BACKGROUND: A vegetarian diet may lead to numerous health benefits, including weight loss. OBJECTIVE: We examined the joint effects of personal preference of dietary treatment and a calorie-restricted, low-fat lactoovovegetarian diet (LOV-D) compared with a standard calorie-restricted, low-fat omnivorous diet (STD-D) on changes in weight, total cholesterol, ratio of LDL to HDL cholesterol (LDL:HDL cholesterol), triacylglycerols, insulin resistance, and macronutrient intake during an 18-mo study. DESIGN: This was a randomized clinical trial of 176 overweight and obese adults who were recruited and randomly assigned first to 1 of 2 preference conditions (yes or no). If assigned to Preference-No, they were randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 diet conditions (STD-D or LOV-D). If assigned to Preference-Yes, they were assigned to the diet they indicated as preferred at screening. The 12-mo intervention was followed by a 6-mo maintenance phase. RESULTS:Participants were mainly women (86.9%) and white (70.5%); 75% completed the 18-mo study. A significant interaction between preference and dietary treatment was not observed for any of the outcome variables. However, participants in the Preference-No groups significantly decreased their triacylglycerols (P = 0.04). The only effect observed for diet was a borderline significant decrease in LDL:HDL cholesterol for the LOV-D group (P = 0.06). Within the LOV-D groups, those who were 100% adherent to the LOV-D had significant and marginally significant reductions in monounsaturated fat (P = 0.02) and total fat (P = 0.05) intakes at 18 mo. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that neither prescribing a vegetarian diet nor allowing persons to choose their preferred diet had a significant effect on outcome measures. However, all participants had a significant reduction in total energy and fat intakes and an increase in energy expenditure, which was reflected in reduced body weight. This clinical trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00330629.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A vegetarian diet may lead to numerous health benefits, including weight loss. OBJECTIVE: We examined the joint effects of personal preference of dietary treatment and a calorie-restricted, low-fat lactoovovegetarian diet (LOV-D) compared with a standard calorie-restricted, low-fat omnivorous diet (STD-D) on changes in weight, total cholesterol, ratio of LDL to HDL cholesterol (LDL:HDL cholesterol), triacylglycerols, insulin resistance, and macronutrient intake during an 18-mo study. DESIGN: This was a randomized clinical trial of 176 overweight and obese adults who were recruited and randomly assigned first to 1 of 2 preference conditions (yes or no). If assigned to Preference-No, they were randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 diet conditions (STD-D or LOV-D). If assigned to Preference-Yes, they were assigned to the diet they indicated as preferred at screening. The 12-mo intervention was followed by a 6-mo maintenance phase. RESULTS:Participants were mainly women (86.9%) and white (70.5%); 75% completed the 18-mo study. A significant interaction between preference and dietary treatment was not observed for any of the outcome variables. However, participants in the Preference-No groups significantly decreased their triacylglycerols (P = 0.04). The only effect observed for diet was a borderline significant decrease in LDL:HDL cholesterol for the LOV-D group (P = 0.06). Within the LOV-D groups, those who were 100% adherent to the LOV-D had significant and marginally significant reductions in monounsaturated fat (P = 0.02) and total fat (P = 0.05) intakes at 18 mo. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that neither prescribing a vegetarian diet nor allowing persons to choose their preferred diet had a significant effect on outcome measures. However, all participants had a significant reduction in total energy and fat intakes and an increase in energy expenditure, which was reflected in reduced body weight. This clinical trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00330629.
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: Lora E Burke; Mindi A Styn; Susan M Sereika; Molly B Conroy; Lei Ye; Karen Glanz; Mary Ann Sevick; Linda J Ewing Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jina Choo; Okan U Elci; Kyeongra Yang; Melanie W Turk; Mindi A Styn; Susan M Sereika; Edvin Music; Lora E Burke Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2009-10-06 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Sushama D Acharya; Okan U Elci; Susan M Sereika; Edvin Music; Mindi A Styn; Melanie Warziski Turk; Lora E Burke Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 2.711