Noncaloric Sweeteners: What’s the Rub??

avoid-artificial-sweeteners

 

Happy December, ceiling fans 🙂 In September, I wrote a post reviewing Fat Chance, a book by Dr. Robert Lustig, that discusses the root causes of obesity and Metabolic Syndrome. The review caught the eye of Dr. Lustig’s business partner at the Institute for Responsible Nutrition, and we had a great exchange over the past couple of months. This was very exciting and a big deal for me! He asked me to write a guest post on their website, and coincidentally enough, it is about a topic that I’ve been meaning to explore for quite some time: Noncaloric sweeteners.

The blue, yellow, and pink rectangular packets are a visual staple on tables at American restaurants. Sweet’N Low, Equal, Splenda, and Stevia (with a new, green seat at the table) are alternatives to sugar that our country has adopted with open arms. I question, do they actually work in thwarting weight gain without sacrificing sweetness? Are they safe? Please check out my interesting and eye-opening post on their site here, or you can check it out below (They left out a few key graphs and figures). Either way, I appreciate your support, as always!

 


 

It is well known and undisputed that the increased consumption of sugar, in all its variations, has contributed to the ever-growing prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome over the past fifty-plus years. Once the exception, metabolic dysregulation and its related symptoms have now etched themselves as the rule in our global health picture. As a result, the industries involved in treating, rectifying, and capitalizing on this problem and its associated costs are estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars.

 

Weight loss programs, pharmaceuticals, exercise techniques, surgical procedures, nutritional supplements, and diet products targeted to consumers and physicians permeate the media, literature, and our everyday vernacular. Rife among these countless products and initiatives designed as quick-fix remedies to lower blood sugar, boost weight loss, increase insulin sensitivity (and the like) are noncaloric artificial sweeteners (NAS).

 

NAS are commonly deemed as a safe and beneficial solution for weight loss, given their low caloric content, stunted insulin response, and reduced costs for use in commercial products. Yet, their surge in promotion, production, and consumption over the past twenty to thirty years has not done the average American’s waistline any favors. In fact, the opposite has occurred. So, what’s the rub??

 

type 3 diabetes

 

Before I try to tackle this question, I would like to point out that there truly is not enough clinical research or epidemiological data out there to definitively conclude whether to label NAS as “good” or “bad” in comparison to sugar. Many of the studies that promote their safety and benefits for weight loss are industry-funded. Unbiased, evidence-based research is sparse. Further, the FDA’s approval of their portioned use in foods doesn’t really account for the surplus amounts of these substances most consumers actually ingest due to their ubiquity and our nation’s appetite.

 

All being said, my hope for this post is to illuminate two rather different mechanisms through which NAS can disrupt metabolic function and perhaps further negate the weight problems they were created to fix. The significant kind of weight gain that plagues many in our society is not just a matter of caloric indulgence; it is an overall reflection and byproduct of the inner workings of one’s body and health gone awry. Because of this, I would like to draw some attention away from the mouth, and focus instead on two different areas that NAS can considerably affect: the brain and the gut … and as a result, one’s clothing size.

 

Many of us, when we have just sampled a delicious dessert, have said, “Oh my goodness, this must be so bad for you.” Simply put, this is our body’s innate ability to determine the caloric contents of what we eat based on its sweet taste.

 

As a result of a sweet taste and our brain and body’s calibration of its caloric estimation, an assembly line of biochemical reactions occurs that determines how our body then regulates the caloric energy we have just received. Our metabolism revs up like an engine because it has fuel to burn. Our brain also tells us to stop eating (or drinking) because it received a negative feedback message that our body has enough energy to accomplish what it needs to.1,2

 

Now, if something were to disrupt this communication – like, keeping the sweet taste in tact but omitting the calories – don’t you think the body and brain would get a little confused? That nice give-and-take balance is thrown off; the sweet taste registers, but there are no calories, nutrients, or fuel to burn and utilize. It’s sort of like the boy who cried wolf. What a gyp! A predictive relationship, such as the sweet taste, caloric estimation, and metabolic adjustment is based upon a specific cue followed by a specific outcome. The relationship becomes progressively weaker when either the cue or the outcome occurs alone. In the case of NAS, the sweet taste occurs alone without the calories to produce a proper outcome.1,2

 

In a 2008 study1, Susan Swithers, the leading scientist on noncaloric sweeteners, successfully demonstrated this predictive relationship with sweet tastes and what ensues metabolically when it is disrupted by NAS. In a normal, healthy rat, they ingest a form of glucose, the sweet taste signals the imminent arrival of nutrients and calories into the gut where they will be broken down and used for energy. When the nutrients in the food are absorbed in the gut, their core body temperature rises, and the rats become more active to utilize and burn the energy provided by the calories. She found that, “impairing the ability of sweetness to predict the arrival of energy in the gut accurately reduced the efficient utilization of that energy,”1 thereby weakening the feedback loop to the brain in order produce satiation.

 

rats and artificial diabetes

 

In Swithers’ study, two separate groups of rats were fed yogurt; one was sweetened with glucose, the other with saccharin (Sweet’N Low). It was found that those who were fed the saccharin had increased overall caloric intake (despite saccharin being noncaloric), greater weight gain, increased body fat, and lowered temperature change (reflecting a lowered metabolic rate) when other caloric foods were introduced.

 

As we know, a normal diet doesn’t consist solely of NAS or zero calories; one is bound to encounter calories and glucose at some point. This study revealed that, with the presence of NAS in the diet, the aforementioned predictive relationship is no longer tightly regulated, and when one eats or drinks anything with calories going forward, the body doesn’t quite know what to do with itself. In response, it cannot find its satiety point, stores fat, and does not burn energy as efficiently.

 

graph1

 

graph2

As you can see, it’s not to say that sugar is by any means an innocent bystander. This study, however, effectively shows that NAS are certainly not a magic bullet for weight loss either. In fact, they fare worse on almost all accounts.1

 

While Swithers’ research indicates that NAS do not have much influence on glucose homeostasis, a 2014 study3 by Suez et al. discovered a secondary route through which these noncaloric sweeteners do affect our glucose metabolism – via our microbiome.

 

Most of the noncaloric sweeteners fail to elicit an insulin response because, well, they go right through us. They slide through our GI system without being absorbed into the gut. Through their transit, though brief, they interact with our glorious microbiome and the intestinal bacteria colonies residing there, which we are learning play integral roles in regulating multiple physiological processes.3 This groundbreaking study went on to research how NAS may directly impact the microbiome, and as a result, the many processes to which it is intimately connected, including glucose metabolism.

 

microbiome-cartoon

 

In a set of experiments, Suez et al. monitored the glucose tolerance of mice ingesting water sweetened with aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), saccharin, and sucralose (Splenda). At week 11 of this experiment, the NAS-mice had developed marked glucose intolerance compared to those ingesting sucrose, glucose, and plain water.

 

To determine whether their glucose intolerance was specifically induced by changes to their microbiome, antibiotics were administered to address their cultured dysbiosis. Lo and behold, once their dysbiosis was eradicated by the antibiotics, their glucose tolerance returned to healthy curves, despite the mice maintaining their NAS-laden diets. Further, the researchers took a fecal transplant from the dysbiotic guts of these mice and placed them into healthy germ-free mice. Six days after the transfer, glucose intolerance ensued in the recipients, illustrating a clear relationship between NAS use, resultant dysbiosis, and causative metabolic dysregulation.3 To note, saccharin-consuming mice displayed considerable dysbiosis, engendering the most significant changes in microbial overgrowth.

 

The researchers then went on to confirm the same effects in humans. Following seven healthy volunteers who do not consume NAS, the researchers asked the participants to ingest the upper limits of the FDA-approved daily allowance of saccharin for one week. Through monitoring glucose measurements, researchers found that the participants developed poorer glycemic responses compared to controls. Most importantly, there were significant changes to their microbiome composition after NAS ingestion.

 

To determine whether the dysbiotic changes to their microbiome caused their metabolic changes, fecal transplants from Day 1 and Day 7 of the trial of the NAS-participants and controls were placed into healthy germ-free mice. Day 7 transplants induced significant glucose intolerance in the mice compared to Day 1. However, both Day 1 and Day 7 transplants from controls had no effect on the mice’s glucose tolerance.

 

This study showcased that, in both mice and humans, increased incidence of glucose intolerance was mediated by modulation of the composition and function of their gut microbiota.3 As we know, one’s glucose tolerance plays a significant and direct role in their risk for developing obesity and metabolic syndrome.

 

As Suez nicely put it, NAS are “enhancing the exact epidemic they themselves intended to fight.”3

 

gut rx to artificial sweeteners

 

As I mentioned before, but it doesn’t hurt to reiterate, this is not a post recommending sugar consumption over NAS. Minimal to no amounts of both should be consumed in efforts to lose weight and restore metabolic and hormonal communication. However, I hope these studies revealed that a calorie certainly is not just a calorie, and this notion of weight management is antiquated at best. There are multiple players in the game and multiple avenues by which one can treat and improve such derangements. NAS add insult to injury by impairing multiple systems simultaneously.

 

A balanced diet, rich with wholesome, unprocessed, nutrient-dense foods will eliminate the need for sugars and the artificial sweeteners that were created to replace them. Once you’ve made the switch, you will find out that life without both of them is, well, a whole lot sweeter.

 

If you would like a heads-up for when I write a future follow-up post to this one, detailing the most relevant research on all of the sweeteners out there (including Stevia, Lo Han Guo, and sugar alcohols) and their effects on our body, please fill out the subscription link on this page.

 

Thanks for reading!

 

 

References

 

  1. Swithers, S.E.; Davidson, T.L. A Role for Sweet Taste: Predictive Relations in Energy Regulation by Rats. Behavioral Neuroscience 2008, 122, 161-173.
  2. Swithers, S.E. Artificial Sweeteners produce the counterintuitive effect of inducing metabolic derangements. Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism 2013, 24, 431-441.
  3. Suez J, Korem T, Zeevi D, et al. Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota. Nature 2014, 514, 181-188.

 

 

Are We The Next Dinosaurs??

trex

Tyrannosaurus Rex, Museum of Natural History, May 2014

 

The Law of the Instrument, also known as Maslow’s Hammer, is a concept in psychology that not so eloquently states, “when you’re holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Ever since I’ve started my graduate program, my studies have been my golden hammer. I see nutritional biochemistry unfold in every stranger who walks by on the street and hear it echo in side conversations between friends waiting in line, sticking out like nails on a boardwalk waiting to be pounded. This past weekend, my hammer was ready to go in an unlikely place: the silver screen.

 

My boyfriend, Ben, and I went to see Jurassic World in 3D on a quiet Sunday night. Neither of us had any knowledge of the plot before heading into the show; we were more excited and overly impressed by the addition of luxury recliners at the local theater (amazing!).

 

Jurassic World Movie Theater Pic

 

For those of you who haven’t seen the blockbuster yet, don’t worry – no spoilers here. Basically, Jurassic World is an amusement park/experience set on an island off of Costa Rica that is home to dinosaurs that are artificially produced from prehistoric DNA and released into the “wilderness” for patrons to view. In an effort to boost profits, the CEO of the juggernaut park approved the engineering of a genetically modified dinosaur that would be bigger, badder, scarier, and every other superlative trait indicated by the guest satisfaction survey. They named her Indominus Rex.

 

In order to give her traits that deliver on all of these requests, the scientists mixed in genetically advantageous material from non-dinosaur species, such as the cuttlefish and frog. However, the scientists failed to think through what other traits from these various species may work themselves into Indominus Rex’s DNA to create a terrifyingly lethal dinosaur who would unleash its fury on the island’s thousands of guests. Golden hammer in tow, I couldn’t help but relate all of this to GMOs and the food industry. Bryce Dallas Howard may as well have been wearing a Monsanto building access card on her belt loop.

Slide1

I’m sure all of you have at least heard of the term “GMO” before. Today, I am here to break down the basics for you – the good, the bad, and the diseased.

 

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), like most things, were conceived with good intentions.

 

We wanted to feed the world and remediate world hunger and malnourishment-associated diseases. In order to do this, seeds of certain crops were genetically modified and reproduced to withstand harsh growing conditions, resist pesticides and antibiotics, and provide different nutrients in foods that normally do not supply them.

 

For example, crops that have no chance of thriving in drought-like conditions had a gene for drought tolerance inserted into their DNA so that they could flourish in equatorial areas to feed hungry populations. Crops that get pummeled and devoured by insects before they can be harvested were genetically modified to resist powerful pesticides so that the chemicals would kill the hungry insects, but allow the plants to thrive and produce far greater yields. Seeds for genetically modified “golden rice” were engineered to contain beta-carotene, giving it an orange-like hue in order to provide vitamin A precursors to populations in China, where rice flourishes but children commonly experience blindness due to lack of access to vitamin A-rich foods.

 

All good so far, right? Not for long.

 

Anyone with a knack for business could see how people would want to capitalize on the fact that producing successful crop yields in any type of weather condition would create more jobs, more food, and billions of dollars. To boot, you wouldn’t even have to worry about insects interfering with their growth. Sign me up.

 

Taking it a step further, wouldn’t you want to partner with the scientists who are creating these pesticide-resistant seeds and manufacture the pesticide to which they are resistant? And patent both the seeds and the pesticide so that every farmer has to buy them from you if they want to compete with higher yields? Wouldn’t it be even better if the scientists could doctor the seeds with a sterile, suicide gene that makes them unable to germinate and thus self-destruct after one year so that farmers must continue to purchase them from you annually instead of just once? Cha-ching.

 

Enter Monsanto: the company that reigns over most of the food production in America and throughout the world, and has done all of the above and more.

 

Upon first learning about GMOs in depth, there were two main things that worried me. One, what happens to the people who eat these foods with patchwork DNA and gene combinations that have historically never been ingested by humans? Two, if these crops are being doused with so much pesticide in order to kill the insects, what is in this toxic chemical concoction that is now on basically all of the foods we eat, and is it even safe for human consumption?

 

In regards to the first question, there has not been enough significant research conducted or results produced for me to know the answer. We do not know for sure how this genetic material could intermix with our own and cause our body’s cells to mutate, proliferate, and lead to cancer or other mysterious diseases. As my writing is evidence-based, I cannot comfortably weigh in on this. What I will say is this: most of the genes are thoroughly researched before a scientist can patent and sell the seeds. However, I personally don’t think that scientists take into account how ubiquitous GMOs are in our food and beverage supply and how much we consume of these products on an hourly basis over decades of time to accurately gauge their cumulative effects.

 

The second question, however, is what I plan to address in this post.

 

The Monsanto-born pesticide, which is employed by virtually all farmers that plant GMO crops, is called Roundup. Its active ingredient is glyphosate, residues of which can be found on nearly all sugar, corn, soy, canola, cotton, and wheat grown on American soil. Since Roundup’s patent has recently expired, agriculturists around the globe can now better afford the herbicide to use on their crops and for lawn maintenance. Due to its omnipresence on our land, it also contaminates our streams and water supply from run-off.

 

Glyphosate works so effectively because it interferes with the shikimate pathway, which then disrupts the plant’s synthesis of the amino acids tyrosine, phenylalanine, and tryptophan. Plants exposed to glyphosate show significantly less levels of these nutrients, along with an excess of ammonia. Due to the fact that humans do not possess a shikimate pathway, Monsanto has asserted that glyphosate would have no effect on our biochemistry and therefore do no harm.

 

What they fail to acknowledge is that, although we as humans may not have a shikimate pathway, the millions of beneficial bacteria and fungi that reside in our digestive tract do.

 

A study analyzing the effects of glyphosate on E. coli, a resident bacteria in our gut, revealed metabolic starvation, suppression of the shikimate pathway, energy drain, downregulation of the genes that create ATP, mitochondrial impairment, and a switch to a less efficient anaerobic metabolism. Basically, it kills them. If glyphosate is insidiously interfering with the delicate balance of good and bad bacteria in our guts, it leads to dysbiosis. Autism, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, obesity, depression, and cognitive disorders have all been linked to dysbiosis in our guts. Is it a coincidence that all of these diseases have dramatically increased since the introduction of GMOs and Roundup to our food supply? I personally think not.

 

The health of our gut’s microbiome determines our ability to synthesize various vitamins, detoxify toxins, and maintain homeostasis of our immune system through our gut permeability. If we are readily taking in less vitamins as a result of processed and adulterated foods, being exposed to more toxins from environmental chemicals and herbicides in our foods, and we combine this with a substance in everything we eat that shuts down our ability to get rid of these toxins and synthesize vitamins that help us function, can you see how detrimental this is to our health and wellbeing? Yikes.

 

Glyphosate has been shown to inhibit Cytochrome (CYP) enzymes in our body, which have several hundred integral functions. One of which is the catabolism, or breakdown, of vitamin A. Without the breakdown of vitamin A, its endogenous levels within our body increase dramatically. I’m sure most women reading this have heard of the dangers of vitamin A associated with pregnancy. Researchers investigated the effects of low dose glyphosate on embryonic development in frogs and chicks, revealing severe embryonic defects as a result of high levels of this vitamin due to its inability to be broken down. This was directly related to the ingredient in Roundup.

 

CYP enzymes are also responsible for the activation and metabolism of vitamin D3 in our liver. Anyone else notice a greater prevalence of vitamin D-deficient individuals or issues with its utilization in the last 15 years? Hmm, weird.

 

Cytochrome P450 enzymes in our liver, whose existence dates back 3 billion years in plants, animals, and bacteria, serve as key players in detoxification reactions and energy production. This showcases yet another angle where the synergistic effect of increased toxin intake and the inability to detoxify can be causing damage that we cannot research at a fast enough rate to keep up with the onslaught.

 

Table of glyphosate usage

Close to 200 million pounds of Roundup are used each year on American crops and plants.

 

Leaving questionable trails of disease in its wake, the chemical’s effects are not limited to humans; our ecosystem is suffering, too. Honeybees, which help to pollinate all crops, plants, and flowers, have an innate resistance to most pesticides. The reason why they have this immunity is due to their CYP enzyme activity. As we know, glyphosate inhibits these enzymes, thus leaving the bees vulnerable to lethal effects of all other insecticides, causing them to die in large numbers once they bring the chemicals back to their hives. Around 2006, there was a surge of honeybee colony collapses across the country, which still continues. Without honeybees, our plants, crops, and flowers will be unable to grow successfully and independently. If we can’t rely on honeybees, the price to germinate will raise our food costs astronomically.

 

Honestly, who wins in this scenario?

 

There is so much more to write on this subject, and even more we have yet to learn, but I will stop here and leave you with what you can do to help yourself and the world around you:

 

  1. Buy organic foods when you can to avoid pesticide exposure.
  2. Stay away from the foods that you know are genetically modified in abundance (mainly processed foods that contain corn, soy, wheat, sugar, canola and cottonseed oils).
  3. Help lobby for GMO labeling on foods so we at least have the right to know what is in what we eat.
  4. Save the bees! Support beekeepers by buying local raw honey. Here are 10 other easy ways, especially if you have a green thumb.

 

As the title of this post asks, are we the next dinosaurs? Is our world’s population set to become diseased and eventually extinct? To me, it is truly mind blowing that billions of dollars are being “invested” in warding off global warming when the disastrous (and preventable) effects of GMOs are taking place right under our government’s nose. People are feverishly concerned about a climate catastrophe being the end of our species like it was for the dinosaurs. Worried about the poles melting and leaving us all under water? As you can see, my friends, we are already drowning.

 

If you’re interested in receiving emails when I write new posts, please subscribe in the box provided. Have a great weekend, everyone!

 

References:

Samsel, A.; Seneff, S. Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases. Entropy 2013, 15, 1416-63.

Fagan J, Antoniou M, Robinson C. GMO Myths and Truths. 2014.

Why Djokovic Is My 2014 US Open Hopeful – Yes, This Is Still A Health Blog

GTY 454582354 S SPO TEN GSE USA NY

US Open, Flushing, New York. September 2014.

 

My pick for any Grand Slam is easily and always my boyfriend, Rafael Nadal. However, since he pulled out of the tournament this year due to a wrist injury, I had to feel out the other competitors to see who I wanted to get behind.

 

It was an absolutely gorgeous day at the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center yesterday. I walked around the grounds in Flushing to check out some of the rising young junior talent on the side courts, as well as the mature veterans battle it out in Arthur Ashe during the Quarterfinals.

 

Aside from the heart they bled out on the courts, I couldn’t help but gape in wonderment at their physiques, energy, and stamina in the sticky NYC heat and the blaring sunlight that reflected a blue tint on their faces from the court surface . . . as I sat there a sweaty mess debating if it was too far of a walk to get the $7 Evian face mist to keep me from falling into heat stroke.

 

So, with the Murray v. Djokovic match taking place later that night, and with Novak having just won Wimbledon, I admit I was rooting for Murray to advance to the Semis. However, once the second tie-breaker was done and seeing Djokovic wipe the court with Murray in the third and fourth sets, I have set my sights on a new man – Nole!

 

You don’t have to be a tennis fan to be truly amazed at his performance and conditioning. However, if you were watching the same match five years ago, the outcome probably would have been different. Why? Because Djokovic wasn’t gluten-free!

 

You ask, how does being gluten-free have anything to do with tennis? Well, prior to changing his diet and eliminating gluten-containing foods, Novak thought his career and success were fleeting. He didn’t even think he belonged on the same court as his opponents. He was plagued constantly by chest pain, stomach spasms, asthma, injuries, and fatigue. He could not depend on his body to provide the consistent, healthy performance for which he tirelessly trained. Just as he was rising to the top of his game, symptoms that anyone would attribute to physical exhaustion and the stress and rigor of a professional athlete’s lifestyle would pull him right back down. But, those factors weren’t the cause – gluten was.

 

In his book, Serve to Win: The 14-Day Gluten-Free Plan for Physical and Mental Excellence, Djokovic explained, “There was something about me that was broken, unhealthy, unfit. Some called it allergies, some called it asthma, some just called it being out of shape, but no matter what we called it, no one knew how to fix it.”

 

Sound familiar? In fact, most people suffer with symptoms like this for years without a doctor even thinking to look at food intolerances or digestive issues. Luckily, mainstream practitioners are even catching on and accepting this as truth today.

 

So, why would avoiding gluten (or other allergens) make such a difference in his tennis game? Or in anyone’s health? Let me break it down for you.

 

Did you know that 80% of your immune system resides in your gut? Eighty percent. That’s a lot, no? You have what are called Peyer’s patches, which are small regions of lymphatic tissue, that are woven throughout the lining of the small intestine. They form an integral part of the immune system by monitoring the food that comes through your digestive system for any harmful bacteria. Say if you eat some produce that inevitably has bacteria on it from the soil, or a piece of chicken that is not 100% fresh, Peyer’s patches will sense this and trigger the immune system to create pathogen-specific antibodies to target that bacteria and kill it before it can go anywhere in the body outside of the gut and make you very sick.

 

Now, how does a food intolerance occur? Well, the diet most Americans (and I guess, Serbians) eat tremendously damages the lining of the small intestine in which the Peyer’s patches do their work. Normally, when the lining is healthy, smooth and in tact, nothing slips through the cracks and reaches the patches other than microscopic bacteria.

 

However, with a damaged gut… gaps, holes, and tears start to develop and then pieces of digested food can slip down to the patches. Once this happens – Game, Set, Match: Allergen.

 

Your immune system then starts making antibodies that are now food-specific (remember, they are supposed to be pathogen-specific). Your body now sees that particular food protein in the same way it saw that harmful bacteria riding down on that piece of spinach. So, if you eat this food regularly, your immune system thinks it constantly needs to make antibodies. It then doesn’t know which end is up and starts to not only attack the food, but healthy tissues that were minding their own business, as well. This leads to systemic inflammation – something I’m sure athletes and their trainers do not want for themselves. In Nole’s case, inflammation manifested itself in the forms of asthma, sinus issues, fatigue, constant injuries, and terrible mood swings on the court.

 

By avoiding the perpetrators, Peyer’s patches can take a breather, and you can allow your gut and immune system to relax, heal, and do their normal jobs correctly – not work overtime or fulfill someone else’s responsibilities. See, everybody should have a mandatory two week vacation – not just people in Finance.

 

So, in essence, if you let your gut heal completely (which can take up to two years), and then adapt to an ideal diet, you should be able to eat those foods again. In essence. You should know by now that things aren’t ever this simple.

 

There are other things that irritate and damage the gut lining aside from gluten and other allergens: sugar, stress, alcohol, artificial sweeteners, pollutants in tap water, preservatives, unhealthy oils, heavy metals, grains, unsoaked/unsprouted seeds and nuts, excessive amounts of starches, too much fiber, lack of sleep, eating in an unrelaxed state of mind, etc. The list goes on.

 

This is why it is so important to adopt a consistently healthy, balanced, varied, clean diet so that you are not bombarding your body with things that it has to work hard to overcome. If you give it the fuel it needs to a greater extent than the things that will damage it, you tip the scales in good health’s favor.

 

If you are thinking of doing an elimination diet, here are my recommendations:

First and foremost, work with an experienced health practitioner who specializes in this. I wouldn’t try it on your own, as you could be missing a link. Naturopaths, Chiropractors, and Clinical Nutritionists are your best bet. They also have access to the best types of allergy tests that your insurance can cover and will capture everything you need to know before you get started.

Avoid the foods to which you are highly allergic completely, 100%, for a few months. Then ask yourself if you are noticing a difference after about four months. Any difference is progress in the right direction.

Avoid common irritants (gluten, dairy, corn, soy, peanuts) as much as you can during this time as well. If they’re not on your high allergen list, it’s okay if you slip up on occasion. You will definitely notice a difference with this step.

Rebuild your gut lining through fermented foods (kombucha, kimchi, sauerkraut, kefir), bone broths, and gut-building supplements that a practitioner could recommend. I wouldn’t go out and buy any probiotic or glycine, etc. in a health food store. It could be unnecessary and a waste of money if you don’t know what to target. Practitioners also have access to the most effective, cleanest supplements.

Maintain a healthy diet and stress level as much as you can. You don’t have to be nuts or stringent about it, but it should be a lifestyle choice. You will undoubtedly notice a long-term difference with this step.

 

And until Rafa’s back, LET’S GO NOLE!!!

 

Thanks for reading. Please feel free to message me if you want to hear more or less about topics I’m covering – I’m open to suggestions!