-glycemic-index fruits and vegetables such as carrots and bananas, saturated fat, and arachidonic acid.* Diet averages 1,300 calories per day, although some menus may run as low as 850 calories.Concerns* Oversimplifies complicated physiological processes. For example, eicosanoids are one part of a complex system, and no studies suggest that t hey are dangerous or cause disease. * The metabolic pathways explained in the book that supposedly connect diet, insulin-glucagon, and eicosanoids are not plant in standard nutrition or biochemistry texts. The premise that any font of diet completely controls insulin and glucagon secretion is not supported by current nutrition or biochemistry knowledge, nor is the theory that the insulin-glucagon axis controls production of eicosanoids.* Relies upon unproven claims based on case histories, testimonials, and uncontrolled studies that are not published in peer-reviewed journals. Although all of these diets may promote short term weight loss, their long term force playiveness is a different story. The bottom line for long-wearing and healthful weight loss is a varied diet, reduced caloric intake, and regular physical activity. The truth is that losing weight permanently takes work. Its not glamorous-eating habits need to change and activity usually needs to increase, notes Quaglian i. If a diet sounds too good to be true, it probably is.GlossaryArachidonic acid buttery acid precursor for eiconsanoid production. Eicosanoids biologically active class of compounds that are have-to doe with in a wide range of regulatory processes such as synthesis of certain fatty acids. Glycemic index a ranking of the effect on blood glucose of the consumption of a single food relative to a reference carbohydrate (e.g., white bread or glucose). Glucagon has an effect opposite to that of insulin. Insulins and glucagons opposing effects help make carbohydrate metabolism in a steady state.Tips on spy Fad DietsClaims or implies a large or quick weight loss of more than 1 to 2 pounds per week. Slow, gradual weight loss increases the chance of weight loss success and of keeping weight off over the long term.Promotes magical or miracle foods. No foods can undo the long-term effects of overeating and not exercising or die hard away fat. Restricts or eliminates certain foods, recomm ends certain foods in large quantities, insists on eating specific food combinations, or offers rigid, inflexible menus. Implies that weight can be lost and maintained without exercise and other lifestyle changes.Relies hard on undocumented case histories, testimonials, and anecdotes but has no scientific research to back claims. Contradicts what most trusted health professional groups say, or makes promises that sound too good to be true.