Wrapping it all up!

When I started this project, I wanted to dig a bit deeper on the benefits of nibbling diet. I found out there are many more health benefits to this eating patten other than weight loss.

After reviewing all of the evidence published in the media sources and in the research, it seems like the nibbling diet has some great benefits, especially if this is the type of diet patten that would suit your lifestyle (like mine- a busy college student with a varying schedule).

In a paper written by  Lea Countryman and Brian Morgan, the authors point out that one of the major benefits of the nibble eating pattern is that eating smaller meals does help regulate appetite and you are less likely to overindulge at a certain meal. In the article, Countryman and Morgan cite that those who eat four or more meals a day are 45 percent less likely to be obese.

Some of the new evidence that Countryman and Morgan mention in their article is that eating more frequently increases the risk for colorectal cancer. By eating more often, this exposes the colon to higher amounts of bile and stomach acid, which can make the colon more vulnerable to develop cancer. I found this interesting, because through all of my research this was the first time that I came across a negative side effect of increasing meal frequency. This effect was also only found among men. However, there are still other studies out there that claim otherwise. For example, in Eating Frequency and risk of Colorectal Cancer, the researchers found that there was a weak inverse association between meal frequency and risk of colorectal cancer.  This is not the first instance of conflicting evidence I have come across in this project (remember the study on obesity and thermogenesis?).  This second inconsistency made me start to question some of the other research that I had come across, and the strength of their associations, and if gender would have a role in all of this research.

Based on my investigation into this "myth", I would want to highlight the following points about this diet:

- Pack snacks or meals in proper portions so you do not end up overeating.

- Try to avoid packaged snacks, stick to fresh fruits and vegetables (This is a great way to add nutrients to the diet while managing appetite.

-Try to schedule meals or stick to a routine everyday, if you tell yourself that you can snack whenever this could lead to overeating.

I believe that the nibbling diet could improve your overall health if it is managed properly and meals are planned in advance, then this could be a good technique to help manage health.

One of my main reasons behind choosing meal frequency as my topic was that I wanted to find out more health benefits with this type of meal pattern. It seemed that everything in the media was focused on the weight loss benefit, while most of the scientific research found other health benefits. I personally feel that the pop-medicine publishers are focusing on the wrong benefits, and need to incorporate more of the health benefits into their articles. I am disappointed that these sources that the majority of the population turn to fail to provide more discussion on other health benefits besides weight loss.


References:
Countryman, Lea, and Brian Morgan. Nibbling versus Gorging: More Meals May Mean More Health. N.p.: n.p., 2005. DOC.

"Healthy Bedtime Snack Choices for Kids." WJHG RSS. NBC News, 15 Sept. 2015. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.

Perrigue, M. M., Kantor, E. D., Hastert, T. A., Patterson, R. E., Potter, J. D., Neuhouser, M. L., & White, E. (2013). Eating frequency and risk of colorectal cancer. Cancer Causes & Control : CCC, 24(12), 10.1007/s10552–013–0288–8. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-013-0288-8

Snacktime: A simple solution to the obesity epidemic?

After listening to Debbie Kibbe's lecture in class today on childhood obesity, I started thinking more about my own experiences as a child with food. My family ate dinner together almost every evening, my mom hardly allowed me to eat a school lunch, and I still have a fond memory for the orange slices served at soccer practice. Reminiscing about snacks made me think about snack time in class, I remember we used to have animal crackers and apple juice served in dixie cups after recess. The food in our schools is atrocious, and it is especially easy to point to when discussing childhood obesity.

I started to think more about the topic, especially since we have been discussing school lunches in Professor Hobb's Nutrition Across the Life Cycle Course. Schools have tried to improve the quality of nutrition through many federal programs, but none are perfect. Learning about childhood obesity and thinking about how snacking is closely engrained in the American culture through school (snack time in class, eating snacks between class, having an after school snack) I wanted to see how this tied into my personal project.

I did some research and found out that I was not the only one interested in learning about the link between childhood obesity and snacking (or meal frequency). Researchers in Germany were interested in finding out more about the relationship between children eating snacks at school and obesity. I believe that this is some of the most significant research I have come across so far in this project, because obesity is a chronic disease that can be carried onto the next generation.

