A significant number of dietary restrictions are imposed traditionally and uniformly on maintenance dialysis patients, whereas there is very little data to support their benefits. Recent studies indicate that dietary restrictions of phosphorus may lead to worse survival and poorer nutritional status. Restricting dietary potassium may deprive dialysis patients of heart-healthy diets and lead to intake of more atherogenic diets. There is little data about the survival benefits of dietary sodium restriction, and limiting fluid intake may inherently lead to lower protein and calorie consumption, when in fact dialysis patients often need higher protein intake to prevent and correct protein-energy wasting. Restricting dietary carbohydrates in diabetic dialysis patients may not be beneficial in those with burnt-out diabetes. Dietary fat including omega-3 fatty acids may be important caloric sources and should not be restricted. Data to justify other dietary restrictions related to calcium, vitamins and trace elements are scarce and often contradictory. The restriction of eating during hemodialysis treatment is likely another incorrect practice that may worsen hemodialysis induced hypoglycemia and nutritional derangements. We suggest careful relaxation of most dietary restrictions and adoption of a more balanced and individualized approach, thereby easing some of these overzealous restrictions that have not been proven to offer major advantages to patients and their outcomes and which may in fact worsen patients’ quality of life and satisfaction. This manuscript critically reviews the current paradigms and practices of recommended dietary regimens in dialysis patients including those related to dietary protein, carbohydrate, fat, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, and calcium, and discusses the feasibility and implications of adherence to ardent dietary restrictions.

Purpose of review High protein intake may lead to increased intraglomerular pressure and glomerular hyperfiltration. This can cause damage to glomerular structure leading to or aggravating chronic kidney disease (CKD). Hence, a low protein diet (LPD) of 0.6–0.8 g/kg/day is often recommended for the management of CKD. We reviewed the effect of protein intake on incidence and progression of CKD and the role of LPD the CKD management. Recent findings Actual dietary protein consumption in CKD patients remain substantially higher than the recommendations for LPD. Notwithstanding the inconclusive results of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study, the largest randomized controlled trial to examine protein restriction in CKD, several prior and subsequent studies and meta-analyses including secondary analyses of the MDRD data appear to support the role of LPD on retarding progression of CKD and delaying initiation of maintenance dialysis therapy. LPD can also be used to control metabolic derangements in CKD. Supplemented LPD with essential amino acids or their keto-analogs may be used for incremental transition to dialysis especially in non-dialysis days. An LPD management in lieu of dialysis therapy can reduce costs, enhance psychological adaptation, and preserve residual renal function upon transition to dialysis. Adherence and adequate protein and energy intake should be ensured to avoid protein-energy wasting. Summary A balanced and individualized dietary approach based on LPD should be elaborated with periodic dietitian counselling and surveillance to optimize management of CKD, to assure adequate protein and energy intake and to avoid or correct protein-energy wasting.

Whereas in many parts of the world a low protein diet (LPD, 0.6-0.8 g/kg/day) is routinely prescribed for the management of patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD), this practice is infrequent in North America. The historical underpinnings related to LPD in the USA including the non-conclusive results of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study may have played a role. Overall trends to initiate dialysis earlier in the course of CKD in the US allowed less time for LPD prescription. The usual dietary intake in the US includes high dietary protein content, which is in sharp contradistinction to that of a LPD. The fear of engendering or worsening protein-energy wasting may be an important handicap as suggested by a pilot survey of US nephrologists; nevertheless, there is also potential interest and enthusiasm in gaining further insight regarding LPD’s utility in both research and in practice. Racial/ethnic disparities in the US and patients’ adherence are additional challenges. Adherence should be monitored by well-trained dietitians by means of both dietary assessment techniques and 24-h urine collections to estimate dietary protein intake using urinary urea nitrogen (UUN). While keto-analogues are not currently available in the USA, there are other oral nutritional supplements for the provision of high-biologic-value proteins along with dietary energy intake of 30–35 Cal/kg/day available. Different treatment strategies related to dietary intake may help circumvent the protein- energy wasting apprehension and offer novel conservative approaches for CKD management in North America.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12882-016-0304-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract