Tag: Ingredients

Mintel 2017 Global Food and Drink Trends dubbed 2017 “Power to the Plants” stating that “consumers will be looking for natural, simple, and flexible diets. This will drive further expansion of vegetarian, vegan, and other plant-focused formulations. In 2017, the priority for plants will drive an acceleration in new products and marketing that casts plants in starring roles.”

Based on the latest readings on vegetarianism and veganism from Gallup, 5% of Americans say they are vegetarians and 3% say they are vegans, numbers that have remained consistent since 2012. Overall it appears “Americans are eager to include alternatives to animal products in their diets but are not willing to give up animal products completely. ”

People may be motivated to adopt a vegan or vegetarian diet for a variety of reasons, including ethical concerns about animal production or the environmental impact of agriculture, religious beliefs or health concerns.

As the demand for plant-based protein increases, food processing companies are responding—hoping to create brand loyalty as more consumers hop on the meatless bandwagon. According to Mintel Market Research, “there has been a 25% increase in vegetarian claims and a 257% increase in vegan claims in global food and drink product launches between 2010 to 2011 versus 2015 to 2016.”

Many consumers are flexitarians

The push for plant-based products goes beyond the stricter practices of vegans and vegetarians. The majority of this demand is actually being driven by the growing number of consumers that have been labeled “flexitarian.” As we discussed in “A New Burger,” 59% of consumers in the U.S. are considered “flexitarian” because they eat a protein alternative at least once a week.  Mintel’s 2016 Report on U.S. Diet Trends indicated this was likely due to the fact that dieters believe “that following a vegetarian/vegan diet is the most natural and healthy way to lose weight.” As a result, dieters are increasingly likely to buy more plant-based products over the next year.

Eric Pierce, the host of Natural Products Expo West, also highlighted the rise in demand for plant-based products. Pierce said, “the appeal and potential for vegan products are expanding beyond the small group of people who avoid animal products for ethical reasons to include the much larger base of consumers seeking healthier, cleaner foods.”

While the smallest number of these consumers are strict vegans (meaning no meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dairy, or any other animal-derived product) there are varying levels of vegetarianism. Lacto-ovo vegetarians, for example, do not eat meat poultry or fish but will eat eggs and dairy. Lacto vegetarians abstain from eggs as well but will consume dairy. And ovo-vegetarians will eat eggs but will not eat dairy. Lastly, partial vegetarians or pesco-vegetarians will not eat meats but will incorporate fish into their diet.

Food processing companies are more creating products, such as vegan protein powder, soy, nut or rice milk, and vegan protein bars hoping to peak the interest of these health-minded, “flexitarian” consumers.

According to Harvard Medical School, some of the most noteworthy, but strictly short-term, studies for a plant-based diet are the following:

• “A study published in the March 9, 2015, issue of JAMA Internal Medicine suggests that a meat-free diet can reduce the risk of developing colon cancer.
• A study published February 22, 2013, in Cancer Epidemiology found that eating a vegetarian diet reduced the overall risk of all cancers compared with eating a non-vegetarian diet.
• A study published June 3, 2013, in JAMA Internal Medicine showed that vegetarian diets were associated with a 12% lower risk of death from all causes—not just cancer. The benefits were especially strong for men.”

It is critical to note that many of the short-term studies performed were not randomized, including the ones listed above, meaning there was no control group to compare results and therefore they cannot truly determine if a vegetarian diet is healthier than a well-balanced diet that incorporates meat. There is also a need for long term studies that may help to verify (or discredit) the results presented in the short term.

It should also be noted that some researchers attribute the results of the short term vegetarian studies to the conscious decisions of the individuals who have chosen to be vegetarian or vegan as an overall healthier lifestyle. If someone is choosing to be a vegan or vegetarian, it can often be correlated that they exercise regularly, do not drink alcohol excessively, and do not smoke tobacco. Those who are making healthy choices in their diet are most likely making healthy choices regularly in their life.

“Eliminating meat” may not be the best solution to a healthy diet

While it is certainly healthy to incorporate more plant-based foods into your diet, maintaining a diet without meat, poultry, or fish often means adding vitamins, minerals, fats, and protein sources to your diet.

By eliminating meat from your diet, you may face nutrient deficiencies (unless an effort is made to replace them). For example, meat, poultry, and fish are high in B vitamins (niacin, thiamin, riboflavin, and B6), iron, zinc, vitamin E, magnesium, omega-3’s, and of course… protein! Soy, whey and plant-based proteins can be good alternatives, but they are not meant to replace all protein sources in your diet.

According to the USDA’s Choose My Plate, the average adult should consume roughly 5-6 ounces of protein (chicken, beef, nuts, eggs) per day and about 8 ounces of seafood is recommended per week. This is because protein is essential in keeping healthy bones and muscles. Protein is considered a “building block” for your body’s enzymes, hormones, and vitamins. 

Meat and Diary are great sources of protein

One cooked chicken breast is roughly 3 ounces— which can suffice as half of your daily serving of protein. Healthy fish that are high in protein include salmon, tuna, halibut, or snapper. Dairy is also a good source of protein. Yogurt with almonds, chia, or hemp seeds is a good way to satisfy a serving of protein in the morning One egg has roughly six grams of clean protein. 