The researchers were prompted to conduct their study because of the other existing literature that establishes an inverse association between meal frequency and obesity, and they wanted to see if the same relationship existed among children. I was slightly surprised when the researchers concluded that there was a dose response relationship between childhood obesity and the number of meals consumed through out the day. The main difference between this study and all the others is the sample size, the Toschke article had a sample size of 2,300 students.

At first when reading this article, I was well aware that the sample came from Germany. So any obesity in the study could not be blamed on the American School lunches and snacks. However, I was interested to find out that in a study referenced in the article, the researchers came to the same conclusion that increased meal frequency had a protective effect on obesity. The only downside to the American study was that their results were not deemed statistically significant due to sample size.

Toschke and his coauthors cite reasons such as increase in thermogenesis after consumption, lower insulin levels among nibblers, and possibly physical activity behind the association between high food frequency and lower obesity levels. They also link the meal frequency back to the common issue of skipping breakfast, since many children often skip the first meal of the day. I thought that this was an interesting connection that the author made.

As one of my last blog posts in this series, I wanted to share this research with you. I think it is horrible how the pop culture media portrays this myth without looking at the other health benefits of nibbling. I am not claiming that increasing the number of snacks in schools is going to cure obesity, but I think it could be worth investing in learning more about the association in America.



References:

Toschke, A. M., Küchenhoff, H., Koletzko, B. and Von Kries, R. (2005), Meal Frequency and Childhood Obesity. Obesity Research, 13: 1932–1938. doi: 10.1038/oby.2005.238 

"Hawaii Child Nutrition Programs." Hawaii Child Nutrition Programs. Hawaii Department of Education, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.

Finally! Something on Metabolism!

So, I was going to save this chunk of my research for a later blog post and continue on with reporting about chronic diseases and the other health effects of eating smaller meals more frequently vs. one larger meal. However, I think that this research is perfect in contradicting what the media is saying about when you eat smaller meals you metabolism will be more efficient. Well guess what, it doesn't work like that.

Despite what the research says, there are a few out there who really do believe that eating small meals through the day can be the secret to weight management. Venice Nutrition is one of those companies. If you register with Venice Nutrition, they will give you a customized diet plan that will maintain your blood glucose levels. The Venice Nutrition company is what I would call an empire, you can become a certified coach, or even sign up for your office to be "coached". While, Venice Nutrition emphasizes the importance of eating consistently through the day, they also emphasize eating an optimal ratio. Doesn't sound that bad right?

Well, I would not be so quick to sign up, in a 2005 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the researchers found that eating less more frequently did not change your energy expenditure or resting metabolic rate. The study was conducted among ten obese health women and it was a cross over trial design. Women were originally given certain instruction to continue on their regular diet, and then during phase 2, they were asked to eat either 7,4,9,3,5,8,5,9,8,4,3,4,7 and 6 times each day. Then they were asked to fast before coming for their laboratory visits.

The researchers looked at a variety of factors related to metabolism such as energy intake, appetite management and resting metabolic rate. The energy intake for participants was lower when women were eating regularly compared to the irregular meal pattern. Even though the subjects were consuming more, their appetite measurement and assessments showed no difference. I thought that looking at these two aspects of the results were really interesting. Even though when eating an irregular meal plan the women didn't feel an increase sensation of satiety, they still consumed higher numbers in calories.

Now that you know more about what these women were taking in, you might want to know if there was a difference in how their body was using those calories? Well, there was not a big difference among these subjects. The study suggests that this conclusion might not be applicable to healthy weight women because insulin sensitivity can blunt the thermic effect of food. There are also other possible issues with this study. Such as, information bias that could make it seem as if the women are eating more during the irregular meal pattern phase. If the women forget to log or underestimate their consumption, it warps the data to seem that there is no effect of eating at irregular times during the day.  This could be one possible reason why there was no difference among the legs of the study.

In the same volume of the journal, there was an editorial written by Elizabeth Parks and Megan McCory discussing how research focused can be so varied. In the editorial, the authors commented on how this study design had distinct features, such as directing participants to eat a certain meals each day. Another strength was that the participants were given a test meal at the beginning and end of each phase, and that examining how the test meal was metabolized was how the researchers came across their results.




Parks and McCory ask these three important questions about the relationship between when we eat, how often we eat and the link between obesity in their editorial.









