Search Weight Loss Topics:

Page 240«..1020..239240241242..250260..»

Home » Diets that Work » Page 240

If you do not want to read this entire webpage, please review this shortened version:

Feeding Your Cat - Short version - 4 pages (updated November 2013)

Many readers of this website have kindly donated their valuable time to translate this important information into various languages. Please click PDF options for more information.

Diet is the brick and mortar of health. This web page lays out some often-ignored principles of feline nutrition and explains why cats have a better chance at optimal health if they are fed canned food (or a balanced homemade diet) instead of dry kibble.

Putting a little thought into what you feed your cat(s) can pay big dividends over their lifetime and very possibly help them avoid serious, painful, and costly illnesses. An increasing number of nutrition-savvy veterinarians, including board-certified veterinary internists, are now strongly recommending the feeding of canned food instead of dry kibble.

The three key negative issues associated with dry food are:

1) water content is too low

2) carbohydrate load is too high

3) type of protein - too high in plant-based versus animal-based proteins

In addition, dry food is very heavily processed which includes being subjected to high temperatures for a long time resulting in alteration and destruction of nutrients.

Dry food is also often contaminated with bacteria, fungal mycotoxins, storage mites/cockroaches and their feces, etc.

Most people who are concerned about their own nutrition have heard nutritionists say "shop the perimeter of the grocery store." This statement refers to the push to get humans to focus on fresh food - not overly processed food found in boxes and cans.

Where do you think kibble would reside in this scenario? Definitely not in the "perimeter"! There is nothing fresh about this source of food and it certainly does not come close to resembling a bird or a mouse.

Also keep in mind that dry foods are not refrigerated and they sit in warm warehouses, on pet store shelves, and in your cupboards for weeks or months before your pets consume them. Fats can easily become rancid, and bacteria will proliferate, in this type of environment.

There is no doubt that dry food is responsible for far more intestinal problems, and other diseases, than most veterinarians and cat owners realize.

Please click on the links below to read more about optimal nutrition for cats.

But my cat is "fine" on dry food!

The importance of animal proteins, versus plant proteins

Fresh vs highly processed with synthetic supplements

Problems with carbohydrates in dry cat foods

Cats need water with their food

Reading a pet food ingredient label

Marketing labels

'Prescription/therapeutic' diets

Common medical problems associated with dry food

The safety of dry food

Tips for Transitioning - Getting dry food addicts to eat canned food

Home prepared raw/semi-cooked and commercial raw meat diets

What I feed to my cats

Some final thoughts

Robbie

My Cat is Doing Just "Fine" on Dry Food!

Every living creature is fine until outward signs of a disease process are exhibited. That may sound like a very obvious and basic statement but if you think about it

Every cat with a blocked urinary tract was fine until they started to strain to urinate and either died from a ruptured bladder or had to be rushed to the hospital for emergency catheterization.

Every cat on the Feline Diabetes Message Board was fine until their owners started to recognize the signs of diabetes.

Every cat with an inflamed bladder (cystitis) was fine until they ended up in severe pain, started passing blood in their urine, and began to refuse to use their litter box because they associated it with their pain.

Every cat was "fine" until the feeding of species-inappropriate, hyperallergenic ingredients caught up with him and he started to show signs of food intolerance/IBD (inflammatory bowel disease).

Every cat was "fine" until that kidney or bladder stone got big enough to cause clinical signs.

Every cancer patient was fine until their tumor grew large enough or spread far enough so that clinical signs were observed by the patient.

The point is that diseases 'brew' long before being noticed by the living being.

This is why the statement but my cat is healthy/fine on dry food means very little to me because I believe in preventative nutrition - not locking the barn door after the horse is gone. I dont want to end up saying oopsI guess he is not so fine now!!" when a patient presents to me with a medical problem that could have been avoided if he would have been feed a species-appropriate diet to begin with.

Of course, in order to be on board with the preventative nutrition argument, a person has to understand the following facts:

1) All urinary tract systems are much healthier with an appropriate amount of water flowing through them.

Dietary water and urinary tract health

2) Carbohydrates can wreak havoc on cats' blood sugar/insulin balance.

Postprandial glycemia

3)Cats inherently have a low thirst drive and need to consume water *with* their food. (A cat's normal prey is ~70 - 75% water - not the very low 5-10% found in dry food.)

4) Cats are strict carnivores which means they are designed to get their protein from meat/organs not plants.

The Carnivore Connection to Nutrition in Cats

Cats Need Animal-Based Protein

Cats are obligate (strict) carnivores and are very different from dogs in their nutritional needs. What does it mean to be an obligate carnivore? It means that your cat was built by Mother Nature to get her nutritional needs met by the consumption of a large amount of animal-based proteins (meat/organs) and derives much less nutritional support from plant-based proteins (grains/vegetables). It means that cats lack specific metabolic (enzymatic) pathways and cannot utilize plant proteins as efficiently as animal proteins.

It is very important to remember that not all proteins are created equal.

Proteins derived from animal tissues have a complete amino acid profile. (Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. Think of them as pieces of a puzzle.) Plant-based proteins do not contain the full complement (puzzle pieces) of the critical amino acids required by an obligate carnivore. The quality and composition of a protein (are all of the puzzle pieces present?) is also referred to as its biological value.

Humans and dogs can take the pieces of the puzzle in the plant protein and, from those, make the missing pieces. Cats cannot do this. This is why humans and dogs can live on a vegetarian diet but cats cannot. (Note that I do not recommend vegetarian diets for dogs.)

Taurine is one of the most important nutrients present in meat but it is missing from plants. Taurine deficiency will cause blindness and heart problems in cats.

The protein in dry food, which is often heavily plant-based, is not equal in quality to the protein in canned food, which is meat-based. The protein in dry food, therefore, earns a lower biological value score.

Because plant proteins are cheaper than meat proteins, pet food companies will have a higher profit margin when using corn, wheat, soy, rice, etc.

Andy - 18 years ago as a kitten

He still enjoys his meat!

Veterinary nutritionists and pet food company representatives will argue that they are smart enough to know *exactly* what is missing from a plant in terms of nutrient forms and amounts - nutrients that would otherwise be in a meat-based diet. They will then claim that these missing elements are added to their diets to make it complete and balanced to sustain life in an obligate carnivore.

Does anyone really think that humans are that smart?

This is the kind of arrogance that has led to fatal errors in the past. Not all that long ago (1980s) cats were going blind and dying from heart problems due to this arrogance. It was discovered in the late 1980s that cats are exquisitely sensitive to taurine deficiency and our cats were paying dearly for Man straying so far from nature in order to increase the profit margin of the pet food manufacturers.

There are several situations that can lead to a diet being deficient in taurine but one of them is using a diet that relies heavily on plants (grains, etc.) as its source of protein. Instead of lowering their profit margin and going back to nature by adding more meat to the diets, the pet food companies simple started supplementing their diets with synthetic taurine.

This may be all well and good for this particular problem, but how do we know that Man is not blindly going along unaware of other critical nutrients that are missing from a plant-based diet?

Why are nutritionists so arrogant to think that we can safely stray so far from what a cat is designed by nature to eat?

Also note that synthetic taurine is manufactured from a chemical reaction and all taurine (at least that I know of) comes out of China. Given that country's horrible track record with regard to food safety, I certainly would not want to depend on taurine from China's chemical synthesis to meet my cats' taurine needs.

With regard to the overall protein amounts contained in dry versus canned food, do not be confused by the listing of the protein percentages on the packaging. At first glance, it might appear that the dry food has a higher amount of protein than the canned foodbut this is not true on a dry matter basis which considers the food minus the water. Most canned foods, when figured on a dry matter basis, have more protein than dry food. And remember, even if this was not the case, the percentage numbers do not tell the whole story. It is the proteins biological value that is critical.

Let's ask ourselves the following question: How many cats become ill or die from these species-inappropriate diets yet the patient's diet is never even questioned as a possible cause of the illness or death? We cannot answer that question definitively but I have no doubt that the answer would be "many".

Do cats survive on these heavily (synthetically) supplemented plant-based diets? Yes, many of them do.

Do cats thrive on these diets? No, they do not.

Please pay special attention to the words *survive* versus *thrive* as there is a very big difference between the two states of health.

Robbie - hunting his dinner

Fresh vs Highly Processed with Synthetic Supplements

There are two basic ways to meet our nutrient needs:

Eat fresh food with a short ingredient list - or at least one that does not resemble a science experiment full of long names that are hard to pronounce.

Eat highly processed foods that have had much of their nutrient content destroyed or altered, with food chemists 'fixing' the deficit with synthetic supplements. This type of unhealthy diet is consumed under the assumption that humans know exactly what was destroyed or altered during processing and what needs to be added back and in what form and amount.

Again, Man is simply not that smart.

While canned food is not 'fresh', per se, dry food undergoes a harsher processing. It has been cooked at very high temperatures for a long period of time. The extensive cooking required to remove most of the water from the food (70% moisture reduced to 5-10% moisture) significantly alters the biological value of the protein sources and damages other vital nutrients.

Humans then have to guess which nutrients in what form and amounts were destroyed by this cooking process and then try to add them back into the diet. Occasionally 'real food' is used instead of synthetic supplements but those long and hard-to-pronounce names on the ingredient list describe chemically synthesized nutrients.

Given that Man will never be as smart as nature we will never know every detail of a cats normal prey - it is obvious that there is a risk when greed cause humans to stray so far from a cats natural diet.