Lean beef, which can be included less frequently into your diet than poultry, fish, or eggs, provides roughly 30 grams of protein per serving. According to WebMD, women should consume roughly 46 grams of protein per day while men should consume close to 60 grams per day.

While there are a significant amount of recent studies touting the advantages of a meat-free diet, there are no definitive long term results that say you should eliminate all meat from your diet.

To prove this, some preliminary research has been performed using Adventist participants. Seventh-day Adventists avoid meat and abstain from alcohol and tobacco. A 2014 study indicated Adventist vegetarians demonstrated lower risk for cardio-metabolic issues and some cancers. However, the findings were not conclusive enough to make definitive dietary recommendations based on the results.

Some promising studies have been performed regarding the “Mediterranean diet,” which encourages plant-based eating and includes significant consumption of healthy oils (particularly through fish, nuts, and copious olive oil). A Mediterranean approach to eating also includes some poultry intake and very limited red meat consumption. The randomized studies that have been performed indicate that following the Mediterranean diet is a healthy approach to eating. A lower risk of cardiovascular disease, lower levels of LDL cholesterol, and a reduced rate of some cancers were reported. 

This post first appeared in November 2016 and the market statistics were updated in February 2019

Coconut products are available in a variety of forms. From raw products like coconut water, fresh coconut meat, and coconut oil to processed products like coconut palm sugar, coconut flour, and coconut flavoring, consumers are going nuts for this proclaimed “superfood.”

The seemingly endless health claims include high in vitamins, high in minerals, high in fiber, healthy saturated fat content, aids digestion, antiviral and antifungal properties, antioxidants, and electrolytes.

Coconut products are officially mainstream and (because of the perceived health benefits) they appear to be here to stay. According to some industry estimates, the Coconut Water Market is expected to exceed more than US$ 2.7 Billion by 2024 at a CAGR of 15% between 2017 and 2024.

But before we hop on the coconut bandwagon, the D2D team wanted to make sure that these health claims are substantiated by scientific research. While we found many small, short term studies that indicated coconuts are a healthy addition to your diet, there is still a significant need for long term research and human trials to conclude that coconuts can provide these health benefits over time.

Saturated Fat and Digestion

One of the claims surrounding coconut products, particularly the products that are made from coconut meat (like coconut oil) is the “healthy fat” claim. As we reviewed in our article “Fat: Our New Friend,” new research indicates that consumption of healthy fats can help increase high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (the good cholesterol), which helps your body regulate overall cholesterol levels and possibly lower your LDL cholesterol levels. According to researchers at Harvard Medical School, coconut oil gives your body a good HDL cholesterol boost, which can actually help improve overall blood cholesterol levels.

The most prominent fatty acid in coconut meat is lauric acid, a medium-chain triglyceride (MCT). Lauric acid is considered a healthy saturated fat because of its composition. MCT fatty acids are easily absorbed by the human body. This means the fatty acid is easily broken down, used for energy, and can help aid digestion.

A very small study published in 2003 by the Journal of Nutrition followed 11 women over a 20-22 day period and studied the effects of high-fat versus low-fat coconut oil consumption. The research found that the women who consumed high-fat coconut oil demonstrated the biggest reduction in inflammation markers as well as markers for heart disease risk.

Definitive research on the health content of coconut oil only exists in the short term, so there is no certainty over how the high-fat content of coconut oil affects heart disease or long term heart health.

Anti-fungal and Anti-bacterial

Beyond the cholesterol and potential weight loss benefits of healthy fatty acids, the fat content of coconuts is also believed to have anti-bacterial properties. In a 2004 study published by the Journal of Medicinal Food, the antimicrobial properties of coconuts were proven to be a treatment of fungal infections. The lauric acid content of coconuts is believed to “kill harmful bacteria, viruses, and fungi.” However, there is a lack of research to substantiate this claim. While the fatty acid in coconut may have some antibacterial properties, there is no long term research that validates coconut oil as an antibacterial agent.

Antioxidant, Electrolytes, Vitamins and Minerals

Coconuts are particularly high in B vitamins, like B6, B2 (riboflavin), and B1 (thiamine). B vitamins are a good source of energy and can give your body a quick pick me up. Coconut meat is also high in vitamin C, which helps boost your immune system, is an antioxidant, and helps aid digestion.

In addition to a rich vitamin complex, coconuts have a dense mineral content. These minerals include potassium, magnesium, sodium, phosphorous, manganese, iron, and calcium. Of these minerals, potassium, calcium, sodium, phosphorous, and magnesium are electrolytes.

These minerals may also be good for your blood pressure as high potassium content can balance some of the negative effects of sodium. A 2005 study published by the West Indian Medical Journal found that 71% of participants that were given coconut water experienced a decrease in blood pressure.

Lastly, coconuts are believed to have a strong antioxidant component. But, as we learned in our recent article on chocolate, antioxidant content is very complex. Unfortunately, there is very little research that proves the effects of antioxidants in the human body. However, in a 2007 study performed over a 45-day period on rats, researchers at the University of Kerala found that animals fed virgin coconut oil had higher antioxidant vitamin levels at the end of the study than the animals fed sunflower oil or copra oil (which is oil from more mature coconuts). Additionally, a 2013 study conducted in Brazil determined green dwarf coconuts exhibited antioxidant properties.