Reviewing this study and some of the information presented from Venice Nutrition made me think about this entire project. Although I think it is important to change the way that health is marketed and shift this away from looking thin towards maintaining good health, however this research enforced that it is not how often we are eating, but what we are eating. I think that this is something that is overlooked in the "myth" of fasting vs. feasting. It is also extremely important not to overlook the broader implications of research in regarding this myth, maybe there is a link between extra meals and obesity.


References:

Farshci, Hamid R., Moira A. Taylor, and Ian A. MacDonald. "Metabolic Effects of Regular Meal  Frequency." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 8 Jan. 2005. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.

Parks, Elizabeth J., and Megan A. McCory. "The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition." When to Eat and How Often? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Jan. 2005. Web. 03 Apr. 2016.

"Why Venice Nutrition." Venice Nutrition. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2016. 

Eating Less More Frequently? The key to curing CHD?

Last week, I presented y’all with what the media thought and how they explained the effects of  meal frequency myth. This week, I figured I would present a different side of the situation and start to dive right into the science. In case if you forgot, I am looking to explore the myth that eating smaller meals through out the day has greater health benefits than eating one to three larger meals. Through the next few weeks, I will be looking at specific health conditions (rather than just weight or BMI, because health is more than a number on a scale).

This week, I looked at the major killer, coronary heart disease (CHD). CHD is a leading cause of deaths in the US. About 30% of all deaths are because of this plaque (linked to high LDL cholesterol levels) that is building up in the arteries of the heart. It can take many years for the plaque to build up, but CHD does put your health in major risk, and you will be more likely to experience a heart attack. Those who eat diets with more saturated fats, have high blood pressure or other chronic health issues are at greater risk to develop CHD. Another thing about CHD that is important to know is that it is mainly treated with lifestyle management, but in some cases it is treated with pills. 

So now that you know more about what CHD is, you might be asking how is this linked to the number of meals a person eats through the day. Well, keep reading to find out more.

In a study published in Nutrition Reviews the researchers look through previous studies that examined the relationship between risk factors for CHD and the number of meals participants consumed in the day. Through the various studies, there were two different meal pattern groups. One simply feasted and ate all of their daily calories in one meal, while the other group, Nibbling ate three, six, nine, 12,17 meals. The idea of 17 meals overwhelms me a bit! One thing that you should know before reading on, is that both the feasting groups and the fasting groups did eat the same number of calories, it just was broken up in the varying ways. 

One of the first risk factors that the reviewers looked for was cholesterol, which is a major contributor to CHD, since the LDL cholesterol is what can lead to the plaque build up in the first place. The studies that examined LDL and feeding frequency concluded that those who ate more frequently through the day had lower LDL and total cholesterol levels. The study took participants and did not alter their diet, but changed how many times each day they ate. Those who ate 17 times lowered their total cholesterol levels by 17%. Data also showed that as the number of meals decreased per day, so did the reduction of total cholesterol. There was a clear relationship between as the number of meals increased, total cholesterol decreased.  So what about those who ate one meal? Their total cholesterol levels actually increased by 19%. 

So why is this? I was asking myself this. There seems to be some link to insulin production and circulation. If one is only eating one meal a day, after gorging yourself, insulin is thrusted through the blood to help lower blood glucose levels. While, after eating smaller meals the pancreas only releases little bursts of insulin. There is an enzyme, hydroxymethulglutaryl-coenzyme that is tied to cholesterol production and is activated in the liver when insulin is released. By eating smaller meals, this coenzyme is activated less and therefore less cholesterol is being synthesized and circulated in the blood.

Pathway showing how release of insulin affects cholesterol concentration in blood.

I found this article to be interesting, as a lay person never do we think much about how the number of meals we eat would effect our heart health. I think that this is something to think more about and it is especially important to remember that just because the nibbling group might be eating more meals, they are not eating more calories!  Another thing that I like about this review is that it DOES agree with the media's conclusion that smaller meals could be the healthiest way to eat. When I sat down to read the article, I was not expecting for it to arrive at the same conclusion. I think that eating frequency should be researched more to see if this could be a way for Doctors to treat CHD before reaching for the prescription pad.

Bhutani, Surabhi, and Krista A. Varady. "Nibbling versus Feasting: Which Meal Pattern Is Better for Heart Disease Prevention?" National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.

"What Is Coronary Heart Disease?" National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. National Institute of Health, 23 Oct. 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.

How Many Meals? Does it Matter?

