Special diets in modern America: Analysis of the 2012 National Health Interview Survey data

Abstract

Special diets are mainly used for unspecific health reasons by those who are females, have a college degree or with depression, and commonly used in conjunction with herbs and dietary supplements.

Adherence to special diets and its association with meeting the nutrient recommendations in individuals with type 1 diabetes

“…Those 1.12 ± 0.33 1.05 ± 0.29** 0.88 ± 0.27*** 0.96 ± 0.29*** 1.12 ± 0.33 0.99 ± 0.34*** adhering to any special diet, had longer diabetes duration, were more frequently women, and based on the clinical characteristics seemed sicker than the ones not adhering to special diets. Compared to the studies conducted in the general population in Italy (6.2%) [5] and in USA (2.9%) [6], the rate of adhering to special diets, in the current study, was substantially higher. This difference is most likely explained by differences in the study populations.…”

“…Moreover, due to the nature of their metabolic disease, individuals with type 1 diabetes may be more aware of the role of the diet for their health, and may be more open to explore the effects of different diets compared to individuals with no particular issues with their health. The female predominance amongst special diet adherents has previously been shown in the American general population [6]. Moreover, in the same study, the highest proportion of individuals adhering to special diets were observed in those aged 50-64 years, and the special diets were mainly used to improve overall health.…”

“…Of these, a low-energy diet used for weight reduction was the most prevalent, accounting for more than 55% of the special diets. In a large American population of non-hospitalized adults, only 2.9% of the respondents reported having adhered to one or more special diets over the past 12 months [6]. The surprisingly low rate of special diets in that study may be explained by the fact that only vegetarian, macrobiotic, Atkins, Pritikin, and Ornish diets were included.…”

Vegetarianism and veganism compared with mental health and cognitive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Thereafter, 857 records were excluded by title and abstract reading and 54 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility (see Figure 1): 13 articles were discarded because they did not include a pure vegetarian or vegan diet (i.e. flexitarians or self-reported vegetarians reporting to eat fish) 13,30,[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] ; 11 studies had a different objective than the one of our meta-analysis [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] ; 6 did not include a control group (omnivorous group) to compare the mental or cognitive outcome [61][62][63][64][65][66] ; 4 had eating disorders as a mental health outcome 67-70 ; 3 were conducted in unhealthy subjects (i.e. papers in which participants reported to have eating disorders before starting the diet) 71-73 , 1 did not provide raw data to extract 60,74 ; 2 were not pure diet interventions in which we could separate individual dietary effects 75,76 ; 1 was not an original article.…”

Vegetarian, pescatarian and flexitarian diets: sociodemographic determinants and association with cardiovascular risk factors in a Swiss urban population

“…When estimates are driven by online or telephone surveys sponsored by vegetarian associations, the prevalence of self-reported vegetarians can be up to 10-14 % (2)(3)(4)(5) . However, in populationbased studies, national surveys, or independent analysis, only 1-4 % of the population reports following a vegetarian diet (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14) .…”