BACKGROUND:Liquid-formula diets (LFDs) are useful in metabolic studies of the cholesterolemic effects of dietary lipids because they can be formulated with accuracy, facilitating precise delivery of fatty acids of interest. However, because of differences in composition and nutrient delivery between LFDs and solid-food diets (SFDs), there is a need to determine differences in their effects. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare lipid and lipoprotein responses to changes in total fat, saturated fatty acids (SFAs), and cholesterol in subjects consuming an SFD or LFD. DESIGN:Twenty-one healthy subjects consumedcontrolled diets representative of an average American diet [AAD; 37% of energy from fat (15% from SFAs), and <50 mg cholesterol/MJ] or a National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Step II diet [26% fat (5% from SFAs) and <25 mg cholesterol/MJ]. Other nutrients were similar between diets. Diets were consumed for 23 d in a randomized, crossover design. RESULTS: For the AAD and NCEP Step II diet, there were no significant differences in lipids and apolipoproteins when the LFD or SFD versions were consumed. In contrast, consumption of the SFD was associated with significantly lower total cholesterol and triacylglycerols than was consumption of the corresponding AAD or Step II LFD (P < 0.05). Subjective ratings of satiety, hunger, and quality of life between diet forms did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Both LFDs and SFDs yield quantitatively similar cholesterolemic responses to changes in dietary fat, SFAs, and cholesterol. LFDs may offer advantages because they provide easily administered, complete, balanced nutrition without affecting satiety.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Liquid-formula diets (LFDs) are useful in metabolic studies of the cholesterolemic effects of dietary lipids because they can be formulated with accuracy, facilitating precise delivery of fatty acids of interest. However, because of differences in composition and nutrient delivery between LFDs and solid-food diets (SFDs), there is a need to determine differences in their effects. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare lipid and lipoprotein responses to changes in total fat, saturated fatty acids (SFAs), and cholesterol in subjects consuming an SFD or LFD. DESIGN: Twenty-one healthy subjects consumed controlled diets representative of an average American diet [AAD; 37% of energy from fat (15% from SFAs), and <50 mg cholesterol/MJ] or a National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Step II diet [26% fat (5% from SFAs) and <25 mg cholesterol/MJ]. Other nutrients were similar between diets. Diets were consumed for 23 d in a randomized, crossover design. RESULTS: For the AAD and NCEP Step II diet, there were no significant differences in lipids and apolipoproteins when the LFD or SFD versions were consumed. In contrast, consumption of the SFD was associated with significantly lower total cholesterol and triacylglycerols than was consumption of the corresponding AAD or Step II LFD (P < 0.05). Subjective ratings of satiety, hunger, and quality of life between diet forms did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Both LFDs and SFDs yield quantitatively similar cholesterolemic responses to changes in dietary fat, SFAs, and cholesterol. LFDs may offer advantages because they provide easily administered, complete, balanced nutrition without affecting satiety.
Authors: C Lawrence Kien; Karen I Everingham; Robert D Stevens; Naomi K Fukagawa; Deborah M Muoio Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: C Lawrence Kien; Janice Y Bunn; Robert Stevens; James Bain; Olga Ikayeva; Karen Crain; Timothy R Koves; Deborah M Muoio Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 7.045