Back to top

Note: I have stopped using the term "grain-free" since it has become somewhat meaningless. Many companies (e.g., Blue Buffalo) tout that their products are "grain free" but then they just load up the food with high carbohydrate ingredients like potatoes and peas which are not grains but still contribute a significant carb load (and plant-based protein) to the food. The "grain-free" descriptive has become very misleading.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In their natural setting, catswhose unique biology makes them true carnivores--would not consume the high level of carbohydrates (grains, potatoes, peas, etc.) that are in the dry foods (and some canned foods) that we routinely feed them. You would never see a wild cat chasing down a herd of biscuits running across the plains of Africa or dehydrating her mouse and topping it off with corn meal.

In the wild, your cat would be eating a high protein, high-moisture, meat/organ-based diet, with a moderate level of fat and with only approximately 1-2 percent of her diet consisting of carbohydrates. The average dry food contains 35-50 percent carbohydrate calories. Some of the cheaper dry foods contain even higher levels.

This is NOT the diet that Mother Nature intended for your cat to eat.

Many canned foods, on the other hand, contain approximately less than 10 percent carbohydrates.

Please note that not all canned foods are suitably low in carbohydrates. For instance, most of the Hill's Science Diet (over-the-counter) and the Hill's 'prescription' diets are very high in carbohydrates and are not foods that I would ever choose to feed.

Cats have a physiological decrease in the ability to utilize carbohydrates due to the lack of specific enzymatic pathways that are present in other mammals, and they lack a salivary enzyme called amylase.

Cats have no dietary need for carbohydrates and, more worrisome is the fact that a diet that is high in carbohydrates can be detrimental to their health as is explained below.

With this in mind, it is as illogical to feed a carnivore a steady diet of meat-flavored cereals as it would be to feed meat to a vegetarian like a horse or a cow, right? So why are we continuing to feed our carnivores like herbivores? Why are we feeding such a species-inappropriate diet? The answers are simple. Grains/potatoes are cheap. Dry food is convenient. Affordability and convenience sells.

Link:
Feeding Your Cat: Know the Basics of Feline Nutrition ...

A panicky, flirtatious text thread usually leading to sexting. Commonly typed in a nervous fashion out of fear of getting caught.

Look at Jimmy over there fever texting with his side chick.

a massive night out with the lads with no defined finishing time, unlimited larger consumption and scant regard for any tasks or responsibilities that need to be adhered to the next day. Generally the premise of the out of town worker

-you out on Thursday? -too right, full smash! -but what about all that cable we've got to install on Friday? -i couldn't give a f**k!

It is a reference to the assassination of President Lincoln. Can be substituted with any phrase referring to a tragic event, such as, "Other than that, how was the flight, Sullie?"

"I just found out I have to work this weekend." "Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

Bay area term meaning to put money down on someone else's gas. Someone's portion of gas money.

"Do you have gas ends for the trip?" "I have ends on gas!"

When a person in casual conversation drops extremely depressing information in an order to derail the conversation to a more depressing state.

Person 2: "Yeah, but that time I was here my ex punched me in the face."

Person 1: "...fuck...way too be depressive aggressive."

When someone brags about something but are clearly lying about it or give an example of how bad you are at the thing you're bragging about.

Did you hear that Trump Brag: "I went to an ivy league school, I'm very highly educated. I know words I have the best words."

What happens when you type "Google" into Google.

I am head of IT and I have it on good authority: if you type "Google" into Google you can break the internet. So please, no-one try it, even for a joke.

Read the original here:
Low Protein Diets Good For Your - Urban Dictionary

Instantly replace your tape backup with faster more reliable disk for iSeries or Linux servers. Continue Reading

A backup solution needs to be rock solid dependable and just work.UBD has exceeded that expectation already. City of Dothan More Reviews

Network based backup for IBM i and iSeries systems. Continue Reading

We were able to easily and successfully eliminate tape when wewent with LaserVault Backup. I recommend it for any business lookingfor an alternative to backup to tape for their IBM system. Cumberland County Health Center More Reviews

SAVSYSLV, anew product add-on for LaserVault Backup, has just been released.LaserVault Backup with SAVSYSLV is the first TCP/IP based backup system for the IBM ito offer bare metal restore capability.Ask about our introductory price. Continue Reading

Store, index and retrieve documents and faxes across your network or the Internet using phones, tablets, Windows or Linux. Continue Reading

Stopping printing has saved 1,000s of pages of paper, tonerand time!We use LaserVault to manage ourPDFs, TIFFs,shipping docs, severaldaily partsreports and several month-end reports. Carter Machinery Company More Reviews

Archive and index all your computer generated reports and PDFs and access from any device. Continue Reading

As for reports, there is no need to keep retention binders anymoreas all reports can be reviewed electronically. C-Life Group, LTD More Reviews

Split and send your reports as PDF by email, fax or web. Continue Reading

With Content Express, reports are automatically converted to PDF version for us to send out for distribution. C-Life Group, LTD More Reviews

Privacy Policy

Read the rest here:
LaserVault

Arrrgh! Is there anything that actually works!? If youve ever felt like this when looking through the endless diet pills, books, potions and plans out there for women, only to be left feeling lost and confused, youre in the right place!

Most diets suck and actually make it harder, not easier, to lose weight. They also make your life miserable, and thats just not acceptable.

Its not all bad news, though. There are a few gems out there, like the Paleo diet, which is the new kid on the block of the dieting world and a great choice for women looking to tone up and lose a few pounds. The crazy thing is, eating right for your body is easy. The message just gets lost in translation, often through marketing hype, which leads to thinking that you need this or youve got to have that to lose weight and get in shape.

In fact, all diets rely on the same principle calorie manipulation. They just go about it in different ways. Some restrict certain food groups, while others do away with them completely. Though, what ultimately separates a diet that works from one that doesnt is commitment and how well the diet fits your lifestyle and goals.

Each year brings with it new diets, each claiming to be the solution to your weight loss dilemmas. The key is not to get swept up in the hype. What worked last year still works now; the fundamentals of losing weight dont change, only peoples perceptions. That said, my recommendation of The 3 Week Diet (read the review here) remains steadfast as one of the best choices for women looking to slim down quickly and safely.

Heres a quick look at some of the most popular diet plans for women which have evidence to support they really work.

THE PALEO DIET: Great for weight loss, Paleo encourages you to eat like a cave-woman by cutting out all processed foods, grains and legumes to focus on eating what was available at the time things like animal protein (i.e chicken, fish), eggs, fruit, nuts, seeds & veggies. Read more.

1500 CALORIE DIET: A daily intake of 1500 healthy, balanced calories is largely considered the gold-standard for weight loss. Many diet plans use this magic number and for good reason, it works for just about anyone, regardless of shape or size. Read more.

LOW CARB DIET: Theres a good reason the low-carb diet is so well-known and popular among women, it works! Its one of the most well-supported methods to lose weight quickly (if you can manage the cravings!) and improve your health. Read more.

EASY EATING PLANS: Forget about quick-fixes, having a structured eating plan that delivers real food and real results is where its at. This eating plan diet covers the fundamentals of healthy eating for weight loss and offers quick and easy solutions to everyday issues like cravings. Read more.

THE 3 WEEK DIET: This is a new program quickly gaining popularity and one that I actively endorse for quick and safe results. As the name suggests, 3 weeks is the time-frame used to deliver a sensible, calorie-controlled approach to weight loss with healthy real foods. Read my review here.

While all of these diets have evidence to support their use, the best diet for women is ultimately one that meets your individual needs and offers a practical solution that fits your lifestyle. If youre a busy mom or simply feel you dont have the time to eat right (and exercise), innovative programs like 6-minutes to skinny offer a practical and exciting approach to weight loss, making it a reality for all just as it should be.

The problem with old-school diets (i.e. the grapefruit diet) isnt that they cant help you lose weight, they can. Its the fact theyre not sustainable, or healthy in the long-run.

The key to finding a sustainable diet that works is building habits that help you incorporate real, natural fat burning foods while avoiding calorie-laden, processed artificial foods. Not only will you regain your health, youll be happier, have more energy and feel what its like to eat right for your body. The diets and healthy eating tips at Leanrunnerbean are based around a few core principles:

Make Healthy Eating a Habit: If you eat right most of the time, what you eat the rest of the time doesnt matter nearly as much. This leaves you free to splurge (occasionally) and not have to worry about enjoying a night out. Instead of wasting your thoughts and self-control on calories, focus on building healthy habits that last.

Ditch the Crash Diet: You dont need to starve yourself to lose weight. Not only does it deprive the body of nutrients, it cripples metabolic rate and actually makes fat loss more difficult. Focus on provisioning your body with nutrient-dense foods that support weight loss and overall health.

Eat Real Foods: Wherever possible look to cut processed foods from your diet and replace them with real, natural foods. Most pre-packaged artificial foods are devoid of nutrients, high in sugar and loaded with preservatives that often do more harm than good.

Were All Different: No two women are the same, and this is why most cookie-cutter diet plans fail. We all have different goals and starting points, which makes it doubly important important to taste, test and experiment until you find what works best for you.

Dont Eat With Your Emotions: We all get down in the dumps occasionally, which is why its important to recognize that psychological triggers can cause us to overeat (and under-eat). Taking time out and practicing mindfulness when eating can protect us from cravings and mindless binging.

