OBJECTIVE: The PREFER study objectives were to examine potential differences in weight loss during a standard behavioral intervention between subjects assigned to one of two calorie- and fat-restricted diets [standard behavior treatment (SBT) and lacto-ovo-vegetarian ([SBT+LOV)], with or without regard to their preferred dietary treatment. This article reports the differences in outcomes between diet groups after the first 6 months of the intervention. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The study used a four-group design. Subjects (n = 182) were randomized to a treatment preference group and then to a dietary treatment group. For this report, preference groups were combined to permit comparisons by dietary treatment only (SBT, n = 98; SBT+LOV, n = 84). Additional analyses compared SBT+LOV subjects who were 100% adherent (did not consume any meat, fish, or poultry, n = 47) to those who were <100% adherent (n = 24). RESULTS: Significant differences were seen in the baseline to 6-month change scores between the two groups for carbohydrate consumption (p = 0.013), protein consumption (p < 0.001), polyunsaturated-to-saturated fat ratio (p = 0.009), and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) level (p = 0.013). Among SBT+LOV subjects, those who were 100% adherent experienced greater reductions in weight (p < 0.001), total cholesterol (p = 0.026), LDL-C (p = 0.034), and glucose (p = 0.002) and consumed less fat (p = 0.030) compared with those who were <100% adherent. DISCUSSION: Differences between dietary treatment groups at 6 months were minimal, most likely because one-third of the SBT+LOV group did not follow the vegetarian diet and because both groups had the same calorie and fat restrictions. SBT+LOV subjects who were 100% adherent were more successful at both weight loss and cholesterol reduction than those who were <100% adherent, suggesting that vegetarian diets are efficacious for weight and cholesterol control.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The PREFER study objectives were to examine potential differences in weight loss during a standard behavioral intervention between subjects assigned to one of two calorie- and fat-restricted diets [standard behavior treatment (SBT) and lacto-ovo-vegetarian ([SBT+LOV)], with or without regard to their preferred dietary treatment. This article reports the differences in outcomes between diet groups after the first 6 months of the intervention. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The study used a four-group design. Subjects (n = 182) were randomized to a treatment preference group and then to a dietary treatment group. For this report, preference groups were combined to permit comparisons by dietary treatment only (SBT, n = 98; SBT+LOV, n = 84). Additional analyses compared SBT+LOV subjects who were 100% adherent (did not consume any meat, fish, or poultry, n = 47) to those who were <100% adherent (n = 24). RESULTS: Significant differences were seen in the baseline to 6-month change scores between the two groups for carbohydrate consumption (p = 0.013), protein consumption (p < 0.001), polyunsaturated-to-saturated fat ratio (p = 0.009), and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) level (p = 0.013). Among SBT+LOV subjects, those who were 100% adherent experienced greater reductions in weight (p < 0.001), total cholesterol (p = 0.026), LDL-C (p = 0.034), and glucose (p = 0.002) and consumed less fat (p = 0.030) compared with those who were <100% adherent. DISCUSSION: Differences between dietary treatment groups at 6 months were minimal, most likely because one-third of the SBT+LOV group did not follow the vegetarian diet and because both groups had the same calorie and fat restrictions. SBT+LOV subjects who were 100% adherent were more successful at both weight loss and cholesterol reduction than those who were <100% adherent, suggesting that vegetarian diets are efficacious for weight and cholesterol control.
Authors: Michael D Jensen; Donna H Ryan; Caroline M Apovian; Jamy D Ard; Anthony G Comuzzie; Karen A Donato; Frank B Hu; Van S Hubbard; John M Jakicic; Robert F Kushner; Catherine M Loria; Barbara E Millen; Cathy A Nonas; F Xavier Pi-Sunyer; June Stevens; Victor J Stevens; Thomas A Wadden; Bruce M Wolfe; Susan Z Yanovski; Harmon S Jordan; Karima A Kendall; Linda J Lux; Roycelynn Mentor-Marcel; Laura C Morgan; Michael G Trisolini; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Nancy T Artinian; Gerald F Fletcher; Dariush Mozaffarian; Penny Kris-Etherton; Linda Van Horn; Alice H Lichtenstein; Shiriki Kumanyika; William E Kraus; Jerome L Fleg; Nancy S Redeker; Janet C Meininger; Joanne Banks; Eileen M Stuart-Shor; Barbara J Fletcher; Todd D Miller; Suzanne Hughes; Lynne T Braun; Laurie A Kopin; Kathy Berra; Laura L Hayman; Linda J Ewing; Philip A Ades; J Larry Durstine; Nancy Houston-Miller; Lora E Burke Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-07-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Molly B Conroy; Kyeongra Yang; Okan U Elci; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Mindi A Styn; Jing Wang; Andrea M Kriska; Susan M Sereika; Lora E Burke Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Ran Sun; Jeffrey M Rohay; Susan M Sereika; Yaguang Zheng; Yang Yu; Lora E Burke Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Faina Linkov; Lora E Burke; Marina Komaroff; Robert P Edwards; Anna Lokshin; Mindi A Styn; Eugene Tseytlin; Kyle E Freese; Dana H Bovbjerg Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 5.482