Intermittent Fasting May Be as Effective as Calorie Restriction for Weight Loss
Intermittent fasting resulted in similar weight loss as traditional calorie restriction, according to a new review.
One form of intermittent fasting, known as whole-day fasting, did yield slightly more weight loss than caloric restriction.
Experts say that the similar results across different diet protocols mean individuals trying to lose weight have more options available to suit their lifestyle.
New research suggests that intermittent fasting is as effective as calorie-restricted diets for weight loss and cardiometabolic risk factors.
A systematic review of nearly 100 randomized clinical trials involving intermittent fasting (IF) and traditional calorie restriction (CR) found that both approaches yielded similar health benefits. The study, published on June 18 in The BMJ, found that IF and CR were equally effective.
IF involves designated periods of eating and fasting and places less emphasis on what you eat than when you eat. By contrast, CR targets a specific daily calorie goal and allows any eating schedule.
The analysis included several of the most common IF protocols, including:
Alternate day fasting (ADF) alternates standard eating days with fasting days or very low calorie days.
Time-restricted eating (TRE) restricts food intake to a daily window, typically 8 or 12 hours.
Whole day fasting, also known as the 5:2 diet, involves two or three weekly fasting days.
All forms of IF and traditional CR produced weight loss compared with no intervention at all — known as an ad libitum, or unrestricted, diet. Of the three primary IF methods, only alternate day fasting resulted in greater weight loss than CR. However, the authors note that longer trials are needed to substantiate their findings.
'This analysis suggests that all three approaches, for the most part, lead to similar weight losses. This is why many of us believe that the best approach to losing weight is finding an approach that matches your lifestyle and is something you can practice for the long term,' said David B. Sarwer, PhD, director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple University and a spokesperson for the Obesity Society. Sarwer wasn't involved in the research.
IF has grown rapidly in popularity over the past decade, but evidence of its health benefits — namely, weight loss and cardiometabolic measures, such as blood glucose — has been inconsistent compared with more traditional, calorie-restricted diets.
Although proponents of IF may be disappointed by the latest findings, experts say that similar results across diets mean that people have more options to find a method that works best for them.
No clear 'best' when it comes to diet protocols
Researchers included 99 randomized clinical trials involving more than 6,500 adults in the systematic review. The average age of participants was 45, and two-thirds were women.
A small percentage was considered healthy, but the vast majority (about 90%) had existing health conditions, including overweight, obesity, and both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Participants' average BMI was 31, meeting the standard clinical definition of obesity, which is a body mass index (BMI of 30 or higher.
Trials ranged between 3 and 52 weeks — with an average of 12 weeks — and varied in quality.
The review found that both IF and CR led to small reductions in body weight compared to an unrestricted diet. Among the different IF protocols, only ADF resulted in slightly more weight loss (nearly three pounds) than CR.
Sarwer pointed out that while this may be statistically significant, such additional weight loss would be trivial in improving weight-related health issues.
ADF also slightly outperformed both TRE and whole-day fasting in terms of weight loss, but these findings were not deemed significant. ADF also resulted in slight improvements to total and LDL cholesterol compared to time-restricted eating.
'There is no compelling evidence that there is a 'best' diet for weight loss,' said Sarwer.
'Rather, the 'best' approach is one where the person can make small, yet impactful changes to their food choices, eating behaviors, and level of physical activity that cause minimal disruption to their lifestyle and that they can maintain for the long term,' he said.
Who benefits from intermittent fasting?
Though IF is touted as the diet du jour, there isn't enough compelling evidence to support it yet. Nonetheless, it has been linked to an array of health benefits, including:
weight loss
improved insulin resistance
reduced inflammation
brain health
The key question, though, is not whether IF is beneficial compared to an unrestricted diet, but whether it's better than CR. That's where things are a little unclear.
A 2024 review found that IF and CR were both associated with weight loss and equally effective across cardiometabolic, cancer, and neurocognitive outcomes. However, they noted that IF studies reported greater adherence, meaning people were better able to stick to them for the trial duration.
A slightly older study published in NEJM in 2022 also concluded that among people with obesity, TRE wasn't more beneficial than CR.
