6 Tips For Choosing The Best Multivitamin Supplement

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in Multivitamin

Don’t Fall For Misleading Marketing Claims

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

best multivitamin supplementThere are lots of multivitamin-multimineral products in the marketplace. Every company must differentiate their product from the competition to win their market share. When that differentiation is based on quality, purity, and clinical proof the product works, I am all for it. May the best company win.  Many claim to offer the best multivitamin supplement.

However, the pressure to win market share is intense. Quality controls and clinical studies are expensive. All too often companies try to differentiate their multivitamin-multimineral products based on marketing hype and/or worthless ingredients that subtract money from your wallet without adding anything of value to your health.

With so many claims and counter claims in the marketplace, it has become almost impossible for the average consumer to know which claims are true and which are false. Everyone wants to get the best multivitamin-multimineral for their health at the least possible cost. Perhaps that is why I am so frequently asked for guidance on how to choose the best multivitamin supplement.

In this week’s article, I will give you 6 tips you can use to select the multivitamin-multimineral product that is best for you. I will tell you what to look for in a good multivitamin and which marketing claims you should just ignore.

How Are Nutritional Standards Set?

The standards for nutritional supplements are set in a two-step process.

Step 1: In the first step, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies of Sciences selects a committee of experts called the Food and Nutrition Board to set standards for a specific set of nutrients. They set 3 kinds of standards:

  • Recommended Dietary Allowances or RDAs are the average daily dietary intake level sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97-98 percent) healthy individuals in a group.
  • Adequate Intakes or AIs are established when evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and are set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy.
  • Where toxicity is a potential concern, Tolerable Upper Limits or ULs represent the maximum daily intake unlikely to cause adverse health effects.
  • Just to confuse things, all three standards are all part of what is called Dietary Reference Intakes or DRIs.

Step 2: The DRIs are specific for age, gender, pregnancy & lactation. It would be hopelessly complicated to use DRIs for the nutrition labels on foods and supplements. Therefore, the FDA sets a Daily Value (DV) for the purposes of food and supplement labeling. Originally, DVs were set based on the highest DRI for a specific nutrient. However, the FDA has recently devised a new set of DV standards that will be appearing on food and supplement labels between now and July 26, 2018.

How to Choose the Best Multivitamin Supplement

nutritional supplement#1: Good Product Design Still Matters

Comparing nutrition labels on multivitamin-multimineral supplements can be tricky. Some supplements only provide 5-10% the Daily Value (DV) for some nutrients. Are those nutrients unimportant? Some supplements provide hundreds or thousands % of the DV for other nutrients. Is more better?

Often companies will quote some random scientist or one or two clinical studies to support the mix of nutrients they include in their multivitamin-multimineral supplement. Don’t fall for their marketing hype.

The only valid nutritional standards for multivitamin-multimineral products in the United States are set by the Food & Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine. They are the standards you should look for in evaluating nutrition labels.

That’s because the National Academies of Sciences is the real deal. The National Academies represents the top 1-2% of scientists in the country. To be selected to the National Academies you must be nominated by an Academy member, and voted on by the entire Academy. Selection is based on your research contributions over decades. (No, I am not a member of the Academy, but thanks for thinking that question).

The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences selects the best of the best to serve on the Food and Nutrition Board. They are world renowned experts who review all the pertinent literature (not just one or two studies). They decide on which nutrients are essential and how much of them we need.

It always amazes me that some companies pretend they know more than the Food and Nutrition Board. It amazes me even more that some people believe those companies.

With that in mind, this is what to look for when comparing nutrition labels and trying to choose the best multivitamin supplement:

  • The FDA has set Daily Value (DV) recommendations for 24 vitamins and minerals (23 if the supplement is for adult men or postmenopausal women and does not contain iron). Make sure your multivitamin-multimineral has all 24. Count them. If a company leaves out an essential nutrient, they are not required to list it on the label.
  • The Food and Nutrition Board has classified several other nutrients as essential, but does not feel there have been enough studies to establish a DRI. Without a DRI, the FDA cannot set a DV. Those nutrients are represented with a “dagger” symbol on the label with the footnote “Daily Value not established.”  These are useful additions to a multivitamin-multimineral supplement, provided they are not present in excess.
  • Ignore anything companies list on their nutrition labels that does not have a %DV value or a “dagger” symbol. This is often just marketing hype. In some cases, the ingredients have no proven benefit. In many other cases, it’s just not possible to put enough of them in a multivitamin-multimineral tablet to provide any real benefit.

vitmain and minerals#2: Look For Balance

This is another area in which we need to be guided by the recommendations of the Food and Nutrition Board of the IOM. One of the reasons many experts recommend that people get their vitamins and minerals from foods rather than from supplements is because many supplements are unbalanced. That’s a problem because there are many cases in which too much of one nutrient can interfere with the absorption or metabolism of related nutrients. For example,

  • Zinc and copper compete for absorption. For best absorption and maximal utilization by the body, the zinc to copper ratio should be close to 1:1 based on DV.
  • B vitamins should be in balance. Look for a multivitamin-multimineral supplement that provides 100-200% of the DV for all 8 essential B vitamins. (The levels can be higher in a B Complex supplement, but they should still be in balance.)

