The best definitions are in the 3 articles I put in two different posts above.
But in broad strokes: food
is what can and generally is esten. It is digestible, and sustains us, or it does not sustain but it pleases us in some way.diet
is a particular choice for food, food groups, and even cooking methods.diets
are diverse. SOme restrict calories, others fats, others carbs. Some prescribe fats, protein, and carbs in particular ratios. Some look to animal or plant sources. Some make an appeal (often very flawed) to an evolutionary past - or to blood type groups and more proximal evolution in regions of the world (e.g., some regions have very little dairy, and are also missing gut microbes that help digest lactose). Most have a purpose of weight loss, but some focus on oxidative stress, or on bone strength, or on anti-inflammatory aspects. Diets are a wild land of conflicting claims and practices that have had much misunderstood and misapplied research. Frequently someone wanting to profit on a book exploits the human fascination with eating/food.
Nutrition looks to the micro-components of food. At fatty acids, at amino-acids, and simple and complex sugars, at anti-oxidants, at lipids, at emulsifiers. at many things.
At this level (in my view) food is more similar to medicine, and some medicine is a kind of food.
Nutritional approaches are sometimes extended to consider specific supplements that have no nutritional/sustaining value for the host, but may affect host metabolism or host immune response.
Scientific finding about
nutrition and UC often divide into micro-nutrients that directly affect the host, versus those that target the gut microbes. Starving and feeding particular types of microbes to effect rebalance of population, or to produce breakdown by products (i.e., fermentation and butyrate) that effect conditions in the gut or in the secreted mucus that separates the gut interior from the tissue of the host.
In a free market, and a climate of desperation, any commercial claims are made for specific supplements. This dovetails with the folks already trying to get rich hawking a diet.
But in the scientific literature more and more is known about
chemical and molecular basis for particular micro-nutrients on host tissue, mucus, host immunology, and gut microbe ecology. Until someone is ready to make a pill, this basic research general advances understanding over profit.
Eating an anti-inflammatory diet - especially many ingredients that act topically in the gut - seems helpful. Systemic anti-inflammatories (even ones naturally found in "food") can lower host immunity and invite opportunistic infection. Self therapy should be with care, understanding, and moderation.
Turmeric can be helpful, but for some in sufficient dose causees life threatening blood thinning.
Some nutritional substances are needed for life, i.e., vitamins, and elimination should be considered carefully.
My point is that this world, where research and science lives, where understandings are being forged, is why the link of "food" and IBD is gaining space in the medical literature.
This literature is not ready for "standard of care" that docs offer, or simple instructions to patients who don't know a fatty acid-3 from a fatty acid-6 - and will not generally be seen outside of IBD research practices.
All of this is also more or less salient depending on the host's genetics.
But if you want to understand why clear answers from general gastros to the question "does food affect UC", are conflicting, you need to self-educated and learn all of these distinctions and appreciate the complexity.
Post Edited (DBwithUC) : 12/25/2017 10:03:22 AM (GMT-7)