ISAGENIX: EXPENSIVE STARVATION

I asked my colleague, Professor of Nutrition Elaine Rush of Auckland University of Technology, to comment on the Isagenix diet that has currently raised controversy with the claim that it is "kid-approved".  She currently has students visiting from Mexico who have studied the diet and kindly suggested that, under her supervision, they could write a critique of the Isagenix diet.  The following is their article reproduced without change.

ISAGENIX: EXPENSIVE STARVATION

In the last few months Isagenix has been gaining popularity among New Zealand residents. The Isagenix products are branded as “an opportunity for health, wealth and happiness”. Its 30-day program is advertised as “the first step to managing your weight”. For those who haven’t heard about Isagenix, its program is based in two principles: shake days (meal replacements) and cleansing days, but is it really as healthy as it is branded? 

Evidence has shown that meal replacements and an individualized healthy diet can successfully achieve weight loss. Maybe Isagenix is a good idea, but let’s take a minute to look at it a little bit closer.

First of all, before a diet is started it’s important to know if it is affordable. The cost for the 30-day program is $457.75; suggested products (e+SHOT, Isadelight PLUS, and Want More Energy?) have an extra charge. If someone’s planning to follow the 30-day Isagenix Programme, they would be spending approximately $573.71. These costs don’t include lunch, making it around $600.00 for a month. Some people might not mind the cost if they’re losing weight very fast. However, what if we told you that rather than being healthy, it is more like starving yourself?

When analyzing the nutritional content of the 30-day program, we found the average energy intake for a shake day is 1300 kcal and for a cleanse day is 280 kcal. So, the rapid weight loss is attributed to the extreme calorie limitation, not to the products themselves. It is easier to quit when results are observed than to keep up with such a restrictive diet for a long period of time. This type of regimen doesn’t focus on healthy eating, leading to weight gain as soon as the diet is discontinued. Additionally, the continuing effectiveness of the programme hasn’t been studied in clinical trials.

Another important aspect about the products are their protein content; based on the Daily Recommended Intake (DRIs) for an average adult (0.8 to 1 g/kg/day), people under this plan are at risk of consuming less or more protein than needed. On the other hand, if a person is following the instructions as referred in the program, he/she would not be consuming the DRIs for various essential nutrients, such as zinc, vitamin C, vitamin A, and calcium. In the long-term, these deficiencies or excesses could develop into serious health problems. 

Cleansing days are also included on the program. For these types of diets, there is no evidence that explains its mechanism of cleansing or justifies its use. The human body has its own detoxifying system responsible for the elimination of waste products, making it unnecessary to look for other means of detoxification.

Based on the mentioned facts, it’s unbelievable that Isagenix promotes its products as a healthy way to lose weight, right? But, in addition can you imagine they promote their products as “safe for children”? If this kind of diet isn’t safe for adults, how can it be safe for children? 

Rocío Ayala Romero, María Fernanda Torres Ruíz

Students from Universidad de Sonora, México visiting Professor Elaine Rush, Auckland University of Technology.

Junk Food vs Real Food?

Many years ago, when I first started lecturing on Food Microbiology at the Department of Food Technology, Massey University, one of the staff members, for whom I have a great respect, Professor Mary Earle, said to me "There is no such thing as junk food, just poor food choices".

Unfortunately, the media love the words "junk food" and use them at every opportunity.  TVNZ One News published an article under the heading

"NZ's 'obesity crisis' won't be solved by dairy sweet ban - health expert".

Quoting from the article:  A new report from Auckland Regional Public Health Service has called for limits on how many convenience stores can set up in one area, and what foods they can sell to children.  The proposals were made in a report to obesity-fighting group Healthy Auckland Together, which plans to lobby for changes to the Resource Management Act to allow councils to govern where dairies, takeaways and other convenience stores can set up.

Speaking to TV ONE's Breakfast this morning, Boyd Swinburn, Professor of Population Nutrition and Global Health, said New Zealand could even consider a trial of a junkfood exclusion zone for dairies within a certain distance to a school, as is the case in Korea.

The liberal use of the term "junk food" in the article is an inappropriate catch-all. Do the authors mean to include hamburgers, pizza or fish and chips along with sweets? It can be argued that a hamburger is highly nutritious - protein (meat and possibly cheese), carbohydrate, salad vegetables. Possibly the sauce contains too much sugar. Another colleague, food technologist Garth Wallace, once said that a serve of fish and chips with some bread and butter and a glass of beer was a balanced meal.


The problem is not the food; it's the consumption pattern. If you eat hamburgers for every meal, you will soon begin to feel unwell, as demonstrated in a recent television documentary broadcast in New Zealand.  In addition, Tim Spector, Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at King's College, London, has published an article in The Conversation, "Your gut bacteria don't like junk food, even if you do". Note once again the words used to describe the diet. The article described an experiment carried out with his son Tom, who changed from an average western diet to an intensive fast food diet for a week. Tom's gut bacteria were analysed over the course of the experiment.  "Tom’s gut had seen massive shifts in his common microbe groups for reasons that are still unclear. Firmicutes were replaced with Bacteroidetes as the dominant type, while friendly bifidobacteria that suppress inflammation halved. However the clearest marker of an unhealthy gut is losing species diversity and after just a few days Tom had lost an estimated 1,400 species – nearly 40% of his total. The changes persisted and even two weeks after the diet his microbes had not recovered".

In my opinion, this is clear evidence that a proper balanced diet is the right way to maintain a healthy body and gut microbiome.  The components of the diet are much less important than the relative proportions and frequency of consumption.

This article represents my own opinions, and is not necessarily the view of NZIFST.