Should I Get a Flu Shot?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in current health articles, Drugs and Health, Health Current Events, Healthy Lifestyle

The Truth About About Flu Shots That Nobody Else Is Telling You

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 should I get flu shot

It is flu season again, and the annual debate about whether everyone should get a flu shot is heating up. On the one hand we are told that the flu shot saves thousands of lives and everyone should be vaccinated. On the other hand we are being told that the flu shot is deadly and we should avoid it. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.

When you examine the scientific literature it is clear that:

  1. The risks of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated.
  2. The benefits of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated.
  3. The medical profession has not leveled with us about the real reason they recommend that everyone get a flu shot.

Flu Shot Side Effects

The greatest fear of vaccination and therefor flu shot side effects for children has been the claim that the flu vaccine causes autism. It is easy to understand how the hypothesis arose that vaccinations and autism might be linked, because the first symptoms of autism usually appear around the time that children are completing their initial series of vaccinations.

However, clinical research has not substantiated that any causal relationship between vaccinations and autism. It isn’t that scientist haven’t looked. A number of clinical studies have looked for a link between vaccinations and autism and have failed to find any. The age of onset and prevalence of autism are virtually identical in vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

However, most vaccines still contain mercury, and mercury is a neurotoxin. So if you are getting your child vaccinated, I recommend that you insist on getting a mercury free vaccine. You may want to inquire about the preservatives and additives in the flu vaccine as well, because some of them are also toxic.

Beyond that the biggest concerns are severe allergic reactions and an autoimmune response called Guillian-Barré syndrome which causes symptoms ranging from muscle weakness and fatigue to partial paralysis. These side effects are real and they are serious, but they are also quite rare. They affect somewhere between 1 in a million to 1 in 100,000 children, depending on the vaccine.

In short, flu shot side effects risks are real, but they have been greatly exaggerated by some in the media.

Let’s Talk Science

It turns out that the benefits of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated by health professionals and the media as well. However, to properly understand why the messages you hear are a bit misleading you need to understand some scientific jargon, namely the difference between relative risk and absolute risk.

Relative risk describes the effect of an intervention for people with a certain condition. In this case, relative risk would be the effect of the flu shot (intervention) for people who have been infected with the flu virus (condition). Relative risk is often used in media reports because it magnifies the effect of the intervention. In short, it makes the intervention look really good.

Absolute risk describes the effect of an intervention on the probability that you will develop a certain condition. In this case absolute risk would be the effect of the flu shot on you actually getting the flu. Since this takes into account your probability of being infected by the flu virus as well as the relative risk reduction once you have become infected, it is a much smaller number. Absolute risk is a much better measure of the actual benefit you can expect to receive.

 

Is The Flu Shot Effective?

flu shot side effectsThere is always year to year variation in the severity of the flu and the effectiveness of flu vaccines. In addition, many other viruses that cause flu-like symptoms and are completely unaffected by the flu vaccine.

For example, both enterovirus D68 and the Ebola virus are in the headlines – enterovirus D68 because it has hospitalized so many kids this fall and Ebola virus because it is so deadly. Unfortunately, the flu vaccine has no efficacy against either of those viruses.

In addition, there is also significant variation in both the efficacy and evidence for efficacy in different population groups that is generally not acknowledged during the annual campaigns recommending that everyone should get a flu shot. To better understand that we need to look at the efficacy of the flu shot in each population group individually.

 

Is The Flu Shot Effective in Children Age 6 Months To 2 Years?

In 2010, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices began recommending flu vaccination for all healthy children older than 6 months. However, in 2012 the Cochrane Collaboration conducted a systematic review of all published clinical studies and concluded that for children in that age group currently licensed flu vaccines “are not significantly more effective than placebo”. [To fully understand the significance of that statement you need to know that the Cochrane Collaboration is an independent, non-profit organization that promotes evidence-based medicine. In fact, in the medical community Cochrane Collaboration systematic reviews are considered to be the gold standard for evidence based medicine.]

Summary: This is one of the groups at greatest risk for developing severe complications to the flu, so it is disappointing that the flu vaccine is not more effective for this group. I will talk about the best way to protect this group below.

Is The Flu Shot Safe & Effective in Healthy Children Age 2 To 7 Years?

This is the age group for which immunization makes the greatest sense, and the nasal spray gives the best results for this group. According to the 2012 Cochrane Collaboration review the flu shot reduces the relative risk of the flu by 48% and the nasal spray with attenuated live virus reduces the relative risk by 83%.

Since around 16% of unvaccinated children catch the flu in an average year this translates to an absolute risk reduction of 3.6% for the flu shot and 17% for the nasal spray. That is a smaller number, but still significant. This, of course, varies from year to year dependent on how well the vaccine matches the strains of virus that are actually circulating through the population.

Summary: The science behind vaccination for this group has shifted significantly in the past few years. The evidence for the efficacy of the flu shot in this age group has increased while the evidence for harm has deceased. The fear of the flu shot causing autism has been largely disproven by recent clinical studies. That leaves severe allergic reactions and the Guillian-Barré syndrome as the major complications of the flu vaccination.

Proponents of the flu vaccinations have estimated that if all children in this age range were vaccinated, around 200 would develop severe complications to the flu shot, and if all children in this age range were unvaccinated 20,000 would develop severe complications from the flu. I have not been able to independently substantiate those statistics. We also need to keep in mind that in those rare years, such as during the 1976 swine flu epidemic, when approximately 1 in 100,000 vaccinated children developed Guillian-Barré syndrome the incidence of severe complications to the flu shot could have reached the 2-3,000 range if the vaccination program had not been terminated early.

I realize that this is an emotional issue for parents, and there is no perfect answer. However, at present the weight of evidence is slightly in favor of vaccination for this age group.

 

Is The Flu Shot Effective in Healthy Children Age 8 To 18 Years?

According to a recent meta-analysis of all available clinical studies (Oosterholm et al, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 12: 36-44, 2012), we simply don’t know whether the flu vaccine will be effective in this age group because no reliable studies have been conducted.

Even worse than that, we may never know whether the flu shot offers any protection for this age group because of a Catch 22 situation in modern clinical research. Once a particular treatment becomes “the standard of care” it is considered unethical to withhold that treatment in a clinical trial. Since the CDC is now recommending the flu shot for everyone over age 2, it would be considered unethical to conduct a clinical trial in which half the population received flu shots and half did not.

Summary: I suspect that the flu shot may offer some protection in this age group, but there is no convincing clinical evidence to support that belief at present and for the foreseeable future.

 

Is The Flu Shot Effective in Healthy Adults Age 18 To 65 Years?

is flu shot effectiveHere the answer is yes. According to a 2012 meta-analysis of 31 published clinical studies (Oosterholm et al, The Lancet Infectious Diseases) the flu shot gives an impressive 75% reduction in the relative risk of catching the flu. However, in an average year only 4% of this population will catch the flu if unvaccinated, so the absolute risk reduction is a modest 3%.

This is also the group that has the least to fear from the flu. Only about 1 in 100 people in this age range develop severe complications as a result of getting the flu, and these are usually the people with severe diseases and/or compromised immune systems. For most healthy adults in this age range, the flu is merely a one or two day inconvenience.

Summary: For healthy adults in this age range the flu vaccine offers only a modest decrease in the absolute risk of catching the flu, and this group has a relatively low risk of developing severe complications from the flu. If the self interest of this group were the only consideration, it is hard to understand the insistence of the medical community that everyone in this age range get a flu shot. It would appear to be a matter of personal choice.

 

Is The Flu Shot Effective in Seniors Age 65 And Older?

Flu shot proponents will tell you that flu shots cut the risk of death in this group by 50% based on a meta-analysis published in 2002 (Vu et al, Vaccine, 20: 1831-1836, 2002).

However, more recent research has come to the opposite conclusion. A recent meta-analysis (Oosterholm et al, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 12: 36-44, 2012) concluded “Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking”. The 2010 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review concluded “Due to the poor quality of available evidence, any conclusions regarding the affects of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older cannot be drawn.”

The lack of protection of the flu virus in seniors is most likely due to the fact that, in many cases, their immune systems have weakened with age.

Summary: This is another group where you would most like to see protection by the flu shot, because this group is likely to suffer severe complications and death from the flu, so it is disappointing that the flu vaccine is not more effective for this group.

 

Who Has Most To Fear From The Flu?

flu shotWhen you hear that the flu shot significantly reduces the risk of severe complications and death from the flu, you should know that the risks are not spread evenly over the population. The very young are at risk because their immune systems haven’t fully developed. The very old are at risk because their immune systems have weakened with age and they may already be in precarious health because of other diseases. And, of course, anyone at any age who is in precarious health because of disease or who has a compromised immune system is at risk as well.

 

Why Do Health Professionals Recommend That Everyone Get A Flu Shot?

If you are a healthy adult in the 18-65 age range, your risk of severe complications and death is from the flu is very low. It is not zero, but it is low. So why are health professionals so insistent that you need to get a flu shot?

The reason is straight forward, but it is not the reason that they are giving you. It is a public health measure, pure and simple.

The very young, the very old, the sick and the infirm are the ones most likely to develop severe complications and die from a flu infection. However, the flu shot doesn’t offer them much protection because their immune systems are often compromised. The best way to protect those groups is to immunize everyone else. If the flu virus can’t gain a foothold in the rest of the population, those at greatest risk will never be exposed to the flu.

So the constant warnings that you need to get a flu shot is less about protecting you than it is about protecting those whom you might infect. Now you know the truth. If you decide to get a flu shot it will be for the right reason, not the reason you are being given by the medical profession.

In a similar vein, many health departments are warning about hospitalizations and deaths from enterovirus D68 infections and urging people to get flu shots. They are not telling people that the flu shot has no efficacy against enterovirus D68.

I understand the concept that the rare combination of the regular flu and enterovirus D68 infection in the same patient would be particularly deadly. But, I also believe in truth in advertising. The medical profession needs to level with people about why they are recommending flu shots, not use scare tactics that make promises the flu shot can’t deliver.

 

Should I Get A Flu Shot?

As you can see, your decision about whether or not the flu shot is the right thing for you is not an easy one. Both the benefits and risks of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated in the media. I have tried not to be an advocate either for or against flu vaccinations. I have evaluated the scientific literature and tried to give you the unvarnished truth. It is now up to you to make an educated decision – one that is right for you.

My personal decision about the flu shot is influenced by my father’s example. He dutifully got his flu shot every year, and every year he came down with the flu shortly after getting the flu shot. I’ve seen the same phenomenon with several of my friends who work at area hospitals and are required to get an annual flu shot. I know that the experts claim you can’t get the flu from the flu shot. I don’t know about that. I only know what I have observed.

In addition, I do not have young children or elderly parents at home who might be compromised if I were to develop even a mild case of the flu. So I chose to follow the kind of lifestyle that keeps my immune system strong rather than relying on a flu shot to protect me from the flu. That immune-healthy lifestyle, of course, will be a topic for a future “Health Tips From the Professor”.

 

The Bottom Line:

  1. Both the effectiveness and risks of the flu shot have been greatly exaggerated.
  2. The flu shot has no proven effectiveness in children ages 6 months to 2 years, children aged 8-18 years and seniors 65 years and older.
  3. In children, aged 2 to 7, nasal sprays with partially inactive flu virus give a 17% decrease in absolute risk of catching the flu. Side effects of the flu vaccine in this population group are severe allergic reactions and an autoimmune response called Guillian-Barré syndrome. Both severe complications from the flu virus and side effects of the flu vaccine are very rare, but complications from the flu virus are several fold more common than side effects from the vaccine.
  4. Fears that the flu vaccine could trigger autism have not been validated by clinical studies. However, mercury is a neurotoxin so I recommend that you insist on mercury-free vaccines for your children. You may also wish to inquire about other preservatives and additives in the vaccine, because some of them are toxic.
  5. In healthy adults, aged 18 to 65, flu shots give a 3% decrease in absolute risk of catching the flu. This is also the population group with the lowest risk of severe complications from the flu. For most adults in this age group the flu is nothing more than a one or two day inconvenience.
  6. The groups most likely to develop severe complications and die from flu infections are the very young, the very old, and the sick. They are also the groups least likely to benefit from the flu shot because their immune systems are weak.
  7. If you are a healthy adult in the 18 to 65 age group, the constant warnings that you need to get a flu shot is less about protecting you than it is about protecting those whom you might infect if you catch the flu. It is a public health measure to protect the very young, the very old, and the sick. Now you know the truth. If you decide to get a flu shot it will be for the right reason, not the reason you have been given by the health profession.
  8. In addition, the flu shot has no efficacy against either enterovirus D68 or Ebola virus. Although both of these viruses are real concerns, neither is a justification for recommending that people get flu shots.
  9. As for me, I am influenced by the example of my father who got the flu from the flu shot every year. I chose to follow the kind of lifestyle that keeps my immune system strong rather than relying on a flu shot to protect me from the flu. That, of course, will be a topic for a future “Health Tips From the Professor”.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (10)

  • Leslie Ann Johnson

    |

    Exactly what I was looking for! The truth about the Flu shot from a reputable source! Now I feel like I can make my decision based on the facts, and not the hype from media. Thank you, Dr. Chaney!

    Reply

  • Karen Hux

    |

    Dr. Chaney,

    I am 63 years old, work full time in a school, and my 89 year old mother lives with my husband and me. Based on your excellent article, It sounds like it may be a good idea for my husband and me to continue getting flu shots for Mom’s protection rather than ours. Have I understood correctly?

    I understand your statements are not intended as medical advice.

    Thank you!
    Karen Hux (via my dear friend Billie Lane)

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Karen,

      I don’t want to give medical advice, but if I had an 89 year old mother living with me and her health were fragile, I would strongly consider a flu shot.

      Dr. Chaney

      Reply

  • Mary Mika

    |

    Very helpful information which I will share.

    Reply

  • Mary Ahrens

    |

    Just the facts man! I love it! Thank you Dr. Chaney for giving us information based on facts. That make sense!

    Reply

  • Kathy

    |

    Be careful! I got a flu shot October 14th, 2014. The pharmacist shot it into my bursa instead of my muscle. Make SURE they do not put it too high on your shoulder. I am still in pain a month later. I think the flu would be better.

    Reply

  • Opal Hernandez

    |

    Thanks, you always tell it like it is! my husband, 85, and I, 76, haven’t had a flu shot in about 15 years, no flu, either. i strongly believe in doing everything I can to have a strong immune system.
    however, we do get the pneumonia shot, I have a history of pneumonia and thought it might be best. do you think it wise?

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Opal,
      I am a bit reluctant to weigh in on that question. We normally develop immunity to diseases that we have had recently. If you have had pneumonia recently, I’m not sure what the additional benefit of a pneumonia shot would be. I’ll have to research that question. Perhaps it could be a topic for a future “Health Tips From the Professor”.
      Dr. Chaney

      Reply

  • Robbie

    |

    Dr. Chaney with all the issues with ongoing vaccines the ingredients alone in these vaccines are very toxic, why would anyone take them at all?

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Robbie,
      There are benefits to the flu vaccine for some people, but those benefits have been oversold by the health industry. I tried to give a balanced overview of the benefits and risks of the flu vaccine in my article in “Health Tips From the Professor”
      Dr. Chaney

      Reply

Leave a comment

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

What Is The Best Diet For You?

Posted May 23, 2017 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Sorting Through The Dueling Diets

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

battle over best dietDiets are a lot like politics in today’s world. Everyone is absolutely convinced their diet is the best and absolutely convinced the other diets are terrible.

Remember the nursery rhyme: “Jack Sprat could eat no fat. His wife could eat no lean…”? Today’s diets remind me of that. They run the gamut from no fat to no carbohydrates. Surely, both extremes couldn’t be healthy. Or could they?

Some diets eliminate whole food groups. That couldn’t be a good thing. Or, could it?

So, what is the best diet for you?

In today’s article, I will give you the pros and cons of these dueling diets. Before I do that, however, let me give you some principles to put things into perspective.

General Principles For Evaluating Diets

How do you sort out the claims and counterclaims associated with the various diets? More importantly, how do you know which of the claims are true and which are misleading? Here are some general principles to help you separate the wheat from the chaff.  What’s the right diet for you?

We are omnivores. We can adapt to a wide variety of diets and do reasonably well. That means most people will do well on any of these diets short term.

wings proteinAnything is better than the standard American diet (SAD). It is high in sugar and refined carbohydrates. It is also high in saturated and trans fats. That is why proponents of every diet can claim that you will feel better and be healthier when you switch to their diet.

Processed and convenience foods are part of the problem. Most diets recommend “clean eating” (elimination of processed and convenience foods). Any diet that eliminates processed and convenience foods is likely to help you lose weight and get healthier. Caution: As soon as a diet becomes popular, food manufacturers rush in to provide pre-packaged, convenience foods to support that diet. Avoid the temptation to use those foods. Big Food Inc. does not have your best interests in mind. They are not your friends.

Most diets lead to a fairly rapid initial weight loss. This is because they restrict food choices and eliminate processed foods. When you eliminate familiar foods from someone’s diet, they instinctively eat less without even thinking about it. This rapid initial weight loss is part of the allure of almost every diet program. However, over time most people start adding back some of their favorite foods or find new foods they like, and the weight comes back.

Weight loss leads to improved blood parameters irrespective of diet composition. That is why every diet, no matter how bizarre, can claim it lowers your blood pressure, improves your blood sugar, lowers your cholesterol, and lowers your triglycerides.

Long term weight loss is virtually identical on every diet. Numerous clinical studies have compared long term weight loss on low fat diets, low carbohydrate diets, and virtually everything in between. Initial weight loss is more rapid on the low-carbohydrate diets. However, at the end of one or two years there is not a dime’s worth of difference in weight loss between any of the diets. The exception is the Vegan diet. Long term Vegans typically weigh less than their meat-eating counterparts, probably because the foods in the Vegan diet have low caloric density (fewer calories per serving).

Healthy carbs and healthy fats are more important than low carb or low fat diets. Ignore the claims and counter claims about low fat and low carb diets. Focus instead on diets that provide moderate amounts of whole grains instead of refined grains & sugar. Also focus on diets that provide moderate amounts of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, especially the omega-3 polyunsaturated fats, instead of saturated and trans fats.

Focus on well balanced meals rather than individual foods. For example, moderate amounts of healthy carbohydrates will have relatively little effect on blood sugar and triglyceride levels as part of a plant-based meal that provides plenty of fiber and protein. However, those same carbohydrate-rich foods by themselves may cause a spike in both blood sugar and triglycerides.

best diet for youPlant-based diets rule. The Ornish diet (a very restrictive form of the Vegan diet) is the only diet that has been shown to reverse atherosclerosis in some people. The Vegan diet and the Mediterranean diet, which is largely plant-based, have been shown to be healthy long term. On the other hand, we simply don’t know whether low carbohydrate diets are healthy long term. Those clinical studies have not been done.

Saturated and trans fats are not your friends. They increase inflammation, which can have many serious long-term health consequences. In addition, the foods that are rich in saturated fats are often acid-forming foods, which can upset your acid-base balance.

We have 5 food groups for a reason. Each food group provides valuable nutrients (vitamins a & minerals) and phytonutrients. You may be able to replace the missing nutrients with supplementation, but you are unlikely to replace the phytonutrients with supplements – even those supplements that claim to be made from whole foods. You should be concerned about the long-term health consequences of any diet that eliminates whole food groups.

Low fat diets aren’t necessarily healthy. Whole food, low-fat diets like the Vegan diet are extremely healthy. However, as soon as health experts started recommending low-fat diets, Big Food Inc. stepped in to offer convenient low fat options. They simply replaced the fat with refined carbohydrates, sugar, and a witch’s brew of chemicals (Remember the part about Big Food Inc. not being your friend?). As a result, the low-fat diet consumed by most Americans is anything but healthy.

The supposed advantages of low carbohydrate diets are misleading. Low carbohydrate diets look very good when you compare them to the Big Food Inc version of the low-fat diet. However, when you compare them to something like the Vegan diet the advantages disappear.

Avoid sugar-sweetened and diet beverages. This should go without saying. Choose water instead. Add carbonation and/or a little lemon or lime juice for flavoring if necessary. Fortunately, most of the major diets exclude sugar-sweetened and diet beverages.

 

The Pros and Cons Of The Major Diets

It is not possible to cover each diet in depth in a single article, so this is meant to be a very brief overview of the major diets.

Low Fat Diets

The Dean Ornish Diet. This is a variation of the Vegan Diet that eliminates all oils, even vegetable oil.

Pros:

  • Whole food, plant-based diet.
  • All the advantages of the Vegan diet, plus it is the only diet shown to reverse atherosclerosis.

Cons:

  • Very restrictive.
  • Long-term adherence is low.

 

vegetablesThe Vegan Diet. This is a whole food, plant based diet. It uses plant proteins instead of meat and plant substitutes for dairy and eggs.

Pros:

  • Whole food, plant-based diet.
  • Associated with lower blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, triglycerides, and inflammation.
  • Clinical studies show that the onset of major diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes are delayed by at least 5-10 years. People on this diet live healthier, longer.

Cons:

  • Long-term adherence is relatively low, but some people stick with this diet for a lifetime.

 

Healthy Fat, Healthy Carb Diets

The Mediterranean Diet. This diet emphasizes fresh fruits & vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, seeds, legumes and olive oil. It includes cheese, poultry and eggs in moderation.

whole food dietPros:

Cons:

  • Not designed specifically for weight loss. You will need to watch portion sizes and track calories if you want to lose weight on this diet.

 

The DASH Diet. This diet was specifically designed to help reduce the risk of hypertension and stroke. It is similar to the Mediterranean diet except that it restricts sodium and includes a wider range of lean meats and low-fat dairy products. It does not specifically include olive oil.

Pros:

  • Whole food diet.
  • Clinically proven to lower blood pressure  as effectively as some blood pressure medications.
  • Relatively easy to follow. Includes foods familiar to Americans.

Cons:

  • Not designed specifically for weight loss. You will need to watch portion sizes and track calories if you want to lose weight on this diet.

 

Low Carb Diets

meat protein dietThe Paleo Diet. The Paleo diet is supposedly based on the diet of our paleolithic hunter-gatherer ancestors. The diet is high in protein & fat, and low in carbohydrates. The diet eliminates grains, sugars, refined oils, dairy, legumes, and starchy fruits & vegetables. Most of the protein comes from meats, but the animals must be grass-fed. This reduces, but does not eliminate, saturated fat and gives a modest increase in omega-3 polyunsaturated fat. Thus, the meats included in this diet are healthier than the meats in other low carbohydrate diets. However, it does not turn red meats into health foods.

Anthropologists tell us that the premise of the Paleo diet is faulty. The diet of our paleolithic ancestors was highly dependent on the foods available in their environment. Some were hunters and gatherers. Others lived in areas where fruits & vegetables were prevalent and game was scarcer. Still others lived in areas where starchy root vegetables were an important part of their diet. Furthermore, the enzymes required for digestion of starches are inducible. We can easily adapt to the introduction of grains into our diet.

Pros:

  • Whole food diet.
  • The Paleo diet is associated with several short-term benefits including weight loss, improved blood sugar control and reduced cholesterol, triglycerides & blood pressure.

Cons:

The Atkins Diet. The Atkins diet is the granddaddy of the low-fat diets. It is a very low carbohydrate diet that restricts sugars, grains, high carbohydrate fruits and vegetables. The allure of the diet is that it includes as much fatty meats and saturated fats as you want.

Pros:

  • The Atkins diet is associated with several short-term benefits including weight loss, improved blood sugar control and reduced cholesterol, triglycerides & blood pressure.

Cons:

  • There are no studies evaluating the long-term benefits and risks of the Atkins diet.
  • Weight loss at the end of one or two years is no better than for the low-fat diets.
  • The high intake of saturated fat has the potential to increase the risk of heart disease and cancer.
  • It is a very restrictive diet. Long-term adherence to this diet is poor.

The Ketogenic Diet. The Ketogenic diet is even more restrictive than the Atkins diet. I have covered the pros and cons of the Ketogenic diet in a recent post, so I will refer you to that article, Is the Ketogenic Diet Safe for details. In short, the Ketogenic diet has some short-term benefits and some potential long-term risks. Ketone supplements mimic some, but not all, of the short-term benefits of the Ketogenic diet. Their long-term health risks are unknown.

 

What Is The Best Diet For You?

what diet is right for youWe are all different, so there is no perfect diet for everyone. Want to know how to find a diet that works for you?  Here are some things to think about.

  • If you are like most Americans, almost any of these diets is better than your current diet.
  • The good thing about all the diets reviewed in this article is:
    • They replace refined carbohydrates & sugars with healthier alternatives (The best of the diets also replace saturated & trans fats with healthier alternatives).
    • They emphasize whole foods rather than processed and convenience foods.
    • They eliminate sugar-sweetened and diet beverages.
    • They emphasize fresh vegetables and most include fresh fruit.
  • If you are looking for rapid initial weight loss:
    • The very restrictive diets at either extreme (very low fat or very low carb) are best because they eliminate familiar foods from the diet.
    • The very low carb diets are slightly more effective than low fat diets initially because of water loss, but weight loss on most low carb and low fat diets is identical after 1-2 years.
    • Because both the Mediterranean and DASH diets involve many familiar foods, you will need to pay more attention to portion sizes and total calories on these diets if your primary goal is to lose weight.
  • If you are looking for long term weight control, the Vegan diet is best, probably because most foods in the Vegan diet have low caloric density. Multiple studies have shown that Vegans weigh less than their meat-eating counterparts.
  • If you are looking for long term health benefits:
    • The Vegan and Mediterranean diets are clearly your best choices. They are backed by multiple clinical studies showing they reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, dementia and other diseases.
    • The DASH diet is probably equally healthy. However, because it was designed to control blood pressure, most clinical studies have focused only on how well it reduces blood pressure.
    • There is no evidence that the low carb diets have any long-term health benefits, and there is reason to suspect they may have some long-term health risks.
  • I have serious concerns about long-term health risks for any diet that:
    • Eliminates whole food groups.
    • Is high in saturated and trans fats.
  • The effectiveness of any diet is dependent on how well you stick with it:
    • The long-term adherence to any of the very restrictive diets (either low carb or low fat) is low, although some people do stick with the Vegan diet for a lifetime.
    • Adherence is best with the Mediterranean and DASH diets, probably because many of the foods are familiar and readily available.

 

The Bottom Line

 

In this article I have reviewed the major low fat diets (the Dean Ornish diet and the Vegan diet), the major healthy carb, healthy fat diets (the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet), and the major low carb diets (the Paleo diet, the Atkins diet, and the Ketogenic diet). In summary:

 

  • If you are like most Americans, almost any of these diets is better than your current diet.
  • The good thing about all these diets is:
    • They replace refined carbohydrates & sugars with healthier alternatives (The best of the diets also replace saturated & trans fats with healthier alternatives).
    • They emphasize whole foods rather than processed and convenience foods.
    • They eliminate sugar-sweetened and diet beverages.
    • They emphasize fresh vegetables and most include fresh fruit.
  • If you are looking for rapid initial weight loss:
    • The very restrictive diets at either extreme (very low fat or very low carb) are best because they eliminate familiar foods from the diet.
    • The very low carb diets are slightly more effective than low fat diets initially because of water loss, but weight loss on most low carb and low fat diets is identical after 1-2 years.
    • Because both the Mediterranean and DASH diets involve many familiar foods, you will need to pay more attention to portion sizes and total calories on these diets if your primary goal is to lose weight.
  • If you are looking for long term weight control, the Vegan diet is best, probably because most foods in the Vegan diet have low caloric density. Multiple studies have shown that Vegans weigh less than their meat-eating counterparts.
  • If you are looking for long term health benefits:
    • The Vegan and Mediterranean diets are clearly your best choices. They are backed by multiple clinical studies showing they reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, dementia and other diseases.
    • The DASH diet is probably equally healthy. However, because it was designed to control blood pressure, most clinical studies have focused only on how well it reduces blood pressure.
    • There is no evidence that the low carb diets have any long-term health benefits, and there is reason to suspect they may have some long-term health risks.
  • I have serious concerns about long-term health risks for any diet that:
    • Eliminates whole food groups.
    • Is high in saturated and trans fats.
  • The effectiveness of any diet is dependent on how well you stick with it:
    • The long-term adherence to any of the very restrictive diets (either low carb or low fat) is low, although some people do stick with the Vegan diet for a lifetime.
    • Adherence is best with the Mediterranean and DASH diets, probably because many of the foods are familiar and readily available.
  • For more details, read the article above.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

UA-43257393-1