PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of a portion-controlled meal replacement diet (PCD) to a standard diet (SD) based on recommendations by the American Diabetes Association in achieving and maintaining weight loss among obese participants with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This study is a university-based, controlled clinical trial. Participants were 119 men and women with diabetes with a body mass index between 25 and 40 kg/m(2), assigned randomly to one of two 34-week, 75% of predicted energy need diets (portion controlled or standard, self-selected, food based) and then followed by 1-year maintenance. RESULTS: Using intention-to-treat analyses, weight loss at 34 weeks and weight maintenance at 86 weeks was significantly better on PCD versus SD. Approximately 40% of the PCD participants lost > or =5% of their initial weight compared with 12% of those on the SD. Significant improvements in biochemical and metabolic measures were observed at 34 weeks in both groups. The retention rate and self-reported ease of adherence in the PCD group were significantly higher throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: A diet using portion-controlled meal replacements yielded significantly greater initial weight loss and less regain after 1 year of maintenance than a standard, self-selected, food-based diet. As PCDs may help obese patients with type 2 diabetes adhere to a weight control program, diabetes educators may consider recommending them as part of a comprehensive approach to weight control.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of a portion-controlled meal replacement diet (PCD) to a standard diet (SD) based on recommendations by the American Diabetes Association in achieving and maintaining weight loss among obeseparticipants with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This study is a university-based, controlled clinical trial. Participants were 119 men and women with diabetes with a body mass index between 25 and 40 kg/m(2), assigned randomly to one of two 34-week, 75% of predicted energy need diets (portion controlled or standard, self-selected, food based) and then followed by 1-year maintenance. RESULTS: Using intention-to-treat analyses, weight loss at 34 weeks and weight maintenance at 86 weeks was significantly better on PCD versus SD. Approximately 40% of the PCD participants lost > or =5% of their initial weight compared with 12% of those on the SD. Significant improvements in biochemical and metabolic measures were observed at 34 weeks in both groups. The retention rate and self-reported ease of adherence in the PCD group were significantly higher throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: A diet using portion-controlled meal replacements yielded significantly greater initial weight loss and less regain after 1 year of maintenance than a standard, self-selected, food-based diet. As PCDs may help obesepatients with type 2 diabetes adhere to a weight control program, diabetes educators may consider recommending them as part of a comprehensive approach to weight control.
Authors: Kate Lambourne; Richard A Washburn; Cheryl Gibson; Debra K Sullivan; Jeannine Goetz; Robert Lee; Bryan K Smith; Matthew S Mayo; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: David T Liss; Emily A Finch; Andrew Cooper; Avani Sheth; Ashantí D Tejuosho; Nicola Lancki; Ronald T Ackermann Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Lisa M Davis; Christopher Coleman; Jessica Kiel; Joni Rampolla; Tammy Hutchisen; Laura Ford; Wayne S Andersen; Andrea Hanlon-Mitola Journal: Nutr J Date: 2010-03-11 Impact factor: 3.271
Authors: Meghan M JaKa; Jennifer M Dinh; Rachael L Rivard; Stephen D Herrmann; Joel Spoonheim; Nicolaas P Pronk; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: G D Foster; T A Wadden; C A Lagrotte; S S Vander Veur; L A Hesson; C J Homko; B J Maschak-Carey; N R Barbor; B Bailer; L Diewald; E Komaroff; S J Herring; M L Vetter Journal: Nutr Diabetes Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 5.097