I always have loved snack time, ever since we got animal crackers and apple juice in kindergarten. My love for snacks has carried through into my college life, grabbing small snacks between classes and club meetings. It does not help that my schedule on Mondays,Wednesday, Fridays is a complete opposite than Tuesdays and Thursdays. So I am sure to build in snack times and break up my food into smaller meals through out the day to make sure that I stay satiated.

I wanted to learn more about if the quantity of meals eaten through out the day had an impact on health and if eating smaller meals more often changed any health outcomes. The idea that eating more smaller meals about five or six times a day instead of eating three larger meals every day stems from the idea that by eating more frequently your metabolism running and your body will consistently be using food for energy, and that this consistent stream of calories will give your metabolism a boost! This idea is promoted through most media sources and is even promoted by Dr. Oz. Just a simple google search will give you hundreds of articles that either support or oppose increasing meal frequency.



Now, many of these articles are not coming from the most reputable sources scuh as Born Fitness, which is a site that is marketed towards men looking for weight loss and work out tips. Others, are slightly more relevant sources such as US News and World Health Report. However there is still scientific evidence lacking from a simple google search.

Enter me, you can call me the snacking sleuth. For the next five blog posts, I will be working to unravel the myth of how much and how often one should eat to maximize health outcomes. Before we get to the hardcore science though, let's try to better understand what is out there today.

Let's take a look at what the "typical" google search result comes up with. One of the pop-science articles that I found is from a wellness blog called FitWatch. The blog describes how by making the choice to eat smaller meals more often, that our digestive system will begin to burn calories more effectively than when we are eating larger meals. The author of the FitWatch blog claims that by eating smaller meals, our energy level will not drop. Another claim that the author makes is that by eating more often, the frequency of our cravings will decrease because our blood sugar levels will not rise and fall. Keep in mind, none of this blog references any research, however once the reader does finish reading the post, the author suggests that you use her calculator to see how many calories you should eat in 5-6 meals. Even though I do practice snacking or grazing, I really wanted to examine the different sides of the myth. For example in Jillian Michael's blog, she argues that by eating smaller meals, you will never burn any fat and your body will continually creating insulin.

After looking through countless fitness blogs, I came across one realization. That none of these articles (even the ones from more reputable sources) were all centered around weight loss and none of them even considered other health benefits. I thought that this perfectly described America's fascination with having the perfect body image and not actually thinking about what consequences their actions have on their health. I am interested to see if breaking up larger meals into snacks has an effect on heart disease, insulin sensitivity and overall health. Because, sure losing weight is great but preventing heart disease is even better in my book! Stay tuned to find out if you should become a snacker like me!

So which is it? Is your metabolism never stopping better? Or is letting your body use fat for energy the key to health?

References:

Bornstein, Adam. "Big Meals vs. Small Snacks: What's Best for You?" Born Fitness. N.p., 28 Jan. 2014.   Web. 23 Mar. 2016. 

"Calories Per Meal Calculator." - Divide Your Daily Calories into Several Different Meals. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

"Chicken Breasts with Mustard Vinaigrette, Roasted Asparagus, and Carrots." Domestifluff. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

"Dr. Oz's 6-Meal Plan." Dr. Oz's 6-Meal Plan. The Dr. Oz Show, 2 Sept. 2010. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

"How Eating More Often Can Help You Eat Less." FitWatch. N.p., 22 Jan. 2009. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

"Hungry Girls Carrot Sticks!" Keep It Simple. N.p., 09 June 2012. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

Freuman, Tamara Duker. "What You Eat Matters. Does When You Eat Matter, Too?" US News and World Report. N.p., 20 Jan. 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

"Myth Buster - Is Eating Small Meals the Key to Weight Loss? - JillianMichaels.com." JillianMichaels.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2016.

NYC and Na? New Food Labeling Laws passed in New York

Last month, Professor Frediani first brought up the new sodium labeling laws in New York City, I was impressed that New York was taking another step towards health. I did not think too much more about the new labeling in New York until reading another student's blog regarding food labeling in other countries. I decided to revisit the policy change in New York to learn more about the reasons behind the new policy.

For those of you who are not familiar with what change was made, in New York City the government started to require that chain restaurants with to start labeling plates that contain more than 2,3000 mg of sodium. The labeling change was first suggested by the mayor to make the consumers more aware of what was in their foods when eating outside of their home. The labeling change was first passed back in September and would affect restaurants with 15 or more locations in the nation that are located in the city.

                                       An example of a menu with the high sodium symbol

The main health concern behind consuming that much sodium? The government was mainly focused on trying to make consumers aware that high sodium intake can lead to a greater risk for heart disease and for having a stroke. The daily recommendation for sodium consumption is 2,300 mg, so no one should be consuming their entire daily recommendations from one meal. I think that this is an important step for the health of New Yorkers. It never helps to know more about what is in your food. 

Looking into more of the breakdown of where sodium comes from our diet, 77% of sodium comes from foods prepared outside of the home.  I thought that this statistic was an important one to learn more about where our sodium is coming from. Restaurants are not only charging us for food, but they are also leading us on a pathway to bad health.

I looked at the updated news regarding the policy change, and it turns out that the restaurants were able to appeal the requirement and the case is currently going through a series of appeals. It will be interesting to see how the results of the case turn out.  The lawyer for the city states that he is confident that the policy will be supported based on the fact that in New York there are other similar policies that work in the favor of the people's health. For example, in previous years chain restaurants had to remove all trans-fats from their foods and had to list calories on their menus. 

In the past, New York did try to ban soda completely. This policy did not pass, mainly because the Board of Health was making an active attempt to sway consumers from purchasing soda completely, by banning sales of large drink sizes (larger than 16 fl oz).  The final court claimed that the Board of Health was acting outside of it's authority. 

I think that it will be interesting to see how the sodium labeling appeal case comes out. I see a distinct difference between the two different policies. The main difference between the two policies is that the soda ban was indirectly discouraging consumers from drinking soda, while the sodium labeling policy does not discourage consumers to stop eating out, just to make better choices when it comes to ordering off the menu. 

You do not need to have a special label on menus to know how much sodium is in your restaurant meal. Most of the nutrition information is offered on restaurant's websites and with a little research before leaving your house, you can look it up online or even on your smartphone! 

No Breakfast? No Thanks.

My sister, Claire age 24 is one of those people who will fall for almost any fad diet. I am a big believer in breakfast, and that it is important to eat when you get up (especially eating something with protein). Claire recently has taken up the idea that you do not need to eat breakfast, and that the government tells us that you need to eat breakfast in order to improve the grain and cereal industry.

Over Winter break she asked me what I thought about the idea of skipping breakfast. I told her that if she wanted to cut back on her breakfasts that could be a good solution, however I did not recommend skipping breakfast completely. I take this view on eating breakfast because sometimes when I do not eat enough for breakfast I sometimes have episodes of syncope. It was because of this reason, I suggested that she just eat a smaller portion of food rather than her usual meal. There are multiple sources out there that suggest that eating breakfast can actually help you lose weight.

When she got back home, she sent me this New York Times article to prove it to me that skipping breakfast was in fact a good idea. In a cohort study conducted at a New York hospital, three different groups got three different breakfasts. The first group had a slice of whole grain toast, the second received oatmeal and the third received no breakfast at all. Among the three groups, the only group that showed a weight loss was the group that did not eat breakfast.

I did not think about looking more into the myth until last week when my sister mentioned something about it when I had called her. She said that she had not been able to skip breakfast every day, but she was trying to skip breakfast 3 times each week. When she had mentioned it, I decided to look into the research more. In the article from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the aim of their study was to determine if skipping breakfast led to a difference in health over time. The study was a longitudinal cohort study that asked students if they consumed breakfast everyday before school. The study followed up with the group years later, and there was a significant difference between breakfast eaters and breakfast skippers. Those who skipped breakfast tended to have larger waist circumferences and also showed greater cardio-metabolic health related issues.

Some of the reasons that the researchers suggest for the difference is that breakfast skippers tended to eat fewer fruits and vegetables during the day, which I found to be an interesting observation.  It makes sense those since fruit is a food that is common eaten at breakfast time. It is recommended that  we eat five servings of fruits and vegetables everyday, so encouraging non-breakfast eaters to pick up a banana or an apple on their way out the door seems like a simple enough way to get the day off to a good start!

Although I do not think that people should be filling up their cereal bowls each and every morning with cocoa puffs, but I do not see much harm in eating a bowl of cereal (my favorite breakfast food) with a handful of almonds. I personally do not think that I will stop eating breakfast anytime soon!