Track Your Progress: You dont need to be a tech geek. A diary is all you need to keep track of what youre eating and how your body responds. This gives you a starting point and a resource you can refer back to later. Theres also neat-o gadgets like Wi-Fi pedometers, mobile apps and other online tools.

Love Your Food: Look after your food and itll look after you. When you care about what youre putting in your body and why, your food choices automatically improve and provide a greater sense of self-satisfaction.

Get Moving: This site is dedicated to healthy eating, but that doesnt mean exercise isnt an important part of a healthy lifestyle it is. Aim to get moving for at least 30 minutes each day and avoid sitting for extended periods of time (computers, TV etc).

Theres no coincidence that when you look good, you feel good. Health and happiness are closely linked, and trying to achieve your weight loss goals without the other is always a struggle. Fortunately, finding a diet that works doesnt need to be all about sacrifice and willpower. At Leanrunnerbean youll learn how to upgrade your lifestyle to make dieting fun, easy and effective.

Whether you work a normal nine-to-five desk job, shift-work, work through the night, or do what feels like endless 24-hour shifts at home looking after your family, finding a balance and managing your weight loss around your job can be tricky. But you can do it! We all need to work, which is why it's doubly important to find a diet that works, too!

It's all about preparation and having a plan you can follow. Below we've taken common everyday working conditions are provided practical, real-life fixes to aid in weight loss and help you live a healthier life. Get started below!

Finding a diet that works can be hard enough without people dishing out nonsense and conflicting information. Here's six quick-fire diet tips that never fail.

1. Don't Give Up - If you fall off the wagon or skip a day, don't throw in the towel and skip the next. It's harder to get back to your eating plan after three days than it is after one. Besides, I have one guilt-free diet day a week, as I think everyone should, and my favorite day is the day after when I can start eating healthy again!

Read more:
Diets That (Really) Work for Women: Simple & Healthy ...

Corresponding Author: Michael L. Dansinger, MD, Atherosclerosis Research Laboratory, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Box 216, Boston Dispensary 342, 750 Washington St, Boston, MA 02111 (mdansinger@tufts-nemc.org).

Author Contributions: Dr Dansinger had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Dansinger, Griffith, Selker, Schaefer.

Acquisition of data: Dansinger, Gleason, Schaefer.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Dansinger, Gleason, Selker, Schaefer.

Drafting of the manuscript: Dansinger, Griffith, Schaefer.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Dansinger, Gleason, Griffith, Selker, Schaefer.

Statistical analysis: Dansinger, Griffith.

Obtained funding: Dansinger, Selker, Schaefer.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Dansinger, Gleason, Selker, Schaefer.

Study supervision: Selker, Schaefer.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grants MO1-RR00054 from the General Clinical Research Center via the National Center for Research Resources of the National Institutes of Health (NIH); HL57477 from the NIH; contract 53-1950-5-003 from the US Department of Agriculture; and P30DK46200 from the Human Metabolic and Genetics Core Laboratory of the Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center program. Dr Dansinger was supported by grant T32 HS00060 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Role of the Sponsors: The General Clinical Research Center scientific staff provided consultation in the design of the study. The General Clinical Research Center nursing staff provided assistance with the data collection. No sponsor participated in the analysis or interpretation of the data, manuscript preparation, review, or approval, or the decision to publish.

Acknowledgment: We thank Wenjun Li, PhD, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, for statistical assistance; Judith McNamara, MT, and Kourosh Zonous-Hashemi, BS, from the Lipid Metabolism Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center, Tufts University, for performing the lipoprotein analyses; Elias Seyoum, PhD, from the Nutrition Evaluation Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center, Tufts University, for performing the insulin assays; the General Clinical Research Center staff from Tufts-New England Medical Center for technical assistance; Kendrin Sonneville, MS, RD, and Jacquelyn Stamm, MS, RD, for performing diet record analyses; and Sylvia Peterson, for administrative support.

Read the original post:
Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and ...

Over the years since the publication of my first book, I have been asked time and again if there is a vegetarian version of The Paleo Diet. Ive got to say emphatically No! Vegetarian diets are a bit of a moving target because they come in at least three major versions. We all know in principle that vegetarians do not eat meat, poultry or fish this is the first and foremost characteristic of vegetarian diets. Less restrictive are lacto/ovo vegetarians who limit their animal food choices to dairy products and/or eggs, whereas vegans eat plant foods exclusively. A recent study published by Vegetarian Times Magazine revealed that 3.2% of U.S. adults or 7.3 million people follow a vegetarian-based diet.127 Approximately 0.5% or 1 million Americans are vegans. The study also indicated that over half (53%) of current vegetarians ate their plant based diet to improve overall health. Additional reasons underlying their vegetarian lifestyles were: 1) animal welfare cited by 54%, 2) environmental concerns named by 47%, 3) natural approaches to wellness mentioned by 39%, 4) food safety issues brought up by 31% and 5) weight loss and weight maintenance issues were cited by 25% of the respondents.127

First, let me say I respect everyones choice to eat whatever diet they like and those foods that they feel are best suited for themselves and their families. I also respect peoples decisions to abstain from eating meat for religious, moral, and ethical reasons. Nevertheless, as a scientist, I hope that we all try to make dietary decisions based not just upon philosophical and ethical issues, but also upon foods that are good for our bodies and long term health. Accordingly, I simply cant lend my support to any version of vegetarian diets that people may adopt for the mistaken idea that these diets improve overall health.

Although vegetarianism has deep historical roots dating back at least to 500 BC with such ancient Greeks as Pythagoras, Porphyry and Plutarch,106, 115, 134 this manner of eating has only been with us for the mere blink of an eye on an evolutionary timescale. In our comprehensive analysis of 229 hunter-gatherer diets, my research group and I showed beyond question that no historically studied foragers were vegetarians.26 In fact, whenever and wherever animal foods were available they were always preferred over plant foods.26 The chart to the left shows the overwhelming preference for animal foods in all 229 hunter-gatherer societies that we studied. Notice that not a single foraging society fell into the (0 5%) animal subsistence category.

Most (73%) of the 229 hunter-gatherers consumed 46% or more of their daily energy as animal food.26 The compelling reason for their preference of animal foods over plant foods was because hunter-gatherers got more bang (food calories) for the buck (their energy expended to obtain the food), as verified by optimal foraging theory.

Human preference and appetite for meat, marrow and animal food has an incredibly long history in our ancestral line.18, 33 Fossils of butchered animals with stone tool-cut marks on their bones were discovered in Africa dating back 2.5 million years.33 These definitive smoking guns in the archaeological record leave little doubt that all human species ate animal foods from the very get-go of our existence. Scientists are able to determine the relative percentage of plant and animal food in extinct human (hominid) species by analyzing elements called isotopes within their fossilized bones.10, 104, 105 Every single hominid skeleton examined since the emergence of our own genus (Homo) 2.5 million years ago show an isotopic signature characteristic of meat based diets.10, 83, 104, 105, 124 Further, if we compare our biochemical and anatomical machinery to cats, who are absolute carnivores, we both share evolutionary enzyme pathways characteristic of processing lots of meat.27 If you are interested in these details, I have written about them in my debate with the noted vegetarian, Dr. T. Colin Campbell, author of The China Study.27Download the Full Debate Here

If we accept the idea that vegetarianism represents an ideal human diet, then this manner of eating must be part of a much larger or ultimate mechanism governing human biology. What Im getting at is the question of Why? Why would a vegetarian diet, or for that matter, any diet represent an optimal nutritional road map for our species? Any unified theory of human nutrition is a detective story in which scientists attempt to reveal or uncover biological systems that have been designed by, and put into place by evolution through natural selection. Accordingly, hypotheses regarding what we should and shouldnt eat must be consistent with the system and ancient environments that engineered our current genes. If we are to buy into vegetarianism, then the system, evolution via natural selection, which shaped our present genome necessarily had to be conditioned over eons by a plant based, vegetarian diet. Otherwise, there is no rationale alternative hypothesis to explain why humans would prosper and thrive on vegetarian diets.

As I have extensively pointed out,26, 27 there is no credible fossil, archeological, anthropological or biochemical evidence to show that any hunter-gatherers or pre-agricultural humans ever consumed all plant based diets. This information should be your first clue that there just may be some problems with vegetarian dietary recommendations created by humans for humans. What is that expression? We are all human, we all make mistakes. Let us not depend upon human frailties for dietary advice, but rather let us fall back on the wisdom of the system, again, evolution via natural selection, that designed the diet to which we are genetically adapted.

If you are considering adopting a vegetarian diet because you think it may improve your overall health and wellbeing, my immediate advice to you would be to forget it. I urge you to always let the data speak for itself, and dont listen to me or anyone else until you have carefully scrutinized both sides of this or any other nutritional argument. I can guarantee you that the assessment of positive health effects, or lack thereof, caused by vegetarian diets is not just a straight forward matter involving objectivity and a mere sifting of scientific facts. Rather, this inquiry is politically charged involving charismatic individuals and well known scientists promoting a vegetarian viewpoint that is frequently at odds with the best science.

If you are currently a vegetarian or vegan, one of the most powerful health expectations for adopting this lifestyle is that you will outlive your hamburger eating neighbors by escaping cancer, 72 heart disease,69, 71 and all other causes of death (mortality).69, 71 In fact, if truth be told, your lifelong dietary deprivations will not prolong your lifespan, but rather will produce multiple nutrient deficiencies that are associated with numerous health problems and illnesses. If you have forced plant based diets upon your children, or unborn fetus they will also suffer. Not a pretty picture. Now lets let the data speak for itself and get into the science of vegetarian diets and health.