If you are incorporating coconut into your diet there are a few things to keep in mind:

• Coconut meat is high in fat, dietary fiber, and minerals such as manganese, zinc, iron, and phosphorous.
• Coconut water contains the same minerals as well as amino acids, electrolytes, and B-complex vitamins.
• Stick to the raw, unrefined options. Unprocessed coconuts (both juice and meat) will provide the most nutritional value.
• Be mindful of serving size! One serving of coconut water (8 ounces) contains roughly 14 grams of sugar. As we have discussed in “Sugar is Sugar”, that is roughly half of the added sugar recommended per day.
• As with all fats, overconsumption can cause cholesterol to rise—even if you are overconsuming healthy fats!

Source: Harmless Harvest

We’re hungry to know…is chocolate healthy?

Of course, the answer is not as straightforward as we would have hoped! Dark chocolate is said to contain antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals. It has also been touted to increase blood flow, improve heart health, and decrease cholesterol. But, has this been scientifically proven?

The chocolate products we know and love all begin with raw cacao beans. Grown mostly in the Ivory Coast, Ghana, and Indonesia, the cocoa pod is a fruit that contains roughly 50 large cocoa, or cacao, seeds per pod. These seeds hold all the nutrients.

Cocoa pods grow straight out of the trunk or branches of the cocoa tree.
Image: www.lessonpaths.com

Whole and half fresh ripe cacao fruit and seeds

The nutritional content of a raw cacao bean

Originally dubbed “food of the Gods”, the cacao (or cocoa) bean is the unprocessed form of chocolate that contains over 300 healthy compounds such as such as Vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B9 and Vitamin E, minerals like iron, zinc, magnesium, copper, and calcium, and antioxidants, such as flavanols and catechins. Cocoa beans are also rich in fiber and healthy fatty acids, like oleic acid and palmitic acid.

As we mentioned in our recent article “Fat: Our New Friend,” there are many benefits to consuming healthy fatty acids. These fats help your body absorb vitamins, protect your brain, and provide support to your cell membranes. We have also reviewed the importance of vitamins. The vitamins in cacao can help maintain healthy cells, organs, and tissues, which can keep your body from wearing down.

Antioxidants are a little more complex

The science behind the effects of antioxidants is controversial. Many of the research undertakings are performed “in vitro,” which means the test occurs in the lab as opposed to in the human body.

While results indicate that consuming cocoa can improve blood vessel function and heart health, this might not be true for everyone. Additionally, how your body uses the antioxidants is unclear. This is why there are no chocolate products on the market that make health claims.

According to the MARS Center for Health Science, cocoa provides the most potent form of flavanols, a subgroup of the antioxidant flavonoids. Flavanols are found in plants like tea, blueberries, acai, and red wine. Research indicates that the consumption of flavanols has been positively correlated with improved blood vessel function.

“Substantial data suggests that flavonoid-rich foods could help prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. Cocoa is the richest source of flavonoids, but current processing reduces the content substantially.” (International Journal of Medical Sciences)

A 2006 study focused on the link between dark chocolate and its ability to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease in men. The study included 470 elderly men and measured their blood pressure at the start of the study, five years later, and incorporated a fifteen year follow up. The men consumed cocoa-containing foods, which over the course of the study, reduced blood pressure and subsequently, the risk of cardiovascular death.

Catechins, another type of flavonoids, are also believed to help stabilize the free radicals that can affect cell health. Free radicals may enter your body through pollution and cigarette smoke, as well as the normal digestion process. Once they are inside your body, free radicals can cause cell damage and ultimately can kill healthy cells. Catechins help fight against and neutralize free radicals.

However, the difficulty with truly understanding the role of antioxidants is that science has not been able to measure the antioxidant effects in the human body.

The more roasted, fermented, and processed the cocoa beans are, the fewer nutrients the chocolate product will provide. The cocoa beans used in dark chocolate are often less manipulated and will typically have more nutritional benefits than milk chocolate. 100 grams of dark chocolate provides about 50 milligrams of catechins, while a similar amount of milk chocolate contains about 8 milligrams.

From our research, when it comes to serving size, the best recommendation to reap the nutritional benefits of chocolate without overconsuming fat or sugar is roughly 10 grams of dark chocolate. To put that into perspective, that is little under 1 serving (about 8 chips) of dark chocolate from a bag of semi-sweet chocolate chips with 48% cacao OR about 10-11 chips of 60% cacao dark chocolate chips.

That being said, if you are looking for the healthiest cocoa products to obtain the benefits of this powerful superfood, you are better off buying a product that has not been roasted at high heat or overly processed. Compared to the average chocolate bar, raw cacao products will provide more vitamins and minerals, contain a higher antioxidant content, and possibly increase blood flow and heart health.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, if a product states “cleansing properties” or “eliminates toxins”, our interests are perked. There are numerous “quick fixes” targeting hopeful dieters, and we all have fallen victim to these marketing ploys at one time or another. Whether they are packaged as juices, supplements, or food, “quick fixes” are never going to fix a problem created by an unhealthy lifestyle.

Activated charcoal is believed detoxify our bodies from impurities and toxins we come into contact with on a daily basis. But, do we even truly understand what a toxin is? These days, terms like “toxins” are thrown around so frequently that they often lose their meaning. We know that toxins are harmful and can enter your body through many different channels. But what else should we know?

