• Am. J. Clin. Nutr. · Nov 2008

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Comparison of 3 ad libitum diets for weight-loss maintenance, risk of cardiovascular disease, and diabetes: a 6-mo randomized, controlled trial.

    • Anette Due, Thomas M Larsen, Huiling Mu, Kjeld Hermansen, Steen Stender, and Arne Astrup.
    • Department of Human Nutrition, Centre for Advanced Food Studies, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
    • Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008 Nov 1;88(5):1232-41.

    BackgroundThe optimal dietary content and type of fat and carbohydrate for weight management has been debated for decades.ObjectiveThe objective was to compare the effects of 3 ad libitum diets on the maintenance of an initial weight loss of >or=8% and risk factors for CVD and diabetes during a 6-mo controlled dietary intervention.DesignNondiabetic overweight or obese [mean +/- SD body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 31.5 +/- 2.6] men (n = 55) and women (n = 76) aged 28.2 +/- 4.8 y were randomly assigned to a diet providing a moderate amount of fat (35-45% of energy) and >20% of fat as monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA diet; n = 54), to a low-fat (20-30% of energy) diet (LF diet; n = 51), or to a control diet (35% of energy as fat; n = 26). Protein constituted 10-20% of energy in all 3 diets. All foods were provided free of charge from a purpose-built supermarket.ResultsMore subjects dropped out of the MUFA (28%) group than out of the LF group (16%) and control group (8%) (MUFA compared with control: P < 0.05). All groups regained weight (MUFA: 2.5 +/- 0.7 kg; LF: 2.2 +/- 0.7 kg; and control: 3.8 +/- 0.8 kg; NS). Body fat regain was lower in the LF (0.6 +/- 0.6%) and MUFA (1.6 +/- 0.6%) groups than in the control group (2.6 +/- 0.5%) (P < 0.05). In the MUFA group, fasting insulin decreased by 2.6 +/- 3.5 pmol/L, the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance by 0.17 +/- 0.13, and the ratio of LDL to HDL by 0.33 +/- 0.13; in the LF group, these variables increased by 4.3 +/- 3.0 pmol/L (P < 0.08) and 0.17 +/- 0.10 (P < 0.05) and decreased by 0.02 +/- 0.09 (P = 0.005), respectively; and in the control group, increased by 14.0 +/- 4.3 pmol/L (P < 0.001), 0.57 +/- 0.17 (P < 0.001), and 0.05 +/- 0.14 (P = 0.036), respectively. Dietary adherence was high on the basis of fatty acid changes in adipose tissue.ConclusionsDiet composition had no major effect on preventing weight regain. However, both the LF and MUFA diets produced less body fat regain than did the control diet, and the dropout rate was lowest in the LF diet group, whereas fasting insulin decreased and the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance and ratio of LDL to HDL improved with the MUFA diet. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00274729.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.