1.
Comparison of the Effects of Intermittent Energy Restriction and Continuous Energy Restriction among Adults with Overweight or Obesity: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Wang, J, Wang, F, Chen, H, Liu, L, Zhang, S, Luo, W, Wang, G, Hu, X
Nutrients. 2022;14(11)
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Obesity is the leading cause of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and some forms of cancer. 38% of people worldwide are overweight, and 20% are obese. To combat obesity and associated comorbidities, calorie restriction (CR) is found to be a cost-effective non-pharmacological intervention. Intermittent energy restriction (IER) and continuous energy restriction (CER) are two forms of CR characterised by notable calorie restriction and normal energy intake phases. Forms of IER included in this research are the 5:2 diet, alternate-day fasting (ADF), and time-restricted feeding (TRF). For weight loss, CER limits calorie intake by 15-40%. A total of eleven randomised controlled studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of IER protocols with CER in reducing weight, BMI and waist circumferences in overweight or obese individuals. Improvements in anthropometric parameters were not different between IER and CER. A long-term robust study is necessary to evaluate the effects of IER and CER on improving anthropometric and metabolic parameters due to the limitations and heterogeneity of current research evidence. Nevertheless, healthcare professionals can use the results of this study to understand the role of IER and CER in weight loss and their clinical relevance for improving overall health and lifespan.
Abstract
There is considerable heterogeneity across the evidence regarding the effects of intermittent energy restriction and continuous energy restriction among adults with overweight or obesity which presents difficulties for healthcare decision-makers and individuals. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to evaluate and synthesize the existing evidence regarding the comparison of the two interventions. We conducted a search strategy in eight databases from the databases' inception to December 2021. The quality of 12 systematic reviews was assessed with A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). One review was rated as high quality, 1 as moderate, 4 as low, and 6 as critically low. A meta-analysis of the original studies was conducted for comparison of primary intermittent energy restriction protocols with continuous energy restriction. Intermittent energy restriction did not seem to be more effective in weight loss compared with continuous energy restriction. The advantages of intermittent energy restriction in reducing BMI and waist circumference and improvement of body composition were not determined due to insufficient evidence. The evidence quality of systematic reviews and original trials remains to be improved in future studies.
2.
The Role of Diet, Eating Behavior, and Nutrition Intervention in Seasonal Affective Disorder: A Systematic Review.
Yang, Y, Zhang, S, Zhang, X, Xu, Y, Cheng, J, Yang, X
Frontiers in psychology. 2020;11:1451
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a mood disorder characterised by annual depression or bipolar disorder in a seasonal pattern. Recent evidence suggests dietary intervention and nutrition status can affect the symptoms in depressed patients, but none have specifically considered depression among SAD patients. The aim of this review was to assess the associations between diet, eating behaviour and nutrition intervention in SAD patients. Eleven studies were included and found vegetarian diet patterns and alcoholism to be associated with higher SAD prevalence. Additionally, SAD patients tend to consume larger dinners, more snacks, and show more cravings for starch-rich foods. Despite these patterns, dietary supplementation or nutrition intervention did not show benefit for SAD symptoms. Overall, the authors conclude there is a lack of evidence to draw conclusions on dietary pattern and nutritional interventions for preventing and managing SAD. The authors suggest further evidence is needed from larger controlled trials and encourage investigation of the role of the B vitamin group, rather than an isolated B12 supplementation.
Abstract
Background: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a biological and mood disorder with a seasonal pattern. Dietary intervention and nutritional status have been reported to affect SAD severity. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence of associations between SAD and diet, eating behavior, and nutrition intervention. Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception up to July 1, 2019. Studies that examined diet and eating behaviors in SAD patients and tests of nutrition interventions for SAD were included. Two independent investigators extracted data based on study designs, participants, outcomes, exposures, and association measures. Results: Eleven studies were included: six studies examined distinctive dietary patterns and eating behaviors in SAD patients and five studies explored the efficacy of nutrition interventions for SAD. Vegetarianism and alcoholism were associated with higher SAD prevalence, but normal alcohol intake was not correlated with SAD severity. Compared with non-clinical subjects, SAD patients tended to consume significantly larger dinners and more evening snacks during weekdays and weekends and exhibit a higher frequency of binge eating, external eating, and emotional eating. Additionally, compared to healthy controls, SAD patients presented more cravings for starch-rich food and food with high fiber. However, neither the ingestion of carbohydrate-loaded meals nor Vitamin D/B12 supplementation showed benefit for SAD. Conclusion: Studies suggest that SAD patients may exhibit distinctive diet preferences and eating behaviors, but no current nutrition intervention has demonstrated efficacy for ameliorating SAD symptoms. Further evidence is needed from randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and longer durations.
3.
Clinical significance of nutritional risk screening for older adult patients with COVID-19.
Liu, G, Zhang, S, Mao, Z, Wang, W, Hu, H
European journal of clinical nutrition. 2020;74(6):876-883
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Literature shows that nutritional deficiency is common and serious in the elderly, with studies reporting malnourishment in 35–65% of elderly hospitalized patients and 25–60% of institutionalized older adults. The aim of this study to explore the relationship between nutritional risk and clinical outcome in patients older than 65 years with COVID-19. A secondary outcome was to investigate the ability of the (nutritional risk screening) NRS tools to predict worse-than-average clinical outcomes. The study is a retrospective cohort analysis which enrolled 141 patients (females n = 73). Patients were classified into either a normal group or a nutritional risk group according to the criterion of each NRS tool. Results indicate that patients with COVID-19 who classified as having a nutritional risk had significantly poorer clinical outcomes than those classified as normal following assessments by Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Mini Nutrition Assessment Shortcut (MNA-sf), and Nutrition Risk Index (NRI). Authors conclude that the NRS 2002, MNAsf, and NRI are useful and practical tools for identifying older adult patients with COVID-19 who are at nutritional risk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the nutritional risks among older patients with COVID-19 and their associated clinical outcomes using four nutritional risk screening (NRS) tools: Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Mini Nutrition Assessment Shortcut (MNA-sf), and Nutrition Risk Index (NRI). METHODS We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with COVID-19 older than 65 years who were treated in our hospital from January 28, 2020 to March 5, 2020, and explored the relationship between nutritional risk and clinical outcomes. RESULTS A total of 141 patients with COVID-19 (46 common COVID-19, 73 severe COVID-19, and 22 extremely severe COVID-19) were enrolled in the study. NRS 2002 identified 85.8% of patients as having risk, with being identified 41.1% by MUST, 77.3% by MNA-sf, and 71.6% by NRI. The agreement strength was moderate between NRS 2002 and MNA-sf, NRI, fair between MUST and MNA-sf, NRI, fair between MNA-sf and NRI, poor between NRS 2002 and MUST (P < 0.01). After adjustment for confounding factors in multivariate regression analysis, patients in the risk group had significantly longer LOS, higher hospital expenses (except MNA-sf), poor appetite, heavier disease severity, and more weight change(kg) than normal patients by using NRS 2002, MNA-sf, and NRI(P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The NRS 2002, MNA-sf, and NRI are useful and practical tools with respect to screening for patients with COVID-19 who are at nutritional risk, as well as in need of additional nutritional intervention.