Toxins are everywhere and can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed. Certain behaviors like overeating, indulging in processed foods, lack of exercise, poor diet, and excess alcohol prevent your body from working efficiently to remove toxins.

Of course, we are realists and it can be hard to avoid temptation! Because of this, Americans often rely on crash diets to solve bad long term habits. This is where we often go wrong! Juice cleanses, for example, have taken on a life of their own. The cold-pressed juice industry is currently estimated at $100 million! But, as we have reviewed on D2D, your body already has the tools to naturally detoxify.

Activated charcoal is one of the newest quick fixes that claims to target the toxins in your body. Why activated charcoal, you ask? We were wondering the same thing.

Activated charcoal is created for medicinal purposes through a controlled heating process. Performed in a lab, heat, and gas are applied to charcoal to make it increasingly porous. These pores are what allow the charcoal to capture hazardous substances when administered by a medical professional to remove poison, chemicals, or drug overdoses from your body. Typically, when activated charcoal is administered in the hospital, the objective is to get the patient in question to vomit so the charcoal absorbs the chemical with its millions of tiny pores.

However, the idea of using charcoal as a healthy drink to target toxins is not very feasible. Yes, activated charcoal is able to trap substances, but there is no way for the charcoal molecules to differentiate between beneficial substances inside your body and harmful ones! Therefore, when you consume activated charcoal you risk eliminating essential minerals and vitamins from your body.

In an interview with Time Magazine, Dr. Kent Olson, medical director of the San Francisco Poison Control System and clinical professor of Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco discussed the medicinal uses of activated charcoal. “‘The problem with charcoal is that it’s non-specific. It’ll bind to anything…that could include toxins as well as nutrients. Remember that might include vitamins and amino acids and other things you actually need in your diet.’” (Dr. Kent Olson for Time Magazine, 2016)

image source:www.intothegloss.com

Recently, companies like Goop, Juice Generation, and Shape Magazine have touted the benefits of activated charcoal. In fact, Juice Generation has even created a new line of activated charcoal juice products that are said to target the toxins in your body. These juices are now the company’s best selling products. According to the label, they are able to take a traditional green juice to the next level. And while the products certainly will not hurt you, they do highlight a common disconnect between seller and consumer.

Unfortunately, these labels do not mention the large lack of research behind this detoxifying phenomenon. In the past 30 years, 159 human studies have been performed pertaining to activated charcoal, almost all of which were for medicinal application. In a 2015 meta-analysis of these studies, Dr. Thomas Pirelli Ph.D., of Harvard University, examines the results of research pertaining to the use of activated charcoal. There were only two reported human studies pertaining to the claim that activated charcoal helps intestinal gas. One study stated that the activated charcoal did improve gas and bloating while the other did not. 

Most simply put, extensive research just doesn’t exist. Not to mention, our understanding of activated charcoal’s composition suggests the substance can eliminate equal parts of nutrients to toxins. So, while there may be a teeny tiny chance that activated charcoal might help a severe hangover or temporarily reduce internal gas, it is not something you need to incorporate into your everyday routine.

Our choices and varieties of fruits and vegetables have expanded.

Early in the 20th century, what people ate in the U.S. primarily depended on their heritage and traditions, where they lived, what they could grow, and how much money they had. Fruits such as oranges and bananas were a special treat compared to the role of “lunchbox staple” that they play in our diets today.

The average American diet is no longer restricted by local or seasonal produce. Because of our expanded choices, the fresh produce Americans eat today is not the same as it was 100 years ago. There has been a considerable change in the commodities we enjoy year-round. Prior to the turn of the century, many produce items were primarily available only in season – i.e., blueberries, kiwi, papaya, persimmons, pineapples, raspberries, and miscellaneous tropical fruits. Other commodities such as mizuna and kohlrabi, although common outside the U.S., were virtually unheard of until recent years!

We still enjoy the same fruits and vegetables as we did in 1970!

While we have integrated new produce into our diet regimen, it is safe to say, old habits die hard. In 1970, three vegetables – lettuce, tomatoes, and potatoes – were the most consumed fresh vegetables in the US.

Per capita fresh vegetable consumption, 1970 and 2013

Food Availability Data. 

The latest USDA statistics for 2013 show that these same three commodities are still the leading fresh vegetables consumed in the U.S. However, we have expanded the diversity of these three popular veggies. Between 1970 and 2013, there were changes in the number of potatoes and the different types of lettuce available, as well as an increased variety of other vegetables incorporated into the average American diet.

For example, after a peak in the late 80s/early 90s, by 2013 head lettuce consumption declined by 51% while romaine and leaf lettuce consumption increased by 69%. U.S. consumers also ate more broccoli, cucumbers, onions, and peppers during this same time frame. Still, even with our preference for new lettuce types and increased consumption of other vegetables, our preference for lettuce, tomatoes, and potatoes stayed relatively consistent.

We have retained a strong preference for certain fruits.

In 2013, American’s fruits of choice were bananas, melons, apples, and oranges. Our fruit preferences were the same in 1970. In the 43-year time span, consumption of avocados, bananas, cantaloupes, grapes, pineapples, and strawberries increased while consumption of apples, cranberries, peaches, and plums declined. In recent years, robust demand for avocados, blueberries, cherries, lemons, limes, mangoes, papayas, and pineapples has been driving growth in fresh fruit commodities. USDA analysts attribute this growth in fruit used to the preparation of traditional dishes by a more ethnically diverse population as well as heightened interest in a healthy diet.

