Explore the vast range of titles available.

You are what you eat: good nutrition is the key to a healthy weight and good health. Rinzler shows you how to manage your diet, prepare healthy foods, and cut calories by making wise food choices.-- Source other than Library of Congress.

Health nudge interventions to steer people into healthier lifestyles are increasingly applied by governments worldwide, and it is natural to look to such approaches to improve health by altering what people choose to eat. However, to produce policy recommendations that are likely to be effective, we need to be able to make valid predictions about the consequences of proposed interventions, and for this, we need a better understanding of the determinants of food choice. These determinants include dietary components (e.g. highly palatable foods and alcohol), but also diverse cultural and social pressures, cognitive-affective factors (perceived stress, health attitude, anxiety and depression), and familial, genetic and epigenetic influences on personality characteristics. In addition, our choices are influenced by an array of physiological mechanisms, including signals to the brain from the gastrointestinal tract and adipose tissue, which affect not only our hunger and satiety but also our motivation to eat particular nutrients, and the reward we experience from eating. Thus, to develop the evidence base necessary for effective policies, we need to build bridges across different levels of knowledge and understanding. This requires experimental models that can fill in the gaps in our understanding that are needed to inform policy, translational models that connect mechanistic understanding from laboratory studies to the real life human condition, and formal models that encapsulate scientific knowledge from diverse disciplines, and which embed understanding in a way that enables policy-relevant predictions to be made. Here we review recent developments in these areas.

\"[This book] debunks diet myths to explore what our ancestors from around the globe really ate--and what we can learn from them to be healthy, fit, and better nourished, today\"-- Amazon.com.

Disinvestment (removal, reduction, or reallocation) of routinely provided health services can be difficult when there is little published evidence examining whether the services are effective or not. Evidence is required to understand if removing these services produces outcomes that are inferior to keeping such services in place. However, organisational imperatives, such as budget cuts, may force healthcare providers to disinvest from these services before the required evidence becomes available. There are presently no experimental studies examining the effectiveness of allied health services (e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and social work) provided on weekends across acute medical and surgical hospital wards, despite these services being routinely provided internationally. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of removing weekend allied health services from acute medical and surgical wards using a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority research design. We conducted 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials between 1 February 2014 and 30 April 2015 among patients on 12 acute medical or surgical hospital wards spread across 2 hospitals. The hospitals involved were 2 metropolitan teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Data from n = 14,834 patients were collected for inclusion in Trial 1, and n = 12,674 in Trial 2. Trial 1 was a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority stepped-wedge trial where the 'current' weekend allied health service was incrementally removed from participating wards each calendar month, in a random order, while Trial 2 used a conventional non-inferiority stepped-wedge design, where a 'newly developed' service was incrementally reinstated on the same wards as in Trial 1. Primary outcome measures were patient length of stay (proportion staying longer than expected and mean length of stay), the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event, and the proportion with an unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge. The 'no weekend allied health service' condition was considered to be not inferior if the 95% CIs of the differences between this condition and the condition with weekend allied health service delivery were below a 2% increase in the proportion of patients who stayed in hospital longer than expected, a 2% increase in the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days, a 2% increase in the proportion who had any adverse event, and a 1-day increase in the mean length of stay. The current weekend allied health service included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work, and allied health assistant services in line with usual care at the participating sites. The newly developed weekend allied health service allowed managers at each site to reprioritise tasks being performed and the balance of hours provided by each professional group and on which days they were provided. Analyses conducted on an intention-to-treat basis demonstrated that there was no estimated effect size difference between groups in the proportion of patients staying longer than expected (weekend versus no weekend; estimated effect size difference [95% CI], p-value) in Trial 1 (0.40 versus 0.38; estimated effect size difference 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.31, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but the proportion staying longer than expected was greater with the newly developed service compared to its no weekend service control condition (0.39 versus 0.40; estimated effect size difference 0.02 [0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.04, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin) in Trial 2. Trial 1 and 2 findings were discordant for the mean length of stay outcome (Trial 1: 5.5 versus 6.3 days; estimated effect size difference 1.3 days [0.9 to 1.8], p < 0.001, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: 5.9 versus 5.0 days; estimated effect size difference -1.6 days [-2.0 to -1.1], p < 0.001, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions for the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days in either trial (Trial 1: 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.18, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: -0.01 [-0.02 to 0.01], p = 0.62, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions in the proportion of patients who experienced any adverse event in Trial 1 (0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.33, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but a lower proportion of patients had an adverse event in Trial 2 when exposed to the no weekend allied health condition (-0.03 [-0.05 to -0.004], p = 0.02, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). Limitations of this research were that 1 of the trial wards was closed by the healthcare provider after Trial 1 and could not be included in Trial 2, and that both withdrawing the current weekend allied health service model and installing a new one may have led to an accommodation period for staff to adapt to the new service settings. Stepped-wedge trials are potentially susceptible to bias from naturally occurring change over time at the service level; however, this was adjusted for in our analyses. In Trial 1, criteria to say that the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to current weekend allied health condition were not met, while neither the no weekend nor current weekend allied health condition demonstrated superiority. In Trial 2, the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to the newly developed weekend allied health condition across all primary outcomes, and superior for the outcomes proportion of patients staying longer than expected, proportion experiencing any adverse event, and mean length of stay. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001231730 and ACTRN12613001361796.

The Code of Ethics for Nutrition and Dietetics Professionals (2018) is explained by and correlated with the Hippocratic Oath. A current complex ethical situation that registered dietitians may encounter is voluntary stopping of eating and drinking, when incapacitated patients facing future serious illness request to starve and dehydrate themselves to hasten their own death voluntarily. This is in contrast to situations when assisted nutrition becomes burdensome or poses no benefit for the patient and their prognosis, typically near the end of life. Dignity therapy is an up-and-coming therapeutic strategy that practitioners can learn to use for appropriate practice to uphold the four parameters of the Code of Ethics for Nutrition and Dietetics Professionals (2018). Using current evidence from medical ethics, a systematic process for deciphering moral dilemmas is presented and grounded in evidence from the American Dietetic Association (2008) and the current Code of Ethics for Nutrition and Dietetic Professionals (2018). •The Code of Ethics (2018) for Dietitians is aligned with the Hippocratic Oath.•Voluntary stopping eating and drinking is a complex ethical issue for Registered Dietitians when patients decline food to hasten death.•Spiritual care and Dignity Therapy help Registered Dietitians uphold ethical, patient-centered care.•A systematic ethics process uses evidence from moral psychology, and Code of Ethics (2018).

This is a set comprising of the 'Manual of Dietetic Practice' and 'Dietetic and Nutrition Case Studies'.

Background: Nutrition and dietetics (ND) training encourages behaviors that can be considered risk factors for eating disorders or disordered eating. This paper aims to explore the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) and predictors of eating disorders (/P-EDs) in ND students. Methods: A systematic scoping review of the literature was performed on PubMed, ERIC, PsychINFO, OVID Medline, and Scopus in October 2022. Results: A total of 2097 papers were retrieved from the search, of which 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. The resultant literature reported that 4–32% of ND students were at high risk of EDs (n = 6 studies), and 23–89% could be classified as having orthorexia nervosa (n = 7 studies). Further, 37–86% reported body image/fat dissatisfaction (n = 10 studies), and 100% of students reported weight dissatisfaction (n = 1 study). Conclusions: This paper highlights the prevalence of EDs and P-EDs across ND students. Further research is warranted to explore the cause, context, and impact on ND students’ wellbeing and professional identity and supporting diversity within the profession. Future studies should also consider curriculum approaches to address this occupational hazard.