The Raw Food Debate

There are so many Fad diets that we all should be aware of; some do more harm than they do good. For example, the Raw Food Diet is one that has been a concept that many haven't been able to grasp until recently. The diet includes only raw foods like, for example, some raw fish and vegetables. Anything cooked cannot be consumed (especially things that have been pre-packaged like deli meats and other snack food items), even carbohydrates are left out of this diet except for simple carbohydrates like fruits. 

Some experts would say that eating raw foods can certainly be healthful by promoting "health and healing", for example, raw foods have enzymes that help aid in our digestion. The cooking of foods at really high temperatures actually kills most enzymes found in these foods when raw, which can lead to less consumption of important nutrients. Also, eating a raw food diet has been shown to normalize weight and increase energy. Because these raw foods can be easily digested than cooked foods, less bile and acid is produced which leads to the ease of digestion and less discomfort (Mater, 2005).

Although it seems that the raw food diet can reap a lot of benefits, there are many downfalls to consider. There have been brought up many questions of long-term effectiveness, possible vitamin deficiencies, and even food safety because there is a higher risk for contracting viral and bacterial infections from not cooking fish. Deficiencies that can occur include vitamin B12 (found in meat) and is a necessary vitamin to consume. Without consuming it in your diet, a supplement is absolutely needed. Protein is another example because without the consumption of meat, you are also not consuming much protein or vitamin B12. Protein can be found in nuts, seeds, and sprouts, but without eating a sufficient amount, there could be an issue at hand.

Overall, I was drawn to this article because I am always looking for fad diets that are either beneficial or can be harmful. It's always good to do research and know what is out there so you know what to look for or what the actual diet is when someone says they are doing it. I was also really interested in this article because I've heard about the raw food diet through others before, and wanted to learn more about it.

So here is my question: what do you think of the raw food diet? Does it sound like something that most people would be able to maintain?

Let me know your thoughts!

Here is the link to the article that I used:

The Raw Food Debate

Vegetarian and Vegan Diets in Type 2 Diabetes Management

Vegetarian and vegan diets have many advantages that are worth considering. Now, I am not a vegetarian or a vegan but I do know that these diets provide many health advantages that are important for those who suffer from type 2 diabetes. Vegan and vegetarian diets are based off of a healthful diet that includes vegetables, fruits, lentils, carbohydrates (not for vegans), and dairy products (also not for vegans). According to my article, it states that "individuals following vegetarian diets are about half as likely to develop diabetes, compared with non-vegetarians."  The article also explains that following a low-fat vegan diet can improve glycemic control. Glycemic control is being able to control the increase of glucose that occurs when eating certain foods. Most people with type 2 diabetes have an issue controlling their glucose levels and being able to have a more stable control over this is a major way to help control your diabetes.

The article also explains that "Vegetarian and vegan diets also improve plasma lipid concentrations and have been shown to reverse atherosclerosis progression." This is extremely important to consider because atherosclerosis is a major problem in overweight adults, especially those who have type 2 diabetes. Atherosclerosis is described as the build up of plaque in major arteries, such as ones that lead to the heart, brain, or even lungs and can cause major heart attacks or strokes.

There are some risks, however, when following a vegetarian or vegan diet. Deficiencies in iron, some vitamin B complexes and even calcium (for those who are vegan because of the complete cut out of dairy products) can occur. This can lead to the use of supplementation, which to most, isn't such a bad thing. Do you think that having to take multiple supplementations is worth it? Because if you do not follow a vegetarian or vegan diet correctly, it can cause major problems.

I was drawn to this article for many reasons; I am really interested in vegetarian and vegan diets and the affects they have on type 2 diabetes, but I am also very interested in finding more ways to help manage diabetes as a whole. I feel that diet is such an important aspect when you have this disease, and finding other ways to help either change up your diet (so you don't feel you are eating the same things) or even completely change your diet to something that is more manageable.

So here is my question; do you think that prescribing a vegetarian or vegan diet is an acceptable way to help manage type 2 diabetes? Is it worth the risks for deficiencies in such important vitamins and minerals? Do you think that supplementation is the BEST way to help improve these deficiencies?

Sorry for so many questions, you don't have to answer all of them. I am just really curious as to what you all think!

Here is the link to my article: It is a scientific study and really talks about type 2 diabetes at the very beginning of the article.
 Vegetarian and Vegan Diets in Type 2 Diabetes Management


Thanks for your time guys! Have a great day!

Diabetes Drug Posing Major Risks

Type 2 diabetes is one of the most common health problems that overweight individuals are confronted with and medication is usually one of the ways to help manage this disease. There is a major controversy, however, concerning one of the newest drugs to be approved by the FDA called Pargluva. The FDA approved this drug because it was supposed to "lower levels of blood fats known as triglycerides, raise levels of "good cholesterol" and increase the effectiveness of insulin." 

The issue though, that has brought to the FDA's attention, is the drugs ability to nearly double the risk of  life-threatening cardiovascular complications. To those who were taking the drug, were also at increased risk of death, heart attacks, and strokes. The FDA is under major fire for not having the safety of the drug as their main priority and that the drug still needed further study before being released to the public.

I was drawn to this article for many reasons, one being that type 2 diabetes is a very common disease and there are many other ways to help treat this condition. One of the ways that the non-profit organization I am representing (the American Dietetics Association) believes that diet and exercise are one of the most beneficial ways to helping treat type two diabetes. Although I know for sure that there are definitely people out there who need medication to help them lower their blood-glucose levels, I don't feel that those who are suffering from this disease need any more problems to worry about (such as death, heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular complications).

So here is my question: Do you think that this drug should go through further study before being released to the public? Do you think the FDA have the best interests when releasing drugs? And do you think that these medications are an effective means of control for type 2 diabetes?

Don't feel like you have to answer all of those questions, but I am really interested in your opinion!

Here is the link to the article that I found:

New Diabetes Drug Poses Major Risks

Thanks guys!