On the other hand, in a clinical trial funded by the NIH, the results of which were published in April 2025, participants who did a variation of whole-day fasting (a 4:3 schedule rather than the more common 5:2) lost 50% more weight than CR (7.6% vs 5% body weight) after one year.
The additional weight loss also translated into cardiometabolic improvements, such as blood pressure, total cholesterol, and A1C.
Another trial, published in May 2025, found that just three months of TRE led to long-term weight loss, even after participants stopped the protocol.
CR isn't perfect either. Though it's long been a standard dietary intervention, it can be harmful, leading to fatigue, nutrient deficiencies, and even depression.
For now, experts agree that the right diet solution comes down to the individual. The best diet for you is the one you can stick to.
'Fasting diets are easier to follow because the rules are fairly simple vs trying to start a Mediterranean diet, for example. Some patients who may particularly benefit from a time-restricted diet, for example, are individuals who tend to snack a lot at night,' said Sun Kim, MD, an associate professor of Endocrinology, Gerontology, and Metabolism at Stanford Medicine who wasn't involved in the research.
She also cautions that individuals with diabetes who take insulin should be careful with fasting diets, as they may necessitate adjustments to insulin dosage and scheduling.
You should also be cautious with intermittent fasting if you:
are over age 65
have a history of disordered eating
have low blood pressure
are pregnant or nursing
Adherence is key to long-term weight loss
One final notable finding of the study was that adherence rates dropped precipitously the longer trials went on.
Studies shorter than 24 weeks had high adherence, above 80%, while trials longer than 52 weeks typically reported poor adherence. In one trial involving whole-day fasting, adherence crashed from 74% at six weeks to just 22% at 52 weeks.
These findings reinforce the idea that diet protocols should not be viewed as 'one size fits all' but rather as tailored to each individual's lifestyle.
'I wish there was an easy solution to weight loss. In our society, there are many forces that push individuals toward weight gain. I always discuss with patients about finding a lifestyle change that they can sustain for the long haul,' said Kim.
According to Sarwer, small, sustainable changes are key.
'I'm more likely to suggest that people reduce the number of days a week that they eat ice cream, or reduce the portion size they eat, than to recommend that they stop eating ice cream all together,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kidney doctor's shooting comes as questions emerge about dialysis centers
Dr. Andre Obua drove 18 hours from Miami to Terre Haute, Indiana. He pulled up to the home of a local kidney specialist and allegedly opened fire, striking the kidney doctor in the hand before being wrestled to the ground. The only thing more unexpected than the act of violence was the apparent motive. Accused in the shooting, which occurred one month after the brazen murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO in New York City, was Obua, a highly educated medical resident with a promising career. But Obua had become fixated on one of the least-understood corners in the big business of medicine — kidney dialysis. In letters penned from prison, in phone interviews and on a website he created, Obua shared with CBS News his grievances, discussed the Luigi Mangione case in New York, and offered hints to the underpinnings of an alleged act that landed him in jail, where he is awaiting trial on attempted murder charges. He would not directly discuss the shooting and has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors in Vigo County, Indiana, said they consider the crime abhorrent — and a source of continued pain for the physician who was shot. CBS News is not naming the victim at the request of prosecutors. Prosecutor Terry R. Modesitt said his office determined the victim "had never done anything to justify having violence brought against him." Modesitt voiced a broader concern about what he said he fears is a growing wave of disturbing vigilante violence that has no place in a civilized society. "These cases that we read about in the news or watch on TV about the news — there's no excuse for this," Modesitt said. "Go out and protest. Write your congressman… file a complaint with the attorney general's office in your state, things like that. But no, there's never any justification to go try to murder someone." Tom Mueller, the author of "How to Make a Killing: Blood, Death and Dollars in American Medicine," spent more than five years studying the dialysis industry. He says the incident conjures many of the same complex swirl of emotions that Americans expressed after the UnitedHealthcare shooting. There is a visceral disgust for violence used to make a statement, he said. And there is long-running dismay about the shortcomings of America's health care system, which may be costing lives. That includes, he said, a rise