In their 2009 Position Statement on Vegetarian Diets,28 The American Dietetic Association tells us,appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain disease. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. I dont know what planet the authors of this paper came from or what scientific journals they have been reading, but these statements simply are not supported by the data.

To start with, if vegetarian diets are so healthful, then any reasonable person might expect that people eating plant based diets would have lower death rates from all causes than their meat eating counterparts. This question was never fully answered until 1999 when Dr. Key and colleagues at Oxford University conducted a large meta analysis comparing overall death rates between 27,808 vegetarians and 48,364 meat eaters.69 I quote Dr. Keys study, There were no significant differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer or all other causes combined. I have underlined and bolded the last words of this sentence to emphasize the fact that vegetarians do not fair any better than their hamburger eating counterparts when death rates for all causes are considered. A more recent 2009 analysis (The EPIC-Oxford Study), employing the largest sample of vegetarians (33,883) ever examined came up with identical conclusions.71 I quote the authors, Within the study mortality from circulatory diseases and all causes is not significantly different between vegetarians and meat eaters. The results of this study71 and the earlier meta analysis,69 fly directly in the face of the American Dietetic Associations suggestion that vegetarian and vegan diets may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain disease.28

The American Dietetic Association (ADA) advises us that, appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets are healthful and nutritionally adequate28 This view is also shared by the USDA Choose My Plate guidelines which counsel us that, Vegetarian diets can meet all the recommendations for nutrients.142 The American Dietetic Associations quote28 is a craftily written statement that is deliberately misleading and one sided. Taken at face value, it would appear that all vegetarian diets including vegan diets are nutritionally sound all by themselves and dont require any additional nutritional supplements.

In order to get to the true meaning out of the ADAs position statement, we need to dig deeper and determine what they mean by an appropriately planned vegetarian diet. The ADA further hedges this statement by telling us that key nutrients for vegetarians include protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B12. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients.28 Lets dissect this masterly deceptive statement even further. The last line informing us that supplements and fortified foods sometimes are useful, is an outlandish understatement. In reality, it is not just in some cases that supplements and vitamin fortified foods are required, but rather in all cases for vegan diets and in most cases for lacto/ovo diets.Without supplementation vegetarian diets simply dont work and invariably cause multiple nutrient deficiencies that not only adversely affect our health and wellbeing, but also that of our children.

Even informed vegetarians wont argue that virtually all plant foods contain no vitamin B12 and that meat and animal foods are the only significant dietary source of this crucial nutrient. Additionally, we cant synthesize B12 in our bodies. Consequently, if you decide to become a vegan, by default you will become vitamin B12 deficient unless you supplement your diet with this essential vitamin or eat B12 fortified foods.

Any lifelong dietary plan that requires nutrient supplementation on a regular basis makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective. You dont have to be an evolutionary biologist to realize that wild animals dont take nutritional supplements, nor do they normally develop vitamin deficiencies when living in their native environments. You will recall that not a single hunter-gatherer society consumed a vegetarian diet.26 This choice was not just a haphazard decision on their part, but rather was dictated by evolution through natural selection. If our ancestral foragers didnt eat B12 containing animal foods, they developed vitamin B12 deficiencies which in turn impaired health and survival thereby worsening their chances of reproducing. Accordingly, any behavior that favored all plant diets would have been quickly weeded out by natural selection because of our genetic requirement for vitamin B12. Unlike modern day vegetarians, hunter-gatherers couldnt simply pop a vitamin pill to make up for nutritional shortcomings in their diets. Without B12 supplementation, every hunter-gatherer who ever lived would have become vitamin B12 deficient if they didnt eat animal food.

I want to emphasize that this flaw in nutritional logic is not just a minor point to be shuffled under the rug as the ADA28 and the USDA142 have done, but rather represents a colossal error in judgment for recommending vegan diets. To fully appreciate this massive breakdown in reasoning lets examine the history of vitamin B12. Because it was the last vitamin to be discovered (1948), vitamin B12 only became available as a commercial supplement in the 1950s. Consequently, every person on the planet who consumed a strict lifelong vegan diet before B12s discovery in 1948 would have been deficient in this critical nutrient. I wonder if the ADA28 and USDA142 would recommend vegan diets to U.S. citizens living prior to 1948 or only after 1948? This case in point shows how absurd their rationale for vegan diets appears vegan diets are deadly before 1948 because they have no vitamin B12 but are healthful and nutritionally adequate28 after 1948 because we can supplement this vitamin. OK no big deal nothing to get too excited about just follow the ADA recommendations and make sure your vegetarian diet is appropriately planned.28 Right?

Unfortunately, most of the worlds vegetarians and vegans have not been able to figure out just exactly what an appropriately planned28 vegetarian diet consists of, as almost all of them maintain deficient or marginal vitamin B12 concentrations in their bloodstreams. A 2003 study by Dr. Hermann and colleagues of 95 vegetarians revealed that 77% of lacto/ovo vegetarians were deficient in vitamin B12 whereas a staggering 92% of the vegans maintained deficiencies in this essential vitamin.52 The elegance of this study was that the researchers employed a powerful new procedure to precisely monitor vitamin B12 status in their subjects.50, 52 The simple measurement of vitamin B12 in the bloodstream often is misleading and doesnt reflect true levels of B12 in our bodies.22, 64, 113 Nevertheless, a study (The EPIC-Oxford Study) which examined simple B12 concentrations in the blood of 231 ovo/lacto vegetarians and 232 vegans verified that B12 deficiencies were widespread within these groups.46 If we use the normal cutoff point (150 pmol/liter) as the measure for vitamin B12 deficiency in the blood, then the data from the EPIC-Oxford study shows that 73% of the vegans and 24% of the lacto/ovo vegetarians had vitamin B12 deficiencies.46 These two scientific papers are representative of nearly all other studies reporting vitamin B12 in vegetarians.1, 109, 118, 121 When this many people who follow vegetarian or vegan diets become vitamin B12 deficient, it is beyond comprehension to me why governmental agencies and national dietary organizations still stubbornly cling to the belief that plant based diets are healthful.

Even more disturbing is a report by Dr. Corinna Koebnick and co-workers in Germany showing that long term ovo/lacto vegetarian diets impair vitamin B12 status in pregnant women.74 The problem here is that maternal B12 deficiencies can then be handed down to the unborn fetus and to nursing infants who frequently have no other source of nutrition except for their mothers vitamin B12 depleted milk.89, 107 B12 deficiency in pregnant women is not just a simple benign nutritional problem, but rather has potentially disastrous health outcomes for both mother and child. B12 deficiency in pregnant women is known to cause spontaneous abortions, weak labor, premature and low birth weight deliveries, birth defects, and the condition preeclampsia where mothers experience high blood pressure and damage to the liver, kidneys and blood vessels.7, 86, 87 Infants born from mothers with vitamin B12 deficiency frequently suffer from congenital malformations, irritability, failure to thrive, apathy, mental retardation and developmental problems.35 These data hardly support the ADAs position that Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood.28 In reality, the ADAs recommendation of vegan and vegetarian diets during all states of the life cycle28 is not only irresponsible, but in many cases is life threatening for mother, fetus and infant.

In Vegetarian and Vegan Diets: Nutritional Disasters Part 2, well discuss why Vitamin B12 deficiencies are just as devastating to adults as they are to infants and expectant mothers.

Cordially,

Loren Cordain, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus

1. Alexander D, Ball MJ, Mann J. Nutrient intake and haematological status of vegetarians and age-sex matched omnivores. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1994 Aug;48(8):538-46.

2. Appleby P, Roddam A, Allen N, Key T. Comparative fracture risk in vegetarians and nonvegetarians in EPIC-Oxford. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;61(12):1400-6.

3. Appleton KM, Rogers PJ, Ness AR. Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids on depressed mood. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):757-70

4. Baines M, Kredan MB, Davison A, Higgins G, West C, Fraser WD, Ranganath LR. The association between cysteine, bone turnover, and low bone mass. Calcif Tissue Int. 2007 Dec;81(6):450-4

5. Baines S, Powers J, Brown WJ. How does the health and well-being of young Australian vegetarian and semi-vegetarian women compare with non-vegetarians? Public Health Nutr. 2007 May;10(5):436-42.

6. Bhushan S, Pandey RC, Singh SP, Pandey DN, Seth P. Some observations on human semen analysis. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 1978 Oct-Dec;22(4):393-6.

7. Bennett M. Vitamin B12 deficiency, infertility and recurrent fetal loss. J Reprod Med. 2001 Mar;46(3):209-12.

8. Berker B, Kaya C, Aytac R, Satiroglu H. Homocysteine concentrations in follicular fluid are associated with poor oocyte and embryo qualities in polycystic ovary syndrome patients undergoing assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2009 Sep;24(9):2293-302

9. Bissoli L, Di Francesco V, Ballarin A, Mandragona R, Trespidi R, Brocco G, Caruso B, Bosello O, Zamboni M. Effect of vegetarian diet on homocysteine levels. Ann Nutr Metab. 2002;46(2):73-9.

10. Bocherens H, Drucker DG, Billiou D, Patou-Mathis M, Vandermeersch B. Isotopic evidence for diet and subsistence pattern of the Saint-Cesaire I Neanderthal: review and use of a multi-source mixing model. J Hum Evol. 2005 Jul;49(1):71-87

11. Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, Nygren KG. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Hum Reprod. 2007 Jun;22(6):1506-12.

12. Boxmeer JC, Smit M, Weber RF, Lindemans J, Romijn JC, Eijkemans MJ, Macklon NS, Steegers-Theunissen RP. Seminal plasma cobalamin significantly correlates with sperm concentration in men undergoing IVF or ICSI procedures. J Androl. 2007 Jul-Aug;28(4):521-7

13. Boxmeer JC, Brouns RM, Lindemans J, Steegers EA, Martini E, Macklon NS, Steegers-Theunissen RP. Preconception folic acid treatment affects the microenvironment of the maturing oocyte in humans. Fertil Steril. 2008 Jun;89(6):1766-70.

14. Boxmeer JC, Smit M, Utomo E, Romijn JC, Eijkemans MJ, Lindemans J, Laven JS, Macklon NS, Steegers EA, Steegers-Theunissen RP. Low folate in seminal plasma is associated with increased sperm DNA damage. Fertil Steril. 2009 Aug;92(2):548-56.

15. Brenna JT, Salem N Jr, Sinclair AJ, Cunnane SC. alpha-Linolenic acid supplementation and conversion to n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in humans. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2009 Feb-Mar;80(2-3):85-91.

16. Brown KH, Peerson JM, Baker SK, Hess SY. Preventive zinc supplementation among infants, preschoolers, and older prepubertal children. Food Nutr Bull. 2009 Mar;30(1 Suppl):S12-40.

17. Bucciarelli P, Martini G, Martinelli I, Ceccarelli E, Gennari L, Bader R, Valenti R, Franci B, Nuti R, Mannucci PM. The relationship between plasma homocysteine levels and bone mineral density in post-menopausal women. Eur J Intern Med. 2010 Aug;21(4):301-5

18. Bunn, HT, Kroll EM. Systematic butchery by Plio-Pleistocene hominids at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Curr Anthropol 1986;20:365398.

19. Calder PC, Yaqoob P. Omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids, cardiovascular disease and stability of atherosclerotic plaques. Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 2010 Feb 25;56(1):28-37.

20. Campbell-Brown M, Ward RJ, Haines AP, North WR, Abraham R, McFadyen IR, Turnlund JR, King JC. Zinc and copper in Asian pregnanciesis there evidence for a nutritional deficiency? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985 Sep;92(9):875-85

21. Cappuccio FP, Bell R, Perry IJ, Gilg J, Ueland PM, Refsum H, Sagnella GA, Jeffery S, Cook DG. Homocysteine levels in men and women of different ethnic and cultural background living in England. Atherosclerosis. 2002 Sep;164(1):95-102.

22. Clarke R, Sherliker P, Hin H, Nexo E, Hvas AM, Schneede J, Birks J, Ueland PM, Emmens K, Scott JM, Molloy AM, Evans JG. Detection of vitamin B12 deficiency in older people by measuring vitamin B12 or the active fraction of vitamin B12, holotranscobalamin. Clin Chem. 2007 May;53(5):963-70

23. Clarke R. B-vitamins and prevention of dementia. Proc Nutr Soc. 2008 Feb;67(1):75-81.

24. Clarke R, Birks J, Nexo E, Ueland PM, Schneede J, Scott J, Molloy A, Evans JG. Low vitamin B-12 status and risk of cognitive decline in older adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Nov;86(5):1384-91.

25. Cogswell ME, Looker AC, Pfeiffer CM, Cook JD, Lacher DA, Beard JL, Lynch SR, Grummer-Strawn LM. Assessment of iron deficiency in US preschool children and nonpregnant females of childbearing age: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2006. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1334-42

26. Cordain L, Miller JB, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SH, Speth JD. Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets.Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Mar;71(3):682-92.

27. Cordain L, Campbell TC. The protein debate. Catalyst Athletics, March 19, 2008. http://www.cathletics.com/articles/article.php?articleID=50

28. Craig WJ, Mangels AR; American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1266-82.

29. Crowe FL, Steur M, Allen NE, Appleby PN, Travis RC, Key TJ. Plasma concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians and vegans: results from the EPIC-Oxford study. Public Health Nutr. 2011 Feb;14(2):340-6.

30. Dasarathy J, Gruca LL, Bennett C, Parimi PS, Duenas C, Marczewski S, Fierro JL, Kalhan SC. Methionine metabolism in human pregnancy. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Feb;91(2):357-65.

31. Davey GK, Spencer EA, Appleby PN, Allen NE, Knox KH, Key TJ. EPIC-Oxford: lifestyle characteristics and nutrient intakes in a cohort of 33 883 meat-eaters and 31 546 non meat-eaters in the UK. Public Health Nutr. 2003 May;6(3):259-69.

32. de Bortoli MC, Cozzolino SM. Zinc and selenium nutritional status in vegetarians. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2009 Mar;127(3):228-33.

33. de Heinzelin J, Clark JD, White T, Hart W, Renne P, WoldeGabriel G, Beyene Y, Vrba E. Environment and behavior of 2.5-million-year-old Bouri hominids. Science. 1999 Apr 23;284(5414):625-9

34. Dhonukshe-Rutten RA, van Dusseldorp M, Schneede J, de Groot LC, van Staveren WA. Low bone mineral density and bone mineral content are associated with low cobalamin status in adolescents. Eur J Nutr. 2005 Sep;44(6):341-7.

35. Dror DK, Allen LH. Effect of vitamin B12 deficiency on neurodevelopment in infants: current knowledge and possible mechanisms. Nutr Rev. 2008 May;66(5):250-5.

36. Ebisch IM, Peters WH, Thomas CM, Wetzels AM, Peer PG, Steegers-Theunissen RP. Homocysteine, glutathione and related thiols affect fertility parameters in the (sub)fertile couple. Hum Reprod. 2006 Jul;21(7):1725-33.

37. Ebisch IM, Pierik FH, DE Jong FH, Thomas CM, Steegers-Theunissen RP. Does folic acid and zinc sulphate intervention affect endocrine parameters and sperm characteristics in men? Int J Androl. 2006 Apr;29(2):339-45.

38. Elmadfa I, Singer I.Vitamin B-12 and homocysteine status among vegetarians: a global perspective. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1693S-1698S.

39. Falkingham M, Abdelhamid A, Curtis P, Fairweather-Tait S, Dye L, Hooper L.The effects of oral iron supplementation on cognition in older children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr J. 2010 Jan 25;9:4.

40. Lightowler HJ, Davies GJ. Iodine intake and iodine deficiency in vegans as assessed by the duplicate-portion technique and urinary iodine excretion. Br J Nutr. 1998 Dec;80(6):529-35.

41. Fischer Walker CL, Ezzati M, Black RE. Global and regional child mortality and burden of disease attributable to zinc deficiency. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;63(5):591-7.

42. Food habits of a nation. In: The Hindu, August 14, 2006. http://www.hinduonnet.com/2006/08/14/stories/2006081403771200.htm

43. Fort P, Moses N, Fasano M, Goldberg T, Lifshitz F. Breast and soy-formula feedings in early infancy and the prevalence of autoimmune thyroid disease in children. J Am Coll Nutr. 1990 Apr;9(2):164-7.

44. Freeland-Graves JH, Ebangit ML, Hendrikson PJ. Alterations in zinc absorption and salivary sediment zinc after a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980 Aug;33(8):1757-66.

45. Freeland-Graves JH, Bodzy PW, Eppright MA. Zinc status of vegetarians. J Am Diet Assoc. 1980 Dec;77(6):655-61

46. Gilsing AM, Crowe FL, Lloyd-Wright Z, Sanders TA, Appleby PN, Allen NE, Key TJ. Serum concentrations of vitamin B12 and folate in British male omnivores, vegetarians and vegans: results from a cross-sectional analysis of the EPIC-Oxford cohort study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010 Sep;64(9):933-9

47. Hansen CM, Leklem JE, Miller LT. Vitamin B-6 status indicators decrease in women consuming a diet high in pyridoxine glucoside. J Nutr. 1996 Oct;126(10):2512-8

48. Harris WS, Kris-Etherton PM, Harris KA. Intakes of long-chain omega-3 fatty acid associated with reduced risk for death from coronary heart disease in healthy adults. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2008 Dec;10(6):503-9.

49. Herbert V. Staging vitamin B-12 (cobalamin) status in vegetarians. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):1213S-1222S

50. Herrmann W, Obeid R, Schorr H, Geisel J. Functional vitamin B12 deficiency and determination of holotranscobalamin in populations at risk. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2003 Nov;41(11):1478-88.

51. Herrmann M, Widmann T, Colaianni G, Colucci S, Zallone A, Herrmann W. Increased osteoclast activity in the presence of increased homocysteine concentrations. Clin Chem. 2005 Dec;51(12):2348-53

52. Herrmann W, Schorr H, Obeid R, Geisel J. Vitamin B-12 status, particularly holotranscobalamin II and methylmalonic acid concentrations, and hyperhomocysteinemia in vegetarians. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jul;78(1):131-6.