There are various interactive graphs illustrating the changing American diet from 1970 to 2012/2013.  See the FlowingData.com’s website and articles in  Scientific American and Time magazine’s articles.

Not only have there been changes in the diversity of what Americans eat, but there has also been an even greater change in when we eat fresh produce. Prior to the turn of the century, the majority of the U.S. population was eating strawberries for one, two, or if you were lucky, maybe three months of the year. Now eating fresh strawberries year-round is commonplace, as is noted by a 320% increase in per capita consumption from 1970 to 2010. And it is just not strawberries – the same is true for blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, pineapples, cantaloupe, and a litany of other fruits and vegetables.

So why the increasing diversity in our produce?

To help meet the growing demand for fruits and vegetables, plant breeding has resulted in new varieties of popular produce items with increased yields, extended growing seasons, improved product quality fruit, and enhanced shelf-life. Tomatoes and strawberries are two prime examples of fruits where year-round availability is a direct result of breeding new varieties.

Suppliers have also improved shelf-life and product quality during transportation by modifying harvesting methods. A good example of these improvements can be seen with the banana which bruises easily when it is ripe. Bananas used to be harvested after ripening until growers discovered they could harvest unripe, green bananas and ship them all over the world without damaging the still firm unripe fruit.

Alternate-day fasting diets, like the 5:2 diet, have become a popular way to quickly lose weight. The 5:2 diet made its way into the spotlight in 2013 when BBC aired a documentary entitled Eat, Fast & Live Longer. In this program, journalist Michael Mosley investigated the health benefits of fasting. Before attempting the various and attainable fasting methods himself, Mosley met with a series of doctors and industry professionals who assessed his current health condition. Mosley wanted to understand how to best protect himself against the negative effects of aging. From his story on alternate-day fasting, Mosley derived the 5:2 diet, which subsequently took the UK by storm.

The belief that fasting can improve your health shares similarities with the Paleo diet. Like Paleo dieters, Mosley looked to our ancestors for help when investigating fasting. When hunters and gatherers had a successful kill, they gorged themselves on the meat. This feast might last a few days and certainly was not restricted— however, if the hunters went days without a kill, they would be starved, surviving on minimal food and nutrients. Thus, our bodies are capable of functioning when we are underfed. But, bear in mind, our hunting and gathering ancestors put themselves in great peril, even wrestling mammoths to provide a feast. That is a lot of physical activity that we do not necessarily get today.

Throughout Mosley’s investigation, he interviewed a handful of researchers and specialists, one of them being Mark Mattson, an expert on the aging brain. Mattson, Chief of the Laboratory of Neurosciences at the National Institute on Aging and Professor at John Hopkins University, discussed the laboratory studies he performed regarding starvation. Based on the tests he had been conducting on mice, Mattson identified positive aspects of fasting. In one of these studies, Mattson found that when mice were given an unhealthy diet high in saturated fats and sugars, mice health declined much more rapidly, roughly 3-4 months sooner. On the other hand, mice given a diet lower in fat and subjected to intermittent fasting lived roughly 6 months longer. Thus, the mice maintaining a smaller size proved to live longer.

5:2 dieters argue that our bodies are not made to handle the modernization of food and that giving the digestive system frequent “breaks” helps to mend any issues with digestion.

Additionally, in his meeting with Mark Mattson, Michael Mosley learned that sporadic bouts of hunger help stimulate new neurons to grow in our brains. Mattson also looked to our mammoth-hunting ancestors to answer the question regarding cell growth. From a survival standpoint, hunger provides a survival advantage as it causes you to be more focused. Fasting’s effect on the brain is actually compared to exercising’s effect on your muscles…well, for mice anyway. In order to truly prove that these findings hold true for humans, human trials must be performed.

So how did this research and studies like it lead to Mosley’s famed 5:2 diet?

As Mosley attempted intermittent fasting, he realized how difficult this task is. Anyone can attest that we need food, and regularly! To accommodate this need, Mosley met with Dr. Krista Varady, author of The Every Other Day Diet and an advocate of alternate-day fasting. Like the 5:2 program, the “Every Other Day Diet” instructs participants to limit their caloric intake to 500 calories on fasting days. Although they are very similar in practice, on the “EODD” you are fasting slightly more than on the 5:2 diet. For example, one week you will fast 3 days and the next you will fast 4, then the following you are back to 3 days of fasting, and so on…

During Dr. Varady’s clinical studies of alternate-day fasting, researchers found participants decreased their levels of LDL cholesterol (bad cholesterol), triglycerides (fat), and blood pressure. Surprisingly, these scientists found it actually didn’t matter if you were eating a high-fat diet versus a low-fat diet on the given feast days—the LDL cholesterol and blood pressure were relatively the same for all participants.

Because they consumed 25% of their energy needs on fasting days, Dr. Varady predicted that most participants would consume 175% of their energy needs on a “feed” day. But, throughout the course of her study, participants were only consuming 110% of their energy needs on the feed days. Inevitably, there is a -65% consumption deficit.  This tells us that starving a few days a week and then feasting on cookies, pasta, pizza, and cheeseburgers will probably help you lose weight because you are reducing your overall caloric intake. However, your body will be missing proper nutrients. Additionally, if you are exercising regularly, your energy levels may be negatively affected by the significant decrease in calories on the fast days.