of for-profit dialysis clinics and their impact on quality of care for those confronting end-stage kidney disease. "Unless we can talk about systemic harm done by the medical profession, the insurance profession, against patients … we're not gonna get anywhere," Mueller said. Mueller may be uniquely positioned to weigh in on both the crime and the issue that may have been underlying it. For months before the shooting, he told CBS News that he and Obua had been corresponding by email about his book. In those emails, which he described to CBS News, he says Obua never gave any indication he was spiraling towards violence. Mueller only learned of the shooting later, during an interview with CBS News. "I nearly fell off my chair when I heard," Mueller said. "My sense is that [his] level of desperation just must have found an outlet in a violent act." Dialysis under scrutiny LaQuayia "LQ" Goldring, 28, has been a dialysis patient for the past ten years. Goldring lives near Louisville, Kentucky, where she spends up to four and a half hours a day hooked up to a home dialysis machine. It acts as her kidneys, taking the blood from her body, removing the waste, then cycling it back in. "Every day I wake up, I'm thanking God that my feet even hit the ground and that my eyes open and I can still breathe on my own," she said. Goldring is one of roughly 500,000 Americans dependent on dialysis to stay alive as they wait and hope for a kidney transplant, the only available remedy for those suffering from end-stage kidney disease. She receives the treatment at home, and says dialysis clinics left her with no control over her care, treating her like a "check." She, like Mueller, believes the industry has become too focused on profits. "This is emergency room care done in the mall," Mueller said. "People are not given the tailored treatment that they need." A review of federal data by CBS News found one-third of dialysis clinics failed to meet federal standards this year — nearly 2,500 of the roughly 7,600 clinics nationwide. The average score was 60 out of 100 possible points. Criticism of the industry has been disputed by the two largest for-profit companies in the dialysis industry, Fresenius and DaVita. Fresenius told CBS News in a statement that the company maintains an "unwavering focus on improving quality of life, strengthening clinical outcomes, and extending the lifespan of those we have the privilege to serve." DaVita said in a statement that its "dedicated clinicians consistently deliver high-quality, individualized care in a complex clinical and regulatory environment." A health care "duopoly" The two companies dominate the national landscape of clinics where kidney patients come to receive regular dialysis treatments — crucial to keeping them alive. Roughly 90% of patients get their treatment in the outpatient clinics. And together, the two for-profit companies own nearly 75% of all U.S. clinics — nearly 5,600 in total. The companies have become what Mueller calls "a duopoly" as the industry has consolidated over the past three decades. The share of independently owned dialysis facilities fell from 86% to 21% during that period. In over 2,500 cities around the U.S., a single company owns every clinic. That industry dominance has a cost, according to Ryan McDevitt, a Duke University economist who co-authored a study released this month looking at the toll of the scarce competition. "This is the most concentrated health care sector across the entire U.S.," McDevitt said. McDevitt argues that Medicare's limits on how much it reimburses clinics per patient have incentivized DaVita and Fresenius to focus on filling chairs to increase their profit margins. Both companies reject that characterization. Last year alone, DaVita delivered more than 29 million dialysis treatments, earning $391 in revenue per session. That includes providing home dialysis treatments, like Goldring receives through Fresenius. Together, Davita and Fresenius reported a total of $33.7 billion in revenue from all of their businesses. McDevitt said his research found that when independent clinics are acquired by DaVita or Fresenius, their transplant referrals drop by about 10%, their patient survival rates fall by 2%, hospitalizations increase by 5%, and infection rates go up by about 12%. While kidney specialists typically dictate the type of care they want for their patients, some doctors told CBS News they felt pressure from the companies running the dialysis clinics to move patients through faster. Dr. Leonard Stern, a nephrologist now at Columbia University, said even if he believed a patient needed five hours of dialysis treatment, there were times that DaVita would refuse. "We have a corporate model that provides the least amount of care for the most amount of profit for shareholders," Stern said. Stern served as medical director of an independent for-profit dialysis center until 2005, when it was sold to DaVita. After the acquisition, he said there were times the company instructed him to make more room for new patients. He said that sometimes meant more billing for DaVita, even if it