Cup of Joe

So, if you do know me. You know that I need to drink coffee every morning to function. I usually start my day off with a mug of Colombian blend and by ten o'clock I will need to make another stop somewhere around campus to refuel. I run on caffeine. I have done a lot of research on caffeine and it's effect through out my different classes. For example, for my nutrition across the life cycle class, I studied the effect of caffeine during pregnancy.

There are a lot of myths out there circulating out there about caffeine and diet. One of the biggest ones is that drinking a cup of coffee in the morning. One of the big supporters of this myth is Bob Harper, who is best known for his frequent appearance on The Biggest Loser. Harper has published his book "The Skinny Rules: The Simple, Nonnegotiable Principles for Getting to Thin" which is a New York Times Best Seller. Harper claims that drinking caffeine boosts your metabolism. I like to believe that drinking coffee does boost your metabolism, but I am a bit skeptical.

After reading through a few different primary research articles, I had a really hard time finding anything credible that suggested a connection between weight loss and coffee drinking. I did find a study that was published by Diabetes Care, where researchers examined the connection between coffee consumption and the risk for type two diabetes. This was a prospective cohort study that lasted 8 years, where the consumption of coffee among the subjects was tracked through a food frequency questionnaire. The study concluded that those who drank two or more cups a day, had a lower risk of developing type two diabetes. The researchers made the claim that it was not the caffeine in the coffee, but a C-peptin that is found in coffee (regular, decaffeinated, and instant). The caffeine did have a positive effect and reduced insulin sensitivity, however the researchers did not think that this would be what is working to reduce diabetes risk as individuals do develop a resistance to diabetes with time.

The cohort was a group of nurses, which I found to be an interesting choice. When I first thought about why they would choose nurses, I thought that it would be because they are working a job that requires energy and alertness. I also think they chose the nurses as a cohort because they all have the same education and background when it comes to nutrition and health. I believe that using these individuals from the same profession would work in the researchers favor because they do not have to worry about education status being a confounding variable. I am curious if the study was replicated among a different cohort if the results would have been different.

So even if I can't buy into the idea that my metabolism is being boosted when I drink my cup of joe, at lest I have some confidence that I am preventing the development of diabetes. Even if there was not a significant benefit of drinking coffee, I still think that I would (just because I love it so much!).

Paleo Diet: All Meat and All Meaning?

A "Paleo Diet" is starting to grow in popularity within the media and among fitness junkies. The trendy diet consists of meat, fish/seafoods, whole fruits and vegetables, eggs, nuts and seeds, and some oils. The diet is based on the premise that the diet that was consumed during the paleolithic era is the diet that our bodies would metabolize the in the best way possible. This diet is what we are "supposed" to be consuming.

I thought that the concept of the Paleo diet was interesting, the entire concept that there is a diet that is the one that Humans should follow intrigued me. That this one diet was the way that we are supposed to be eating.

Although in theory this sounds logical, looking at some of the research surrounding the Paleo diet backs up this notion. In a primary research study published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers compared the blood pressure, sodium blood levels and glucose levels between a group who consumed a paleo diet and those who carried on with their regular everyday diet. There was a difference between the two groups, those on the paleo diet showed lower blood pressure, lower blood glucose levels, and lower cholesterol levels. These differences became apparent only after a 3 day "transition period" where the experimental group transitioned out of their old diet and gradually consumed more "paleo foods".

The media is still spouting conflicting recommendations and there does not seem to be a consensus on the diet yet. For example, this article from the New York Daily News claims that following the paleo diet will lead to weight gain. At the University of Melbourne a research study was performed where mice were fed a paleo diet, which resulted in a 15% body weight gain increase for the mice. The mice also developed a glucose intolerance. Meanwhile the article from Biz News claims that this study from the same university should be retracted since the article made too many bold statements.

In the Biz News article, Dr Akil Palanisamy, a US board-certified integrative medicine physician was quoted supporting the paleo diet, stating that it would work well for diabetic patients since it is a low glycemic option. Overall, the article does suggest that there is not one solution for diabetic patients but the paleo diet should be considered. 

Not everyone is supportive of the Paleo diet, Michael Pollan lists his reasons for critiquing the paleo diet in this Mother Jones article. I think that Pollan brings up good points, especially the third point he makes regarding microbes. Knowing how important our micro biome is to our health (and that these microbes come from foods that are not found in the paleo diet), Pollan uses this as a reason to sway away from the paleo diet. 

Hopefully a consensus will emerge between the two camps!