While the 5:2 diet and similar programs are not sensible dieting practices, the science behind fasting is worth a second look.

While we dismiss the 5:2 diet and similar programs, like the “Every Other Day Diet”, as viable dieting practices, we acknowledge that the science behind fasting and Mark Mattson’s research is worth a second look. Scientists have found that restricting caloric intake can help to regulate your body’s blood sugar levels. Research in mice has discovered that by reducing daily caloric intake, the body lowers its production of hormone IGF-1. A drop in the creation of this hormone is known to help your body go into repair mode—meaning, the body begins to protect itself against carcinogens, heart disease, diabetes, and other health issues.

These days, it feels like new food trends are constantly coming to market. From juice cleansing to going gluten-free, dieters and healthy eaters alike are left wondering, “What are the smart choices for my diet and my body?” In an effort to offer some clarity and take it back to simpler times, we have chosen to examine: the Paleolithic diet.

Inspired by the foods of our ancestors.

A Paleolithic, or “Paleo,” diet is a diet inspired by the foods of our ancestors. Often called “the caveman diet,” this diet regimen focuses on a more simple call to action: clean, primal eating. The Paleo diet emphasizes the importance of the foods that our ancestors had access too, which include grass-produced meats, nuts, fresh fruits and vegetables, fish, healthy oils (those of olive, avocado, coconut, etc.), and animal products, such as eggs.

The Paleo method believes that human metabolism was not made to digest today’s highly processed foods. Instead, the diet emphasizes the importance of the foods that our ancestors had access too, which include grass-produced meats, nuts, fresh fruits and vegetables, fish, and healthy oils (those of olive, avocado, coconut, etc.), and animal products, such as eggs.

Proponents of the Paleo diet believe the human digestive system has wrongfully adapted to eating “toxic” foods, such as grain, legumes, and dairy. Foods such as these were not available to our ancestors, thus our bodies are not designed to consume them. However, lean meats, seafood, and seasonal fruits and vegetables were the basis of a Neanderthal’s diet and our digestive system is equipped to break these foods down.

or example, while we agree that protein is a very important part of your diet, the way our ancestors consumed protein is not similar to modern practices. When our ancestors hunted and killed an animal for its meat they gorged themselves on the food for days and could go months without another successful hunt.

There are health benefits from eating whole grains.

While it is healthy to consume protein and whole fruits and veggies as the diet prescribes, there are health benefits from eating whole grain. Whole grains are high in fiber–which is good for your digestive system, are digested slowly so can keep you full for longer, and can help reduce the risk of heart disease. As for the argument that eating whole grain can cause inflammation, this is certainly true for those suffering from celiac’s disease, however, it is untrue if you have no wheat sensitivity. In fact, going gluten-free can often lead to a diet higher in sugar and saturated fats. For these reasons, we disagree with the Paleo diets requirement to cut grain completely from your diet.

There are health benefits from eating legumes.

In addition to eliminating grain, the diet recommends eliminating legumes, like lentils, beans, or peas, from your diet. The Paleo diet argues that the lectins, which is a sugar-binding protein, found in legumes eliminate their nutritional value. But this is not true! A 2013 study suggests the nutritional content of legumes outweighs the issue with lectins. The Huffington Post also reported that cooking legumes can eliminate the anti-nutrient qualities of lectins. Legumes pack a powerful punch! They are high in dietary fiber, protein, antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals while being low in fat.

There are health benefits from drinking and eating dairy products.

Now that we’ve covered grains and legumes, let’s put dairy under the microscope. Dairy is where it gets a little trickier. Did you know that the human species is the only species that consume dairy in adulthood? This is one of the primary reasons why dairy is a strict “no” in the Paleo diet. Paleo dieters believe that by eating the food that our ancestors ate, we are eating the most natural, “untouched” foods. The milk we know today has been harvested from animals that have been bred for milk production. When we drink cow’s milk, we are ingesting the hormones that have been fed to the cow, which the Paleo diet does not condone. But—when you think about it, of course, humans are able to eat dairy into adulthood…because we can produce it.

When consumed in moderation, dairy is a good source of potassium, protein, and fat, and is important for your bone health. Many non-Paleo physicians argue that adults have no nutritional requirements for dairy. Our opinion? You do not need to eliminate the food group entirely, but you do not need to consume more than two servings of dairy per day to maintain a balanced diet. There are additional ways to get potassium, protein, and healthy fats.

In order to properly follow the Paleo diet, you must eliminate potatoes, dairy, cereal grains, salt, refined vegetable oils, and refined sugar from your diet. Eating at a restaurant is not easy!

The Modern Paleo: 85:15

Legumes, whole grains, and dairy can be consumed as part of a healthy, well-rounded diet. There are certainly some benefits to the Paleo approach, specifically that your diet is high in fruits and vegetables, lean meats and fish, nuts and healthy fats— but it is unnecessary to eliminate entire groups of food from your diet unless prescribed by a doctor. A modern version of the Paleo diet is the 85:15 rule. This means 85% of the time you are strictly Paleo and 15% you are allowed to consume non-Paleo foods. That way you are not completely eliminating certain beneficial food groups from your diet.