Some manufacturers will leave out the expensive B vitamins and load up on the cheap ones. This saves them money. It also allows them to use marketing terms like “mega” or “super.”  A supplement that provides 50% or less of the DV for some B vitamins and 1,000% or more of the DV for others is ridiculous. There is absolutely no rationale for a ratio like that except to mislead consumers.

  • As for the other nutrients in multivitamin-multimineral supplements, they should not be significantly below 50% or significantly above 250% of the DV.
  • Unfortunately, the new DVs will introduce some confusion when they start appearing on supplement labels. That’s because in some cases, the new DVs are significantly different than the RDAs established by the Institute of Medicine. I would not fault a company for basing their ingredient amounts based on RDA recommendation rather than DVs. However, there is no good rationale for providing 500% DV or more for any nutrient in a multivitamin-multimineral supplement.
  • Calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous are a special case. They are bulky, so many manufacturers only provide 5-10% of them in their multivitamin-multimineral supplements. This is not ideal because many of the nutrients in a multivitamin-multimineral supplement are required for optimal utilization of calcium and magnesium in bone formation.

Many Americans get only 50% of the DV for calcium and magnesium in their diet. Thus, it makes good sense to provide 30-50% of the DV for calcium and magnesium in a multivitamin multimineral supplement. Most Americans get close to the DV for phosphorous from their diet, so the amount of phosphorous in a supplement is not particularly important.

hype#3: Don’t Fall For The Hype

In their attempts to differentiate themselves, many companies claim that they use a more natural or a better utilized form of the vitamin or mineral than their competitors. Ignore those claims. They are just marketing hype. For example,

  • In previous issues of “Health Tips From the Professor” I have debunked the claims that folate and methyl folate  are more natural, safer and more effective than folic acid. The claims that alternate chemical forms of other vitamins are more natural, safer, and more effective are equally bogus.
  • The claims by some manufacturers that they use a form of calcium that is more readily absorbed is not just misleading. It is the wrong question. Calcium in our bloodstream can do bad things (like calcification and hardening of the arteries) if it is not quickly utilized for bone formation.

Thus, the important question is how well the calcium is utilized for bone formation. Look for clinical studies showing that the calcium in their multivitamin-multimineral supplement is efficiently utilized for bone formation rather than hype about how quickly it gets into the bloodstream.

  • There is a good reason that many supplement companies continue to use ingredients like folic acid for B9, cyanocobalamin for B12, pyridoxine for B6, etc. All of them are supported by hundreds of clinical studies showing that they are safe and effective. I have no issue with companies choosing to use different forms of these vitamins. Just don’t fall for their hype that the forms they are using are somehow more natural, safer or more effective than the traditionally-used forms of the same vitamin.

buzz words#4: Don’t Fall For Buzz Words

Some manufacturers attempt to differentiate their products by claiming they are natural, organic, non-GMO, or are made from food. The companies are attaching buzz words to their product that they know resonate with the American people. Don’t believe them. Those claims are all bogus. They are marketing hype. For example,

  • There is no standard for “natural” so companies are not required to provide any evidence to back up their claim. If they claim that their product is natural, ask for a detailed list of the source and processing method for all their ingredients. If they are unwilling or unable to provide you with that information, don’t believe their claim of natural.
  • “Organic” certification for a supplement simply means that ingredients come from crops raised using organic methods. It is no guarantee of purity. Organically grown crops can still be contaminated if the air, soil or water is contaminated from any nearby pollution source. For example, ground water pollution is the major source of the heavy metal contamination often seen in rice-derived ingredients. It is far more important to select your supplement based on rigorous quality control standards that assure it is pure.
  • A “non-GMO” designation is useful for foods and for protein, but it is meaningless for the ingredients in a multivitamin-multimineral supplement. Those ingredients have been extensively purified. They contain no genetic information. They are chemically indistinguishable from purified ingredients obtained from GMO sources. If you would like more detailed information about the GMO controversy, I have provided a balanced perspective on GMO in a recent video.
  • Claims by some companies that their vitamins are derived from foods are completely bogus. That is a physical impossibility. For example, let’s look at what it would take to provide the DV for just 3 of the nutrients in a single multivitamin pill, assuming they started with the best food sources of those 3 nutrients:
  • It would take 1 cup of cooked lentils, 2 cups of cooked spinach, or 4 cups of cooked broccoli to provide the DV for folic acid.
  • It would take 1 cup of sunflower seeds, 1.5 cups of pistachio nuts, or 7 ounces of cooked tuna to provide the DV for vitamin B6.
  • It would take 5 ounces of cooked chicken breast, 1 cup of peanuts, or 6 cups of green peas to provide the DV for niacin.

That’s just 3 nutrients and one multivitamin tablet. You do the math. If they will lie to you about their vitamins coming from foods, they will probably lie about other things as well.

#5: Don’t Fall For Scare Tactics

Some companies try to scare you into buying their products by claiming their competitors are using unsafe ingredients. These claims are usually bogus, but it is useful to understand where this misinformation comes from.

dark sideThere is a lot of unfounded hysteria on the internet about product ingredients. Much of this hysteria has been fueled by a few well-known bloggers. I believe their intentions were pure in the beginning. They started by warning the public about truly dangerous ingredients like artificial colors, flavors, preservatives and sweeteners.

However, blogging has a dark side. To capture a large audience, your blog posts need to be sensational every week. As the weeks go by it becomes harder and harder to find subject matter that is both sensational and accurate. That’s when some bloggers go over to “the dark side.”

They become more concerned about the size of their audience than the accuracy of the information they post. They start vilifying ingredients that are perfectly safe as long as the manufacturer purifies them correctly and tests them for purity. These are ingredients which might be of concern for products made by a company with poor quality controls, but pose no concern for products made by a company with high quality control standards. In other words, they should not be spreading hysteria about the ingredient. They should be focusing on some of the real quality control issues in our industry.

To help you sort through all the hysteria about product ingredients, I have previously published a two-part series on ingredients in which I sorted through the claims and divided common ingredients into the good, the bad, and the ugly.

clinically proven#6: Demand Proof

This is the most important tip of all. Many companies make wild claims about their products but feel no need to back up their claims. Ignore their hype and demand they give proof to back up their claims.

  • If they claim their products are pure, ask how many quality control tests they run on their products.
  • If they claim their products work, ask for proof. Ask for clinical studies:
    • That have been done with people, not with animals, cell culture, or test tubes*
    • That have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
    • That have been done with their product, not studies done with another product.

*Animal, cell culture and test tube studies are valid if they are used to identify a potential mechanism of action, but should not be cited as proof the product works. For ethical reasons, I prefer companies that do not use animal studies.

 

The Bottom Line: 6 Tips For Choosing The Best Multivitamin Supplement

 

Everyone would like to get the best multivitamin-multimineral for their health at the least possible cost. However, there are lots of multivitamin-multimineral products in the marketplace. The pressure to win market share is intense. Quality controls and clinical studies are expensive. All too often companies try to differentiate their multivitamin-multimineral products based on marketing hype.

With so many claims and counter claims in the marketplace, it has become almost impossible for the average consumer to know how to choose the best multivitamin-multimineral product. In this week’s article, I give you 6 tips you can use to select the best multivitamin supplement for you. I will tell you what to look for in a good multivitamin and which marketing claims you should just ignore.

  • Start with the nutrition label. A good multivitamin-multimineral supplement should contain all 24 essential nutrients recommended by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (23 if the supplement is without iron). Anything else is probably marketing hype.
  • Make sure the nutrients are in the correct balance. Again, your evaluation should be guided by the Institute of Medicine.
  • Don’t fall for the hype. Many companies claim that they use a more natural, safer, or better utilized form of the vitamin or mineral than their competitors. Ignore those claims. They are usually just marketing hype
  • Don’t fall for buzz words. Some companies attempt to differentiate their products by claiming they are natural, organic, non-GMO, or are made from food. The companies are attaching buzz words to their product that they know resonate with the American people. Don’t believe them. Those claims are all bogus. They do nothing to improve your health. They are marketing hype.
  • Don’t fall for scare tactics. Some companies try to scare you into buying their products by claiming their competitors are using unsafe ingredients. These claims are usually bogus.
  • Demand poof. This is the most important tip of all. Many companies make wild claims about their products but feel no need to back up their claims. Ignore their hype and demand they give proof to back up their claims.
  • If they claim their products are pure, ask how many quality control tests they run on their products.
  • If they claim their products work, ask for proof. Ask for clinical studies:
    • That have been done with people, not with animals, cell culture, or test tubes.
    • That have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
    • That have been done with their product, not studies done with another product.

For more details about each of those tips, 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.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (4)

  • Shirley Davis

    |

    Please put me on your mailing list for your “Health Tips From the Professor”. I use to be on this list but have not received any for a long time!

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Shirley,
      I have added you back to the “Health Tips From the Professor” subscription list as you requested. I have checked with the IT Gods, and it appears that the most likely cause of you being involuntarily “opted out” of the emails is that someone you forwarded the email to opted out. If they opt out, it also opts you out.
      If you want to avoid this problem, just send them the link that is included in each issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”. Click on the link yourself and then copy-paste the URL into an email to them along with a message as to why you are sending them the link.
      Dr. Chaney

      Reply

  • Lisa Smith

    |

    Hi Dr. Chaney. Thank you so much for speaking on the OPA call last night. I would love to subscribe to your newsletter if you would be so kind. Also, I have a question about this statement above:
    Claims by some companies that their vitamins are derived from foods
    are completely bogus. That is a physical impossibility.
    Shaklee vitamins are whole-food supplements right? So what does that mean?
    Thank you for clarification. Much appreciated. Lisa

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Lisa,
      This is something I addressed in one of my series of 6 Facebook Live videos giving a bit more detail about my “Choosing the Best Multivitamin” article. Basically, I have sympathy for people in the field. I don’t hold them responsible for this misconception. It originated long ago from some field person without any scientific background and has been repeated over and over long enough that it has become one of those nutrition “myths” I talk about. In fact, the term “whole-food supplement” is meaningless. There is no standard for whole-food supplement.
      However, I do have problems with companies that make those claims, because they know better. They are trying to deceive their customers. No reputable company makes that claim. Dr. Shaklee always said that he made his supplements “as natural as it was possible to make them”. Shaklee has stood by that claim. What that means is that Shaklee has a long list of ingredients they won’t use because they are not natural enough. It means that you won’t find any artificial sweeteners, colors, flavors or preservatives. It also means you will find bioflavonoids along with vitamin C, mixed tocopherols along with d-alpha-tocopherol, etc.
      I do not claim that Shaklee is the only company with those high standards. However, Shaklee has given me access to the list of ingredients they will not use (before you ask, I did not retain the list, and I don’t remember all the ingredients on the list. I was, however, impressed by it’s thoroughness.) Shaklee has given me access to their quality control specifications. I have spoken to Shaklee scientists. I can verify that their products are of the highest quality and as natural as possible. No other company has given me that kind of access, so I cannot compare other companies to Shaklee.
      Dr. Chaney

      Reply

Leave a comment

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

What Is The Planetary Diet?

Posted May 21, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Your Diet Destroying The Planet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

Earth Day has come and gone, but you are still committed to saving the planet. You save energy. You recycle. You drive an electric car. But is your diet destroying the planet?

This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019 ) serves as a dire warning of what will happen if we don’t change our ways. I touched on this report briefly in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor,” What Is The Flexitarian Diet , but this topic is important enough that it deserves an issue all its own.

The commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose diet.” It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win diet.”  It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet.”

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

How Was The Study Done?

The study (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019 ) was the report of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. This Commission convened 30 of the top experts from across the globe to prepare a science-based evaluation of the effect of diet on both health and sustainable food production through the year 2050. The Commission included world class experts on healthy diets, agricultural methods, climate change, and earth sciences. The Commission reviewed 356 published studies in preparing their report.

 

Is Your Diet Destroying The Planet?

When they looked at the effect of food production on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • “Strong evidence indicates that food production is among the largest drivers of global environmental change.” Specifically, the commission reported:
  • Agriculture occupies 40% of global land (58% of that is for pasture use).
  • Food production is responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use.
  • Conversion of natural ecosystems to croplands and pastures is the largest factor causing species to be threatened with extinction. Specifically, 80% of extinction threats to mammals and bird species are due to agricultural practices.
  • Overuse and misuse of nitrogen and phosphorous in fertilizers causes eutrophication. In case you are wondering, eutrophication is defined as the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates from commercial fertilizer) that stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plant life, usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen. This creates dead zones in lakes and coastal regions where fish and other marine organisms cannot survive.
  • About 60% of world fish stocks are fully fished and more than 30% are overfished. Because of this, catch by global marine fisheries has been declining since 1996.
  • “Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems. Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”
  • The world’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion by 2050. The current system of food production is unsustainable.

When they looked at the effect of the foods we eat on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • Beef and lamb are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and land use.
  • The concern about land use is obvious because of the large amount of pasture land required to raise cattle and sheep.
  • The concern about greenhouse gas emissions is because cattle and sheep are ruminants. They not only breathe out CO2, but they also release methane into the atmosphere from fermentation in their rumens of the food they eat. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it persists in the atmosphere 25 times longer than CO2. The single most important thing we can do as individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to eat less beef and lamb. [Note: grass fed cattle produce more greenhouse gas emissions than cattle raised on corn because they require 3 years to bring to market rather than 2 years.]
  • In terms of energy use beef, lamb, pork, chicken, dairy and eggs all require much more energy to produce than any of the plant foods.
  • In terms of eutrophication, beef, lamb, and pork, all cause much more eutrophication than any plant food. Dairy and eggs cause more eutrophication than any plant food except fruits.
  • In contrast, plant crops reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

What Is The Planetary Diet?

In the words of the Commission: “[The Planetary Diet] largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils. It includes a low to moderate amount of seafood, poultry, and eggs. It includes no or a very low amount of red meat, processed meat, sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.”

When described in that fashion it sounds very much like other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable. Here is a more detailed description of the diet:

  • It starts with a vegetarian diet. Vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, soy foods, and whole grains are the foundation of the diet.
  • It allows the option of adding one serving of dairy a day (It turns out that cows produce much less greenhouse emissions per serving of dairy than per serving of beef. That’s because cows take several years to mature before they can be converted to meat, and they are emitting greenhouse gases the entire time).
  • It allows the option of adding one 3 oz serving of fish or poultry or one egg per day.
  • It allows the option of swapping seafood, poultry, or egg for a 3 oz serving of red meat no more than once a week. If you want a 12 oz steak, that would be no more than once a month.

This is obviously very different from the way most Americans currently eat. According to the Commission:

  • “This would require greater than 50% reduction in consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and greater than 100% increase in the consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes.”
  • “In addition to the benefits for the environment, “dietary changes from current diets to healthy diets are likely to substantially benefit human health, averting about 10.8-11.6 million deaths per year globally.”

What Else Did The Commission Recommend?

In addition to changes in our diets, the Commission also recommended several changes in the way food is produced. Here are a few of them.

  • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel used to transport food to market.
  • Reduce food losses and waste by at least 50%.
  • Make radical improvements in the efficiency of fertilizer and water use. In terms of fertilizer, the change would be two-fold:
    • In developed countries, reduce fertilizer use and put in place systems to capture runoff and recycle the phosphorous.
    • In third world countries, make fertilizer more available so that crop yields can be increased, something the Commission refer to as eliminating the “yield gap” between third world and developed countries.
  • Stop the expansion of new agricultural land use into natural ecosystems and put in place policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land.
  • Manage the world’s oceans effectively to ensure that fish stocks are used responsibly and global aquaculture (fish farm) production is expanded sustainability.

What we can do: While most of these are government level policies, we can contribute to the first three by reducing personal food waste and purchasing organic produce locally whenever possible.

What Does This Mean For You?

If you are a vegan, you are probably asking why the Commission did not recommend a completely plant-based diet. The answer is that a vegan diet is perfect for the health of our planet. However, the Commission wanted to make a diet that was as consumer-friendly as possible and still meet their goals of a healthy, environmentally friendly, and sustainable diet.

If you are eating a typical American diet or one of the fad diets that encourage meat consumption, you are probably wondering how you can ever make such drastic changes to your diet. The answer is “one step at a time.”  If you have read my books “Slaying The Food Myths” or “Slaying the Supplement Myths,”  you know that my wife and I did not change our diet overnight. Our diet evolved to something very close to the Planetary Diet over a period of years.

The Commission also purposely designed the Planetary Diet so that you “never have to say never” to your favorite foods. Three ounces of red meat a week does not sound like much, but it allows you a juicy steak once a month.

Sometimes you just need to develop a new mindset. As I shared in my books, my father prided himself on grilling the perfect steak. I love steaks, but I decided to set a few parameters. I don’t waste my red meat calories on anything besides filet mignon at a fine restaurant. It must be a special occasion, and someone else must be buying. That limits it to 2-3 times a year. I still get to enjoy good steak, and I stay well within the parameters of the Planetary diet.

Develop your strategy for enjoying some of your favorite foods within the parameters of the Planetary Diet and have fun with it.

The Bottom Line

 

Is your diet destroying the planet? This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report serves as a dire warning of what will happen to us and our planet if we don’t change our ways.

The Commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The Commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose diet.”  It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win diet.”  It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet.”

The Planetary Diet is similar to other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable (for details, read the article above).

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

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