53. Herrmann M, Peter Schmidt J, Umanskaya N, Wagner A, Taban-Shomal O, Widmann T, Colaianni G, Wildemann B, Herrmann W. The role of hyperhomocysteinemia as well as folate, vitamin B(6) and B(12) deficiencies in osteoporosis: a systematic review. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007;45(12):1621-32

54. Herrmann W, Obeid R, Schorr H, Hbner U, Geisel J, Sand-Hill M, Ali N, Herrmann M. Enhanced bone metabolism in vegetariansthe role of vitamin B12 deficiency. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2009;47(11):1381-7.

55. Heyland DK, Jones N, Cvijanovich NZ, Wong H. Zinc supplementation in critically ill patients: a key pharmaconutrient? JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2008 Sep-Oct;32(5):509-19.

56. Hinton PS, Sinclair LM. Iron supplementation maintains ventilatory threshold and improves energetic efficiency in iron-deficient nonanemic athletes. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jan;61(1):30-9.

57. Hirwe R, Jathar VS, Desai S, Satoskar RS. Vitamin B12 and potential fertility in male lactovegetarians. J Biosoc Sci. 1976 Jul;8(3):221-7

58. Ho-Pham LT, Nguyen ND, Nguyen TV. Effect of vegetarian diets on bone mineral density: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Oct;90(4):943-50.

59. Hotz C. Dietary indicators for assessing the adequacy of population zinc intakes. Food Nutr Bull. 2007 Sep;28(3 Suppl):S430-53.

60. Huang YC, Chang SJ, Chiu YT, Chang HH, Cheng CH. The status of plasma homocysteine and related B-vitamins in healthy young vegetarians and nonvegetarians. Eur J Nutr. 2003 Apr;42(2):84-90.

61. Humphrey LL, Fu R, Rogers K, Freeman M, Helfand M. Homocysteine level and coronary heart disease incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Nov;83(11):1203-12.

62. Hunt JR, Matthys LA, Johnson LK. Zinc absorption, mineral balance, and blood lipids in women consuming controlled lactoovovegetarian and omnivorous diets for 8 wk. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Mar;67(3):421-30.

63. Hunt JR, Roughead ZK. Nonheme-iron absorption, fecal ferritin excretion, and blood indexes of iron status in women consuming controlled lactoovovegetarian diets for 8 wk. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 May;69(5):944-52

64. Hvas AM, Morkbak AL, Nexo E. Plasma holotranscobalamin compared with plasma cobalamins for assessment of vitamin B12 absorption; optimisation of a non-radioactive vitamin B12 absorption test (CobaSorb). Clin Chim Acta. 2007 Feb;376(1-2):150-4

65. Jathar VS, Hirwe R, Desai S, Satoskar RS. Dietetic habits and quality of semen in Indian subjects. Andrologia. 1976;8(4):355-8.

66. Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Connelly PW, Jackson CJ, Parker T, Faulkner D, Vidgen E. Effects of high- and low-isoflavone (phytoestrogen) soy foods on inflammatory biomarkers and proinflammatory cytokines in middle-aged men and women. Metabolism. 2002 Jul;51(7):919-24

67. Karabudak E, Kiziltan G, Cigerim N. A comparison of some of the cardiovascular risk factors in vegetarian and omnivorous Turkish females. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2008 Feb;21(1):13-22.

68. Katre P, Bhat D, Lubree H, Otiv S, Joshi S, Joglekar C, Rush E, Yajnik C. Vitamin B12 and folic acid supplementation and plasma total homocysteine concentrations in pregnant Indian women with low B12 and high folate status. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2010;19(3):335-43.

69. Key TJ, Fraser GE, Thorogood M, Appleby PN, Beral V, Reeves G, Burr ML, Chang-Claude J, Frentzel-Beyme R, Kuzma JW, Mann J, McPherson K. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):516S-524S.

70. Key TJ, Appleby PN, Rosell MS. Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets. Proc Nutr Soc. 2006 Feb;65(1):35-41.

71. Key TJ, Appleby PN, Spencer EA, Travis RC, Roddam AW, Allen NE. Mortality in British vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1613S-1619S

72. Key TJ, Appleby PN, Spencer EA, Travis RC, Roddam AW, Allen NE. Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1620S-1626S

73. Khedr E, Hamed SA, Elbeih E, El-Shereef H, Ahmad Y, Ahmed S. Iron states and cognitive abilities in young adults: neuropsychological and neurophysiological assessment. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2008 Dec;258(8):489-96. Epub 2008 Jun 20.

74. Koebnick C, Hoffmann I, Dagnelie PC, Heins UA, Wickramasinghe SN, Ratnayaka ID, Gruendel S, Lindemans J, Leitzmann C. Long-term ovo-lacto vegetarian diet impairs vitamin B-12 status in pregnant women. J Nutr. 2004 Dec;134(12):3319-26.

75. Knovich MA, Storey JA, Coffman LG, Torti SV, Torti FM. Ferritin for the clinician. Blood Rev. 2009 May;23(3):95-104

76. Kornsteiner M, Singer I, Elmadfa I. Very low n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid status in Austrian vegetarians and vegans. Ann Nutr Metab. 2008;52(1):37-47

77. Krajcovicov-Kudlckov M, Buckov K, Klimes I, Sebokov E. Iodine deficiency in vegetarians and vegans. Ann Nutr Metab. 2003;47(5):183-5.

78. Krivoskov Z, Krajcovicov-Kudlckov M, Spustov V, Stefkov K, Valachovicov M, Blazcek P, Nmcov T. The association between high plasma homocysteine levels and lower bone mineral density in Slovak women: the impact of vegetarian diet. Eur J Nutr. 2010 Apr;49(3):147-53

79. Kumar J, Garg G, Sundaramoorthy E, Prasad PV, Karthikeyan G, Ramakrishnan L, Ghosh S, Sengupta S. Vitamin B12 deficiency is associated with coronary artery disease in an Indian population. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2009;47(3):334-8.

Read the original here:
Vegetarian and Vegan Diets: Nutritional Disasters Part 1 ...

Last September, the Williams College psychologist Susan Engel had an opinion piece in the New York Times on the value of standardized testing as a means of assessing the quality of a childs education. Engel argued that there was scant evidence that these tests were of any value at all, and that they should be replaced by the many promising techniques that psychologists had already identified as valuable in assessing the learning of our children.

So what does this have to do with nutrition and weight control? Well, among the promising techniques, wrote Engel, was this one:

Researchers have also found that the way a student critiques a simple science experiment shows whether he understands the idea of controlling variables, a key component in all science work. To assess childrens scientific skills, an experiment could be described to them, in writing, and then they would explain how they would improve upon it.

So the value of controlling variables in a scientific experiment is something that a reasonably well-educated child supposedly understands. And what I want to know is why don t nutritionists understand it and those researchers out there doing diet trials and studying obesity and weight regulation. Because their failure to do so and I would argue that it may be a willful failure has led to what may be another of the great misconceptions in modern nutrition research. In particular, that carbohydrated-restricted diets are valuable tools in the arsenal against overweight and obesity, but theyre just one of the dietary tools.

This belief stems from the last decade of diet trials comparing carbohydrate-restricted diets (usually Atkins) to low-calorie, low-fat diets. Instead of thinking of low-carbohydrate diets like Atkins as deadly, which was formerly the case, nutritionists and dietitians (or at least most of them) now think of these diets as useful, just as other diets, low in calories or fats, are also useful. The idea now is that some people do well on carbohydrate-restricted diets and some people do well on low-fat diets, and maybe this is a result of whether they happen to be insulin sensitive or insulin resistant or maybe its just a product of their particular food tastes and preferences.

And this belief, of course, is based on the notion that we get fat for reasons other than the nutrient composition of the diet probably because of some combination of our genes, our tendency to eat to much and our sedentary behavior and so the diet that works best is the one that allows us to most comfortably restrict our intake of total calories.

This was the conclusion, for instance, of a 2008 article by Chris Gardner and his colleagues at Stanford, reporting on a subgroup analysis of their famous A to Z study. (The trial is famous, at least, in the low-carb world, because the Atkins diet resulted in twice the weight loss of any of the three other diets tested, and it also did a better job of improving heart disease risk factors). In this follow-up study, Gardner and his colleagues reported that in each diet group from the Atkins diet on the high end of the dietary fat to carbohydrate ratio to the Ornish diet on the low end the subjects who actually adhered to the diet lost the most weight. Hence, their conclusion: maybe adherence to a diet is more important than the actual nutrient composition of the diet. Heres the concluding paragraph:

The main findings of this weight loss study, presented in a previous report, indicated that while all three diet groups lost modest amounts of weight, the Atkins group at 12 months lost approximately twice the weight of the other groups. The findings presented here indicate that weight loss in the lowest tertile [third] of adherence was negligible in all three diet groups, and more pronounced in the highest tertile of adherence for each diet group. It appears that substantial differences in proportions of dietary macronutrients play only a modest role in weight loss success, and that success is possible on any of these diets provided there is adequate adherence. Getting individuals to adhere to whatever diet they choose to follow deserves more emphasis. It remains to be determined to what extent there is a need for dietary weight loss programs that are easier to adhere to vs identifying and addressing individual barriers to adherence, or both.

So the nutrient composition of the diet is less important than whether or not the subject can live with the diet and is willing to do so for as long as it takes ideally, a life time.

This concept of low-carb diets being good for some people and low-fat for others is invariably reinforced by the fact that most of us know someone who has lost weight and kept it off on Weight Watchers or after reading Skinny Bitch or some other popular low-calorie diet book. As a result, we assume that dieting isnt a one-sized fits all endeavor and that everyone is different perhaps metabolically and hormonally, as well and that what works for me wont necessarily work for you, and vice verse.

So what does this have to do with controlling variables or even understanding the concept of controlling variables?

What researchers like Gardner and his colleagues do in these diet trials (and its the same thing most of us do when we think about those people who succeed on conventional diets or after reading diet books like Skinny Bitch) is make the assumption that a diet that is described as a low-fat diet is low in fat only and thats why it works. And they also make the assumption that a diet that restricts total calories works (if it does) because it restricts total calories. Another way of saying this is that we all tend to assume researchers and lay people alike that when someone embarks on a low-fat diet, the only meaningful variable that changes in their diet is the fat-to-carbohydrate ratio. The ratio gets smaller. Fat consumption goes down and carbohydrate consumption goes up. And, by the same token, when someone tries to simply eat less, the only meaningful variable thats changing is the total number of calories theyre consuming.

The most extreme or perhaps egregious example of this thinking was the recent publication by Gary Foster and his colleagues, comparing low-fat diets, as they described them, to low-carbohydrate diets. The title was Weight and Metabolic Outcomes After 2 years on a Low-Carbohydrate Versus a Low-Fat Diet. And here was the conclusion as stated in the abstract:

Successful weight loss can be achieved with either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet when coupled with behavioral treatment. A low-carbohydrate diet is associated with favorable changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors at 2 years.

So the way the media and the nutrition community treated this was as further evidence that nutrient composition of the diet makes little difference in weight loss maybe low-carb works for some of us, but low-fat works for others although, in this case, maybe low-carb had some modest advantage when it came to heart disease risk factors.

But if you read this article carefully, youd have noticed that there was another significance difference between the low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets. The low fat diet was a low-calorie diet also A low-fat diet consisted of limited energy intake (1200 to 1800kcal/d; less than or equal to 30 % calories from fat), the authors explained. The low-carbohydrate diet was not calorie-restricted. And if Foster and his colleagues were being either intellectually honest or good scientists, theyd have defined the two diets to make this clear. Not low-fat vs. low-carbohydrate, but low-fat, calorie-restricted vs, low-carbohydrate, calorie-unrestricted.In other words theyd have acknowledged that there was at least one other variable that was different between the two experiments and had to be taken into account when interpreting the results the amount of calories the subjects were instructed to consume. As well see, there were also other variables that were changing, but this one how much food can be consumed if desired is a whopper.

Its a whopper because it begs this question: is it the total calories consumed that is the variable determining weight loss? And, by the same token, is it the calories consumed (or expended) that determines how much weight we gain?

In this case, both diets resulted in roughly equal weight loss but those subjects randomized to the low-fat diet were instructed and counseled to semi-starve themselves (eat a maximum of 1500 calories for women, 1800 for men), while those counseled to eat low-carb were counseled and instructed not to worry about how much they ate and, one hopes, as this was an Atkins diet being prescribed, eat until they were full. So if weight loss is the same in both groups, doesnt this suggest, at least, that weight loss can be independent of whether dieters semi-starve themselves or eat to satiety? And, if so, of course, wouldnt you rather get to eat to satiety?

Had Foster and his colleagues understood what school children are supposed to understand, according to Engels, the idea of controlling variables, a key component in all science work, they may have decided to control for calories and instructed both groups that they could eat as much as they want, rather than just the low-carbohydrate group. Or, had they had the money to spend, they might have cooked meals for both groups of subjects, say, 2700 calories a day either low-fat or low-carb and encouraged both groups to eat all the food prepared. Such an experiment would have gone a long way to controlling for calories consumed or for whether the subjects were allowed to eat to satiety or not. In doing so, it might have revealed something meaningful about whether the nutrient composition of the diet plays a role in weight loss or weight gain independent of calories, which is one of the critical questions here. Id hazard a guess that it surely does, but I could be wrong. It would be an interesting experiment to do and Ill write considerably more on that in a later post.

As for the other mistake Foster, Gardner and their colleagues make when they assume that a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet (defining it correctly) is restricted only in fat, its the same mistake we make when we assume that someone who lost weight following Weight Watchers or after reading Skinny Bitch did it merely because something about these regimens got them to eat fewer calories and maybe fewer fat calories in particular. And this is the other mistake that suggests a lack of understanding of the idea of controlling variables.

Virtually any diet that significantly restricts the number of calories consumed, even a diet that is described as low-fat (because the subjects are instructed to reduce the proportion of fat calories they consume), will cut the total amount of carbohydrate calories consumed as well. This is just simple arithmetic. If we cut all the calories we consume by half, for instance, then were cutting the carbohydrates by half, too. And because these typically constitute the largest proportion of calories in our diet to begin with, these will see the greatest absolute reduction. If we preferentially try to cut fat calories, well find it exceedingly difficult to cut more than 400 or 500 calories a day by reducing fat depending on how much fat we were eating to begin with and so well have to eat fewer carbohydrates as well.

Put simply, low-fat diets that also cut significant calories will cut carbohydrates significantly as well, and often by more than they cut fat.

Heres the math: Imagine we want to cut our daily calories from 2,500 to 1,500, hoping to lose two pounds of fat a week. And imagine that the nutrient content of our pre-diet meals is what the authorities consider ideal 20 percent protein, 30 percent fat and 50 percent carbohydrates. Thats 500 calories of protein, 750 calories of fat and 1,250 of carbohydrates.

If we keep the same balance of nutrients but eat only 1,500 calories a day, well be eating 300 calories of protein, 450 calories of fat and 750 calories of carbohydrates. Well be cutting protein calories by 200, fat calories by 300 and carbohydrate calories by 500.

Now lets make this a low-fat diet and try to reduce our fat consumption from 30 percent of calories to, say, 25 percent of calories, which is significantly less than most of us will tolerate. Well now be eating 300 calories of protein, 375 calories of fat and 825 of carbohydrates. Well be cutting our fat calories by 375 a day, but were still cutting carbohydrates by 425. So even though the percentage of carbohydrates consumed on this low-fat diet goes up from 50 to 55 percent the absolute amount of carbohydrates consumed goes down, and goes down more so than does the calories from fat. And if we increase the amount of protein we eat, well have to eat still fewer carbohydrates to compensate.

If we start off eating enough fat, as I said say, 40 percent of our calories we can actually cut fat calories more so than carbs, but carbs are still cut significantly. Imagine our 2500 calorie per day diet is 40 percent fat, 40 percent carbs and 20 percent protein. Thats 1000 calories of fat and carbs each, and 500 calories of protein. If we now cut that to a 1500 calorie diet thats 30 percent fat and 50 percent carbohydrates, well be eating 450 calories of fat, 750 calories of carbohydrates and 300 calories of protein. So fat calories will have dropped by 550 calories, but well still have reduced carbohydrate calories by 250. Not an enormous amount but an amount that might still have an effect on the regulation of our fat tissue and so fat loss.

Heres an example of how this plays out in a real dietary trial. Consider an Israeli trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2008 by Iris Shai and her colleagues. This trial compared a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet to a Mediteranean, calorie-restricted diet to a low-carbohydrate Atkins diet, unrestricted in calories. And, youll notice here, too, having explained that the first two diets are calorie-restricted and the latter diet isnt, Shai and company get lazy and shorten their labeling of the diets so that they leave out the critical variable of whether the dieters are instructed or not to semi-starve themselves.

In this study, Shai and her colleagues made an attempt to assess what their subjects were eating before the trial started, and then after 6, 12, and 24 months. Keeping in mind that the dietary records from these studies have to be taken with a grain of salt, heres the relevant data:

Lets concentrate on the low-fat, calorie-restricted diet and the low-carb, Atkins diet. The changes in dietary intake and nutrients for the low-fat diet are shown in the first column. As you can see after 24 months, the subjects eating the low-fat diet were supposedly restricting calories consumed on average by 572 calories. The reduction in carbohydrates consumed, though, was 330 calories (82.8 grams per day times 4 calories per gram), compared to only a 170-calorie (18.9 grams per day times 9 calories per gram) reduction from baseline in fat. So the low-fat diet reduced carbohydrates nearly twice as much as it reduced fat.

The low-carbohydrate diet, on the other hand (the third column), reduced carbohydrate calories by 520 calories per day (129.8 grams per day times 4 calories per gram) and fat calories by a mere 15 calories (1.7 grams/day times 9 calories per gram). So certainly the low-carb diet was correctly described as a low-carb diet, and the question we have to ask is maybe the weight loss seen in the low-fat diet was also due to the restriction in carbohydrates. It is quite possible that even low-fat, calorie-restricted diets work because they restrict carbohydrates and maybe the reason they dont work as well as the low-carb diets is they dont restrict them as much. Or maybe they dont work as well, on average, because they also restrict fat calories when dietary fat has little or no effect on body fat accumulation. We dont know if this is true or not, but it could be true, and until these researchers realize that another variable is changing significantly on these low-fat, calorie-restricted diets the amount of carbohydrates consumed theyll never bother to test it or take it into account in their interpretation of these clinical trials, and well never know.

Now, heres yet another variable thats changing on these diets, and this one the researchers ignore entirely and make no attempts to quantify the quality of carbohydrates consumed. Any subject in these diet trials and anyone who tries a serious weight loss program on their own (the twinkie diet, perhaps, not included) will make a few consistent changes to what they eat. And theyll do this regardless of the instructions that theyre given or the diet to which theyre randomized in the trial.