resulted in unnecessary complications and return visits for his patients. Stern left the clinic in 2013. Dr. Jeffrey Gold, a kidney specialist in Royal Oak, Michigan, said the doctors feel pressure to "get the next patient in — and make sure everybody has a spot to dialyze." McDevitt described the one-size-fits-all approach as inconsistent with patient needs. "They call it bazooka dialysis, where they pump you through the station as quickly as possible," McDevitt said, comparing the turnover model to any other volume business. "They need to turn over stations multiple times a day to hit those profit numbers, to keep shareholders happy." Reports of deficiencies Most dialysis patients rely on the federal government to pay for the treatment. The costs add up to about $40 billion a year, according to the American Association of Kidney Patients. "It's actually one percent of the entire federal budget, which is a staggering statistic," McDevitt said. Despite the expenditures — about $100,000 per patient, according to McDevitt — the U.S. has among the highest death rates for patients on dialysis among developed nations. For years, health surveyors from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have conducted routine monitoring of dialysis clinics to assess their performance. Since 2013, those officials have cited U.S. dialysis centers for more than 115,000 deficiencies, including poor hand hygiene, unsanitary conditions while handling IV medications, and inadequate training. CMS assigns every facility a "Total Performance Score," evaluating them annually on measures like patient safety, infection control and hospitalization rates. If the score is below CMS standards, the clinic is hit with a financial penalty. A CBS News review of federal data found more than 40% of the clinics run by the nation's two largest dialysis providers — DaVita and Fresenius — failed to meet those same standards this year. That's nearly 1,600 clinics. In separate statements to CBS News, both companies highlighted their performance, saying the data reflects a track record of "exemplary care." Fresenius noted that more than 65% of its dialysis centers received three stars or higher on Medicare's five-star scale — a rate the company said is higher than the national average of all U.S. dialysis providers. The company also said its employees "take immense pride in providing best-in-class, high-quality care to our patients." DaVita said in a statement to CBS News that problems in clinics were "rare and isolated" and represent "exceptions and do not reflect the exemplary care we consistently provide." "We take every concern seriously, and if we make an error, we work immediately to resolve it," DaVita said in its statement. "To mischaracterize such anomalies as systemic care failures is reckless, fear-mongering, and puts patient well-being at risk." Legal settlements top $1 billion The dialysis industry has faced legal scrutiny over the past decade from patients, their surviving relatives, and from state and federal agencies. One ongoing federal case against Fresenius accuses the firm of trying to fraudulently obtain hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funds by performing unnecessary procedures — an allegation the company denies. The two companies have settled at least 25 lawsuits. And CBS News has found that since 2015, Fresenius and DaVita paid out at least $1.13 billion in legal settlements. "I have not seen any improvement in care following these settlements," McDevitt said. A spiral towards violence Frustration over the lack of reform in the industry has been simmering for years, Mueller told CBS News. Which is why Mueller said he was not unnerved as he exchanged emails with a Miami-based medical resident who had taken an interest in dialysis — and specifically, the use of a specific medication he thought could be harming patients. "The kinds of emails he sent were totally rational, very thoughtful, extremely data-driven," Mueller said, calling Andre Obua "the last person in the world I would think to commit a violent act." Over dozens of pages, the letters Obua sent to CBS News from jail describe how he grew up in a low-income household in Ann Arbor, Michigan — a background that "shaped my world views and motivates me to advocate for the less fortunate," he wrote. He says he first heard during an internal medical rotation about the use of a medication being prescribed to kidney patients to speed up the dialysis process, which he speculated could be endangering their health. It appears from his writing that this concern went from being an interest to being an obsession. At one point, he described seeking out a lawyer to file a whistleblower lawsuit, but was ultimately persuaded he could not succeed in court. CBS News sought to verify his claims, but no kidney expert interviewed believed that the medication in question harmed patients. Nevertheless, Obua unspooled mountains of his research, theories and accusations on a public website. A source familiar with the case told CBS News Obua had drawn up a list of kidney doctors to target. Near the top was the victim of his attack in Indiana. In January, for reasons Obua would not directly address in his letters and conversations with CBS News, the 29-year-old said he loaded his car with firearms and a bag of Monopoly money — which he noted was similar to the one left behind by alleged UnitedHealthcare shooter Luigi Mangione — and headed north towards Indiana. Police reports say Obua fired at a Terre Haute kidney specialist without warning, striking the doctor in the hand. The two wrestled in the tranquil suburban driveway until police arrived and placed Obua under arrest. Mueller shakes his head when thinking about the bright future Obua seemingly abandoned that winter evening. "It says we're living in extreme times," he said. "And it's a tragic, tragic event." Modesitt, the prosecutor, said he has no sympathy for the young medical resident who's now facing attempted murder charges. "If you've got a problem in any way with the system or anything else, we have attorney generals, we have secretary of states, different entities that you can file a complaint with," Modesitt said. "But it's never justified to take the law in your own hands." Obua is scheduled to go on trial in August. Full statement of DaVita: Our dedicated clinicians consistently deliver high-quality, individualized care in a complex clinical and regulatory environment. We understand that in any healthcare setting, rare and isolated incidents may occur. However, these are diligently addressed as exceptions and do not reflect the exemplary care we consistently provide. We take every concern seriously, and if we make an error, we work immediately to resolve it. To mischaracterize such anomalies as systemic care failures is reckless, fear-mongering, and puts patient well-being at risk. Full statement of Fresenius Medical Care: Providing high-quality care is our standard, and nothing gets in the way of our patients being our North Star. By any objective measure, our ability to hire qualified staff, deliver outstanding – best-in-class – patient care, and innovate for the betterment of people living with kidney disease far outpaces the industry. This is evidenced by the fact that the most recently available CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) 5-Star quality data, which concluded that more than 65% of all Fresenius Kidney Care (FKC) dialysis centers received 3 stars or higher – higher than the combined national average of all U.S. dialysis providers. Our approximately 70,000 employees and care teams, working across more than 2,600 dialysis centers, and delivering over 31 million treatments annually in the U.S. take immense pride in providing best-in-class, high-quality care to our patients. And our ability to introduce revolutionary advancements and innovation in kidney care, including the upcoming introduction of the 5008X™ CAREsystem in the U.S. that will deliver high-volume hemodiafiltration starting later in 2025, demonstrates our unwavering focus on improving quality of life, strengthening clinical outcomes, and extending the lifespan of those we have the privilege to serve. Netanyahu reacts to U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites Some key Democratic congressional leaders left out of Trump's Iran attack plans Extended interview: LQ Goldring on her quest for a kidney donor
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You Can Only Buy 1 Cathie Wood Stock in 2025, It Should Be This
Cathie Wood, founder, CEO and chief investment officer of Ark Invest, continues to make headlines for her high-conviction approach to disruptive innovation. Her flagship fund, the Ark Innovation ETF (ARKK), has posted a 52.9% return in the past 52 weeks, reflecting investor confidence. Known for identifying transformational themes early, Wood maintains focused exposure to industries like genomics, autonomous technology, and blockchain. Within this context, Natera (NTRA) has drawn sharp relevance. The company leads in cell-free DNA testing and precision medicine, aligning directly with Ark's long-term thesis. CoreWeave Just Revealed the Largest-Ever Nvidia Blackwell GPU Cluster. Should You Buy CRWV Stock? AMD Is Gunning for Nvidia's AI Chip Throne. Should You Buy AMD Stock Now? The Saturday Spread: Statistical Signals Flash Green for CMG, TMUS and VALE Tired of missing midday reversals? The FREE Barchart Brief newsletter keeps you in the know. Sign up now! For investors seeking a stock that fits the Ark playbook, Natera may represent one of the most fundamentally aligned additions under Wood's current investment lens. Based in Austin, Texas, stands Natera (NTRA), a pioneer in the field of cell-free DNA and genetic testing. The $23.3 billion biotech firm's arsenal includes powerful offerings like Panorama for prenatal screening, Signatera for real-time cancer surveillance, and Prospera, which sharpens the lens on transplant rejection. Over the last three months, the stock has climbed 16.9%, leaving the broader S&P 500 Index's ($SPX) 5.4% gain behind. On May 8, Natera opened the books on its first-quarter, and the results exceeded Wall Street expectations. Investors responded swiftly, with the stock inching up 1.5% the same day. Natera posted $501.8 million in total revenues, a 36.5% year-over-year increase that soared past Wall Street's $443.3 million forecast. Behind those numbers were powerhouse operations. The company processed 855,100 tests during the quarter, up 16.2% year over year. Women's health volumes climbed meaningfully over the fourth quarter, but it was Signatera that stole the spotlight. The personalized, tumor-informed molecular residual disease test reached new heights, recording its highest volume quarter ever. Clinical volumes for Signatera grew 52% year over year, with a sequential gain of roughly 16,005 units over Q4, marking the most significant quarter-on-quarter growth to date. Gross margins landed at 63.1%, reflecting solid cost discipline. Moreover, Natera's net loss narrowed 1% from the year-ago period to $66.9 million. Also, the company managed to trim its loss per share by 10.7% to $0.50, outperforming analysts' projections of a $0.59 loss per share. As for liquidity, the balance sheet remained in good shape. Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash climbed to $973.8 million, up from $945.6 million on Dec 31, 2024. CEO Steve Chapman has made no secret of the firm's long-term vision. He believes Signatera could ultimately generate over $5 billion in annual revenue, and he emphasized that they are still playing in the shallow end of a much deeper market pool. In a move that reinforced this optimism, Natera has raised its full-year revenue guidance to between $1.94 billion and $2.02 billion. That is a $70 million boost from the midpoint of its earlier outlook, pointing to a 26% year-over-year growth. On the other hand, analysts expect the Q2 2025 loss per share to widen 100% year over year to $0.60. For FY25, the loss per share is projected to increase 37% to $2.10, but FY26 could bring relief, with a forecast 64.8% narrowing to $0.74, hinting that profitability may finally be within reach. Analysts seem to be singing in harmony when it comes to NTRA, marking it with a firm 'Strong Buy' rating. Out of 19 analysts following the stock, 16 have given it an enthusiastic 'Strong Buy' rating, and the remaining three have placed their bets on a 'Moderate Buy.' The average price target of $200.42 represents potential upside of 17.6%. Meanwhile, the Street-High target of $251 hints at a 48% climb from current levels. Such projections do not come lightly and often reflect deep-rooted confidence in future earnings momentum and strategic execution. On the date of publication, Aanchal Sugandh did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Company makes game-changing breakthrough that could solve common issue with plant-based food — here's what you need to know
Let's be honest: Plant-based protein doesn't always taste great. Even if you love the idea of eating less meat for your health and the planet, the weird aftertaste of some plant-based meats can be hard to ignore. But that might be about to change. According to FoodNavigator USA, the flavor company T. Hasegawa USA has developed a high-tech, natural flavor that tackles the unpleasant "off" notes of plant proteins such as pea and soy. The whole technology (and science) behind it is pretty impressive. When meat sizzles in a pan or bread gets crispy in the toaster, the Maillard reaction creates craveable aromas and flavors. But plant proteins such as soy and pea don't react the same way during cooking, which can leave them tasting bland or, worse, beany and bitter. If companies want people to go for meat alternatives, there's a need to focus on options that taste good and have pleasant textures. As Mark Webster, vice president of sales and marketing at T. Hasegawa, said, "That is where the headwind is." The T. Hasegawa team tackled this problem by developing a natural flavor technology called Plantreact that increases Maillard reactions — the chemical processes that give so-called browned foods their flavors. This innovation doesn't stop with fake meats. The same flavor solution can also recreate creamy, dairy-like notes in alternative milks and other nondairy products. That's huge for people who love the idea of oat or almond milk but miss the full-bodied taste of cow's milk. Plantreact has been in the works for a while, but it's now ready to hit the market. T. Hasegawa is already working with food brands to roll it out in products. Better flavor means plant-based foods are more enjoyable, which makes it easier for more people to cut back on animal products and reduce pollution, conserve water, and shrink their carbon footprints. This tech is already being explored by plant-based brands looking to improve their products, and it may soon appear in alternative meat and dairy products at your local grocery store. Combined with the work of companies such as Meati and Perfect Day, this kind of innovation helps build a future in which eating more sustainably doesn't mean compromising on taste. Why do you eat plant-based foods? The health benefits It's cheaper It's good for the planet I prefer the taste Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
