Volumetrics Adverse Events - Two Potential Outcomes

Adverse Events with Volumetrics

Dr. Barbara Rolls is a well respected nutritionist in the United States. Volumetrics reflects her passion and expertise. It is a balanced and nutritious diet that is easy to follow.

The meaning of the term "Volumetrics" has been around for sometime. I can remember my Dad talking about eating foods with high "moisture" content. The concept of food volume as a means to lose weight quickly fell out of favor and was replaced by fat content. Just within the last 2-3 years food volume has made a comeback.

It is important for consumers to understand that there are only a few clinical trials for weight experts to draw conclusions from and make appropriate recommendations.

For instance, it is my opinion that losing weight is not your problem. I prefer to study why you gained weight and look for solutions to keep it from happening again. That's why I make many references to muscle.

As you age, you lose muscle and gain weight. I judge a weight loss product from that perspective: does the product cause muscle loss? If so, that is not a healthy weight loss product.

I recommend that you find a professional you like and stick with her. As long as "balanced nutrition" is in some way apart of her philosophy, you'll be in good hands.

This is a good diet despite two potential problems I discuss in this article. Some may agree and some may disagree, but that is the reason for this article--debate and exchange of ideas.

Volumetrics is not New

Volumetrics utilizes food volume (water content) as a way to restrict calories. In general, foods with high water content are less energy dense. Filling up on high volume, low energy dense foods to help you lose weight has two potential problems.

Satiety may occur too early during feeding. This has two outcomes...

Some dieters will begin snacking or binge eating

A few dieters will end up on a Very Low Calorie Diet - potentially too low.

Dieters might completely eliminate carbohydrate intake.

A diet that restricts an entire food group is not a healthy diet.

Every diet has potential problems and outcomes it would like to avoid. My article is a discussion of two possible outcomes of the diet. If they can be avoided, this is a good diet.

Volumetrics is NOT a variation of the Atkins Diet. Dr. Rolls outlines a weight loss plan that if followed properly will lead to fat loss. Weight loss by losing fat and keeping muscle - that's a good diet.

It's Just Water

The easy way to critique the diet is to suggest that drinking water with each meal is practicing Volumetrics. I actually do drink 2-3 glasses of water with each meal and it does keep me from over-feeding.

I think it's fair to say, that the water content of food plays a bigger role in Volumetrics than fat and fiber. This means that weight loss is from calorie restriction. Losing weight by eating less will cause your body to lose both fat and muscle. This is not the optimal way to lose weight. The only acceptable mechanism for weight reduction is by utilizing stored fat. Muscle should be preserved.

Calorie restriction by itself, is not an ideal way to lose weight.

Losing fat and not muscle requires the right combination and ratio of fat to protein, not just calorie restriction.

Dr. Rolls said, "Foods with a high water content have a big impact on satiety. But you can't simply drink lots of water, which quenches thirst without sating hunger."

She continues, "Why is water so helpful in controlling calories? It dilutes the calories in a given amount of food."

Actually, this might be another problem and not a benefit. With diluted calories, volume is up and you become full before consuming an appropriate amount of calories, vitamins, and minerals.

Eating the correct ratio of fat to protein is critical in this type of diet, if you want to prevent weight gain. A diet's primary purpose is to set up an internal environment that slows the process of gaining weight with age. Severe restriction of calories is a bad approach to preventing weight gain.

There is no doubt in m