Specifically, theyll get rid of or cut way back on the high-glycemic index carbohydrates and the foods or drinks with the high sugar or HFCS content. Theyll do so because these foods are the easiest to eliminate and the most obviously inappropriate for anyone trying to get in shape. (And because for a almost 200 years these foods have been considered uniquely fattening.) Theyll stop drinking beer, for instance, or at least drink less beer or drink light beer instead. They might think of this as cutting calories, but the calories theyll be cutting will be carbohydrates and, more importantly, theyre liquid, refined carbohydrates that are exceedingly easy to digest and so, perhaps, exceedingly fattening.

Theyll stop drinking caloric sodas Coca Cola, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper and replace them either with water or diet sodas. In doing so, theyll be removing not just liquid carbohydrates but specifically sugars sucrose or HFCS. The same is true of fruit juices. An easy change in any diet is to replace fruit juices with water. Dieters will get rid of candy bars, desserts, donuts and cinnamon buns. Again, they may perceive this as calorie-cutting and maybe even a way to cut fat, which it is but theyll also be cutting carbohydrates, and specifically sugars with their high fructose content. And if sugars with their high fructose content are uniquely fattening as significant evidence suggests, then this reduction in sugar content may be precisely why the diets work. Starches like potatoes and rice, refined carbohydrates like bread and pasta, may also be replaced in these diets even low-fat diets by green vegetables and salads or at least whole grains, because for the past 30 years, weve been all told to eat more fiber and to eat foods that are less energy dense and less processed.

Even the very-low-fat diet made famous by Dean Ornish restricts all refined carbohydrates, including sugars, white rice and white flour. This alone could explain any benefits that result. Ornishs rationale, as he described it in 1996 is a familiar one: Simple carbohydrates are absorbed quickly and cause a rapid rise in serum glucose, thereby provoking an insulin response. Insulin also accelerates conversion of calories into triglycerides, [and] stimulates cholesterol synthesis.

Simply put, anyone who tries to diet by any of the more accepted methods (i.e., Weight Watchers), and anyone who decides to eat healthy as its currently defined, will remove the carbohydrates from the diet that may be if the carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis is correct the most fattening. And if theyre trying to cut calories, theyll be removing some number of total carbohydrates as well. And if these people lose fat on these diets, this is a very likely reason why.

The same is likely to be true for those who swear they lost their excess pounds and kept them off by taking up regular exercise. Rare is the individual who begins running or swimming or doing aerobics regularly with the goal of losing weight and then doesnt make any concomitant changes in what he or she eats. Rather beer and soda consumption will be reduced; sweet consumption will be reduced, and easily digested starches and high-glycemic index carbs are likely to be replaced by green vegetables and carbohydrates with a lower glycemic index.

So heres the lesson, the moral of this story: before we assume that low-carbohydrate diets are just one tool in the dietary arsenal against overweight and obesity, and before we assume that everyone is different and that some of us lose weight and keep it off because we eat less fat (and more carbohydrates) and some because we cut carbs (and so eat maybe more fat), we should make an effort to understand the concept of controlling variables and look to see which variables are really changing and by how much. Because its quite possible that the only meaningful way to lose fat is to change the regulation of the fat tissue, and the science of fat metabolism strongly implies that the best way to do that, if not the only meaningful way, is by reducing the amount of carbohydrates consumed and/or improving the quality of those carbs we do consume.

Now, one note about comments that I should have made in my last (and first) blog. I appreciate everyone who comments, but time constraints (earning a living, participating in my family life, etc.) makes it necessary that I keep my responses to a minimum. So I am going to thank everyone in advance for their comments. I will be reading all of them (up to the point, at least, that they degenerate into arguments between two or three particularly vociferous and contentious individuals), but I will be responding only to those that raise particularly interesting questions or issues, or point out any bone-head mistakes I may have made that need to be fixed.

See the rest here:
Calories, fat or carbohydrates ? Why diets work (when they do)

Improving safety is a top priority for the U.S. Department of Transportation, and FHWA remains committed to reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation's highways. We are highly confident that certain processes, infrastructure design techniques, and highway features are effective and their use should be encouraged.

2012 "Guidance Memorandum on Promoting the Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures" (HTML, PDF 78 KB)

In January 2012, FHWA issued a Guidance Memorandum on Promoting the Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures. This guidance takes into consideration the latest safety research to advance a group of countermeasures that have shown great effectiveness in improving safety. Safety practitioners are encouraged to consider this set of countermeasures that are research-proven, but not widely applied on a national basis.

Click on one of the nine countermeasures below for more information and a downloadable fact sheet. Each fact sheet provides more detailed descriptions, related research studies, and evaluations of each of these countermeasures. Further information on each countermeasure can also be found at the Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/).

You may need the Adobe Reader to view the PDFs on this page.

Page last modified on January 29, 2015.

More here:
Proven Safety Countermeasures - Safety | Federal Highway ...

There are many diets that work for women. Some involve meetings, some enlist celebrity endorsements, and some just require common sense. Not every diet works in the same way. It is a fact that men lose weight differently than women as well. Here is a look at seven best diets which work effectively for women.

1. Atkins Diet

The Atkins diet has taken a different approach to dieting. It concentrates less on calorie restriction and more on watching carbohydrate intake. On this plan, a woman lowers her consumption of high carb foods. There are many food options available on these plans that usually are off limits with other diets. Alcohol must be limited as well. Overall, this diet is meant to change eating habits in the long term.

2. Weight Watchers

diet for women

The diet plan for women has been around for many years and has been successful for many people. It relies on a points system that many women favor. Besides eating, this diet includes weekly support groups where women can swap diet tips, recipes, and receive motivation to persevere in rough times. It works well since there is a support system in place which inspires success.

3. The Fertility Diet

Among diets that actually work for women, the fertility diet is at the top of the list. It revolves around the diet a woman must follow when she is trying to conceive a baby. Medical professionals have identified that avoiding foods high in trans-fat and eating foods high in iron will boost fertility and help a woman lose weight.

4. Mayo Clinic Diet

This plan also involves lifestyle changes which stop habits that sabotage weight loss and encourage overall better health. It has two stages; Lose It! and Live it! The first phase lasts two weeks and gets immediate results. On average, a woman in this phase loses between six to ten pounds. The next phase continues slower loss until goals are reached. The guidelines of the diet revolve around a pyramid which focuses on healthy eating of low calorie foods. Exercise is also stressed.

5. Low Glycemic Index/Nutrisystem Plan

This is one of fast diets that work for women, especially those with diabetes. It centers on the concept of how sugar levels surge in the blood after eating certain foods and lead to cravings and weight gain. Nutrisystem uses this idea and creates ready to eat meals that come delivered right to the doorstep and contain the proper amounts of calories and nutrients needed to avoid energy loss and glycemic weight gain. Foods such as broccoli, salad, fish, and poultry are a major part at this diet.

6. Eat Clean Diet

This plan was created by fitness model Tosca Reno. It is one of the many diets that work for women. It states that eating lean protein and complex carbohydrates can help females lose weight and maintain weight loss. It recommends that a woman should eat many smaller meals during the day as well. Foods like egg whites, oatmeal, sweet potatoes, tuna, spinach, soy, nuts, and lean protein should fill meals. Fiber is also an essential component of the diet. It is a fact that fiber will lower the risk of weight loss in women.

7. The Petite Advantage Diet

This diet was studied and developed by Jim Karas and is aimed at women who are under 54. It states that short women usually have to work harder to lose weight than tall women. It is simple and requires little willpower. It simply cuts 40 calories from the diet each day. You hardly notice that anything is gone. It involves portion control at mealtime and limits high calorie ingredients. It is better than very restrictive diets which cut calories by large quantities and lead to binges from food deprivation.

Men and women tend to lose weight in different ways. Therefore it is best for females to uncover the best diets that work for women. It is not necessary to crash diet or follow fads with no benefits. It is also important to consult a doctor before starting any new diet plans. Eating smart and exercising regularly can mean the difference between gaining weight and losing it with long term results.

Original post:
Diets That Work for Women - Best Diets for Women

The best weight loss programs (Editor's picks - subject to change).

Weight Watchers is regarded as one of the most successful diets for many. The new plans make it even easier.

Suitable if you: Are looking for something with a proven track record. Not suitable if you: aren't prepared to spend a little extra.

Read more...

A very successful weight loss program.

Suitable if you: Want a program that will transform your physique as well as weight loss.

Read more...

Nutrisystem has both fans and critics. The food is definitely not to everyone's taste, but it is the most affordable of all meal delivery services.

Suitable if you: Are looking for a cheap option for delivered food. Not suitable if you: can't stand the taste of packaged foods.

Read more...

Paleo has become very popular, and adopted by hundreds of thousands. TIP: To get started, join up with an online program.

Suitable if you: want to get healthier while losing fat... Not suitable if you: aren't willing to make significant adjustments to the foods you eat.

Read more...

The South Beach has stood the test of time, with hundreds of thousands finding success over the last 8 years.

Suitable if you: Want a balanced diet that doesn't obsess about low-fat content or counting points.

Read more...

Suitable if you: Are overwhelmed by your weight - or are more than 75 pounds overweight. Not suitable if you: are only a little overweight.

Read more...

Here is the original post:
Best Weight Loss Programs and Diets That Work

Page 240«..1020..239240241242..250260..»

Home » Diets that Work » Page 240