Wheat has come under fire recently. The rise in gluten-free dieting has left many questioning its nutritional value. One-third of American consumers are trying to eliminate gluten, and subsequently wheat, in the hopes of losing weight.

But the U.S. Department of Agriculture advises adults to eat between 3 and 5 servings of whole grains a day, and 6 to 11 servings for children.

Is wheat unhealthy?

It is hard to talk about wheat without mentioning its relationship to gluten. Walk into your local grocery store and the popularity of gluten-free products is astounding. Even foods that would never contain gluten are being stamped with the famous “GF” mark. We recently discussed “the gluten myth” on D2D and can confirm: gluten is not the enemy. Many non-celiac afflicted people choosing to maintain a GF diet do find they experience sudden weight loss, however, this is from the elimination of an entire food group and sudden change in eating habits. This is not gluten weighing you down. And whole grains are an important part of a balanced diet.

Modern wheat production

Some researchers have taken issue with modern wheat because it has changed from its original form. In order to keep up with a rapidly growing population, wheat farming has adapted. As such, mass-farming has manipulated the wheat we consume today relative to the wheat that our ancestors consumed.

The creator of modern wheat, Norman Borlaug, a biologist from Iowa, won both the Nobel Peace Prize and the World Food Prize for his positive contribution to farming.

Norman Ernest Borlaug, photographed in Mexico for LIFE Magazine in November 1970 (Flickr)

Borlaug was able to roughly double wheat production per acre. Instead of long grain stalks, wheat farmers are now producing higher yielding crops, which are smaller in size—18 inches in height compared to the traditional 4-foot tall wheat plant. These crops are smaller in size due to the weight of excess grain now created per stalk. If they maintained their original height, the stalks would not be able to support themselves. While these crops produce more wheat to feed the growing population, it is argued that these crops are less nutritious.

What is Wheat Belly?

One anti-wheat proponent, who lobbies for all humans to eliminate wheat from their diet is Dr. William Davis MD, author of Wheat Belly. According to Dr. Davis, we are victims of “Frankenwheat”, which he considers addictive and toxic. Davis asserts that today’s wheat contains a protein called gliadin that, Davis argues, “has the potential to bind to the opiate receptors of the human brain—like heroin or morphine—except it has a different effect of course. Wheat doesn’t provide relief from pain, it doesn’t provide a euphoria, it only stimulates appetite, so that people who consume modern wheat are triggered to consume 440 calories more per day.” (Davis, Wheat Belly).

Davis believes that consuming gliadin tells your body it wants more carbohydrates and as a response, you end up overeating. These excess carbs eventually are stored as fat. Dr. Davis believes if you eliminate modern wheat from your diet you will see a noticeable change in your hunger levels, lose weight, and benefit from positive health changes like decreased blood pressure, low blood-sugar levels, and less joint pain.

Gliadins are not the cause of overeating

How much of this argument should we hold true? According the article “Does Wheat Make Us Sick and Fat?” published by the Journal of Cereal Science, Davis’ understanding of gliadins is misleading as gliadins are present in all forms of wheat, including ancient grains. In some cases, “modern wheat” actually contains less gliadin than the grain of our ancestors. The article reports, “there is no evidence that selective breeding has resulted in detrimental effects on the nutritional properties or health benefits of the wheat grain” (Shewry et al., 2011).

Gliadins are not the cause of addictive eating behaviors

As for Davis’ theory regarding wheat opioids and their effect on the human brain, the Journal of Cereal Science also discredits this claim. According to a 2008 study, although gliadin is known to release a peptide called gliadorphin, which can induce an opiate-like effect, the compound’s composition of 7 amino acids actually cannot be absorbed into the intestine. Because of this, gliadin is not present in its original form in the circulatory system and therefore the opiate effects of gliadorphin do not affect the central nervous system. The evidence of this study undermines the Wheat Belly argument concerning gliadin. Therefore, Davis’ claims cannot be substantiated given today’s scientific understanding of wheat.

A pro-wheat organization that has examined the science behind grains is American Association of Cereal Chemists (AACC). Their journal Cereal Foods World is responsible for bringing current industry information regarding grain science and technology to light. Cereal Foods World does not believe that modern wheat is a so-called “super carbohydrate.” In a report written by researchers at CFW, the process of crop cultivation and modernization is examined. To quote their findings,

So why do “wheat-eliminators” lose weight and subsequently feel better?

Again, the answer is the drastic change in diet. When you eliminate an entire food group from your diet—especially one that you consumed frequently—your system is shocked and responds rapidly. Especially if the wheat you were consuming before making this switch was an indulgence, like pasta, bagels, or even pretzels. You aren’t eliminating gliadin, you are eliminating junk food!

Wheat and brain diseases?

Another anti-wheat assertion is that wheat consumption is a contributing factor in long term brain diseases, such as dementia and Alzheimer’s. David Perlmutter, MD is the author of the national bestseller, Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth about Wheat, Carbs, and Sugar. Perlmutter argues that the modern human diet has steered off course, relying heavily on carbs, whereas our ancestors’ diet was mostly fat and protein-based.

Grain Brain believes this dietary shift is the reason for increased inflammation in the body. “Researchers have known for some time now that the cornerstone of all degenerative conditions, including brain disorders, is inflammation. But what they haven’t documented until now are the instigators of that inflammation— the first missteps that prompt this deadly reaction. And what they are finding is that gluten, and a high-carbohydrate diet for that matter, are among the most prominent stimulators of inflammatory pathways that reach the brain.” (Perlmutter, Grain Brain)

One of the biggest issues Dr. Perlmutter and Dr. Davis have with processed grain is its ability to spike your blood sugar levels. When your blood sugar increases your body creates more insulin—and while insulin helps keep the glucose level of your cells healthy, too much insulin will cause your cells to desensitize. Davis and Perlmutter, MD believe that this leads to inflammation and inevitably may contribute to Alzheimer’s. However, data that shows a very weak link between blood and glucose levels and a risk for developing Alzheimer’s. This conclusion is considered to be a far stretch with current evidence.

In order to consider the harmful effects of inflammation, we must examine inflammation and its relationship with your body’s insulin and blood sugar levels.

Both Grain Brain and Wheat Belly discuss the effect whole grain can have on your blood sugar by highlighting the fact that two pieces of whole wheat bread actually raise blood sugar levels more than a Snickers candy bar. So, why is this?

Processed grains, like whole grain or white bread, cause blood sugar levels to rise, but you should not be scared away from wheat by the glycemic value and its likening to a chocolate bar. The nutrients of the two foods are very different and you cannot draw a conclusion on one being unhealthy because of its similarity to the other.

Do you really believe that a snicker’s bar is healthier than a serving of whole wheat bread? As delightful as it tastes, a Snickers has 250 calories, 12g of fat, and 27 grams of sugar with little nutritional components. Two slices of whole wheat bread also have 250 calories but only 5 g of fat and include protein and fiber as nutrition. You also need to consider how much whole wheat is in the bread in question. For a serving of bread with a Glycemic Index of 71, the bread in question is processed whole wheat or white bread—but these are not your only options. 100% stone ground wheat is a low Glycemic Index food, for example, Ezekiel 4:9 bread has a GI value of 35. Additionally, you are typically eating the serving of bread with a protein, such a turkey or peanut butter, which can also slow your spike in blood sugar.

When discussing the glycemic index, you must also consider wheat’s glycemic load. The glycemic load relative amount of carbohydrate the food contains in an average serving. By taking each gram of carbohydrate into account, you are able to better estimate how the food will affect your glucose levels. Yes, the glycemic index helps interpret how quickly glucose levels rise, but the glycemic load helps interpret how long glucose levels will stay elevated for, ie. how much the sugar is affecting you. Read what our research says about Glycemic Index vs. Glycemic Load.

So while two pieces of whole wheat bread can raise your insulin levels, consuming whole wheat will not lead to rapid weight gain. In his book, Dr. Davis makes the argument that our ancestors avoided diabetes because of their diet, which mainly consisted of wild boar, salmon, and berries. But there is no scientific data regarding the possible diabetic condition of hunters and gatherers! Not to mention, their diets relied entirely on what they were able to hunt or collect and their lifespans were much shorter than the average human today. As such, Dr. Davis is drawing hard conclusions from limited evidence.

If I eat steak or bacon, will I get cancer?

NO!

On October 26th, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer— the cancer agency of the World Health Organization— gave a press release that evaluated the consumption of processed and red meat and its link to cancer. The study looked specifically at colorectal cancer and its association to stomach, prostate, and pancreatic cancer. While the IARC classified red meat as “probably carcinogenic to humans” and processed meat as “carcinogenic to humans”, it is important to note that the evidence supporting these claims is very limited.

The research reviewed over 800 individual studies and was run by twenty-two experts from ten different countries, and yet the findings released were not conclusive.

According to the American Cancer Society, in 2018, the chance of getting colorectal cancer for an average 50-year-old male or female is 4.49% or 4.15%, respectively. The World Health Organization stated the possibility of an 18% increase from eating red meat. It is misleading to say that one will have an 18% chance of getting cancer when it is really an 18% increase over a base of a little over 4%. This brings us to 4.9% (for women) and a 5.23% (for men) chance of getting colorectal cancer if we eat 50 grams of processed or red meat per day.

Consuming large amounts of processed meat is worth monitoring and not something to incorporate every day. So while you might not want to have 2 servings of bacon every day, you can enjoy it a few times a week without fear.

The American Cancer Society also weighed in on the issue. ACS managing director of nutrition and physical activity says, “we should be limiting red and processed meat to help reduce colon cancer risk, and possibly, the risk of other cancers. The occasional hot dog or hamburger is okay.” So, when consumed in moderation, red or processed meat does not pose a big health threat.

When considering the IARC’s classification of carcinogenic foods, you have to be aware of the serving size.

The degree to which your red or processed meat consumption will affect your health has a lot to do with the other lifestyle choices you make. Do you have a well-balanced diet, exercise regularly, and drink enough water? All of these factors influence your overall health. The protein and iron that your body receives from red meat support your cells, tissues, organs, bones, and overall immune system.

Based on the study’s findings, the World Health Organization labeled red meat as Group 2A, stating that the classification was made on “limited evidence.” The IARC clarifies, “limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.”

The WHO also inappropriately labeled processed meat as Group 1, the same group that contains asbestos, arsenic, and tobacco— some of the most carcinogenic dangers to humans. Is it fair and reasonable to say that your chance of getting cancer from smoking is equal to getting cancer from eating meat? Of course not. Then the WHO discredited their own argument by stating the following: