1.
The Weight Optimization Revamping Lifestyle using the Dietary Guidelines (WORLD) Study: Sustained Weight Loss Over 12 Months.
Psota, TL, Tindall, AM, Lohse, B, Miller, PE, Petersen, KS, Kris-Etherton, PM
Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.). 2020;28(7):1235-1244
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Effective long-term weight loss strategies to reduce the risk of death and diseases associated with being obese or overweight are required, as restrictive programmes are difficult to sustain, and weight loss may be heavily influenced by behavioural factors. This randomised control trial of 101 premenopausal women with obesity or overweight aimed to compare a lower-fat and moderate-fat diets, both with nutrition education for 12 months. The results showed that both treatment groups lost weight. Both groups consumed the same amount of fat but increased their diet quality. Diet quality and greater attendance at nutritional education sessions were associated with greater weight loss. Cholesterol was significantly lower in both groups, but blood pressure remained unchanged. Interestingly there were a large number of women who did not complete the trial. It was concluded that irrespective of the amount of fat consumed, nutrition education can help to achieve sustained weight loss, improve diet quality and decrease heart disease risk for at least 12 months. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to understand that recommending fat-based targets for weight loss may be ineffective and the importance of emotional and behavioural support for individuals on a weight loss regime to improve their risk for heart disease.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to compare two energy-restricted, nutrient-dense diets at the upper or lower ends of the dietary fat recommendation range (lower fat [20% energy from fat] versus moderate fat [35%]) on weight loss using behavioral theory-based nutrition education. METHODS A total of 101 premenopausal women with overweight or obesity were randomized to an energy-restricted lower-fat or moderate-fat diet for 1 year. Interventions included 28 behavioral theory-based nutrition education sessions plus weekly exercise sessions. RESULTS Both treatment groups experienced weight loss (-5.0 kg for lower fat and -4.3 kg for moderate fat; P < 0.0001), but there was no difference in weight loss or fat intake between groups. Total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased (-3. 4 mg/dL and -3.8 mg/dL; P < 0.05), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased (1.9 mg/dL; P < 0.05) in both groups at 12 months. Diet quality, assessed by the Healthy Eating Index, increased significantly at 4 months versus baseline (70.8 [0.9] vs. 77.8 [1.0]) and was maintained through 12 months. Higher Healthy Eating Index scores were associated with greater weight loss at 4 months (r = -0.2; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In the context of a well-resourced, free-living weight-loss intervention, total fat intake did not change; however, theory-based nutrition education underpinned by food-based recommendations resulted in caloric deficits, improvements in diet quality, and weight loss that was sustained for 1 year.
2.
Breakfast Skipping, Body Composition, and Cardiometabolic Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Bonnet, JP, Cardel, MI, Cellini, J, Hu, FB, Guasch-Ferré, M
Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.). 2020;28(6):1098-1109
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Breakfast has been considered the most important meal of the day. However, despite the fairly consistent association of breakfast consumption with decreased body weight, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown equivocal results. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating the effect of skipping breakfast on body composition and cardiometabolic risk factors over a period of at least 4 weeks. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. A total of 425 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Participant range of age was 18 to 65 years old, with a mean age of 35 years. This study demonstrates that breakfast skipping compared with breakfast consumption over the short-term (4 to 16 weeks) results in weight loss without significant changes in other body composition parameters. Furthermore, breakfast skipping, as compared with breakfast consumption, led to significant increases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Authors conclude that although breakfast skipping had a modest impact on weight loss in the short term, its long-term impact on body composition and cardiometabolic health requires further study.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of skipping breakfast on body composition and cardiometabolic risk factors. METHODS This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating breakfast skipping compared with breakfast consumption. Inclusion criteria included age ≥ 18, intervention duration ≥ 4 weeks, ≥ 7 participants per group, and ≥ 1 body composition measure. Random-effects meta-analyses of the effect of breakfast skipping on body composition and cardiometabolic risk factors were performed. RESULTS Seven RCTs (n = 425 participants) with an average duration of 8.6 weeks were included. Compared with breakfast consumption, breakfast skipping significantly reduced body weight (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -0.54 kg [95% CI: -1.05 to -0.03], P = 0.04, I2 = 21.4%). Percent body fat was reported in 5 studies and was not significantly different between breakfast skippers and consumers. Three studies reported on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), which was increased in breakfast skippers as compared with breakfast consumers (WMD = 9.24 mg/dL [95% CI: 2.18 to 16.30], P = 0.01). Breakfast skipping did not lead to significant differences in blood pressure, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, C-reactive protein, insulin, fasting glucose, leptin, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, or ghrelin. CONCLUSIONS Breakfast skipping may have a modest impact on weight loss and may increase LDL in the short term. Further studies are needed to provide additional insight into the effects of breakfast skipping.
3.
Paleolithic nutrition for metabolic syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Manheimer, EW, van Zuuren, EJ, Fedorowicz, Z, Pijl, H
The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2015;102(4):922-32
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of 5 risk factors, including waist circumference, blood pressure, and serum concentrations of glucose, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol in the fasting condition. These often occur in concert and predispose people to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether current evidence supports the idea that Paleolithic nutrition improves risk factors for chronic disease more than do other dietary interventions in people with one or more components of the metabolic syndrome. The study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials that compared Paleolithic nutrition with any other dietary intervention in participants with one or more of the 5 components of the metabolic syndrome. Results indicate that Paleolithic nutrition resulted in greater short-term pooled improvements on each of the 5 components of metabolic syndrome than did currently recommended guideline-based control diets. However, the greater pooled improvements did not reach significance for 2 of the 5 components (i.e., HDL cholesterol and fasting blood sugar). Authors conclude that the available data warrant additional evaluations of the health benefits of Paleolithic nutrition.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Paleolithic nutrition, which has attracted substantial public attention lately because of its putative health benefits, differs radically from dietary patterns currently recommended in guidelines, particularly in terms of its recommendation to exclude grains, dairy, and nutritional products of industry. OBJECTIVE We evaluated whether a Paleolithic nutritional pattern improves risk factors for chronic disease more than do other dietary interventions. DESIGN We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the Paleolithic nutritional pattern with any other dietary pattern in participants with one or more of the 5 components of metabolic syndrome. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Outcome data were extracted from the first measurement time point (≤6 mo). A random-effects model was used to estimate the average intervention effect. The quality of the evidence was rated with the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS Four RCTs that involved 159 participants were included. The 4 control diets were based on distinct national nutrition guidelines but were broadly similar. Paleolithic nutrition resulted in greater short-term improvements than did the control diets (random-effects model) for waist circumference (mean difference: -2.38 cm; 95% CI: -4.73, -0.04 cm), triglycerides (-0.40 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.76, -0.04 mmol/L), systolic blood pressure (-3.64 mm Hg; 95% CI: -7.36, 0.08 mm Hg), diastolic blood pressure (-2.48 mm Hg; 95% CI: -4.98, 0.02 mm Hg), HDL cholesterol (0.12 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.28 mmol/L), and fasting blood sugar (-0.16 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.44, 0.11 mmol/L). The quality of the evidence for each of the 5 metabolic components was moderate. The home-delivery (n = 1) and dietary recommendation (n = 3) RCTs showed similar effects with the exception of greater improvements in triglycerides relative to the control with the home delivery. None of the RCTs evaluated an improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS The Paleolithic diet resulted in greater short-term improvements in metabolic syndrome components than did guideline-based control diets. The available data warrant additional evaluations of the health benefits of Paleolithic nutrition. This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO) as CRD42014015119.