BACKGROUND: With the current obesity epidemic, the search for effective weight loss approaches is required. In the present study, changes in weight, body composition and cardiovascular (CV) risk in response to a low-fat, reduced-energy diet (LFRE), a low-carbohydrate/high-protein diet (LCHP), or a commercially available very low-calorie diet (LighterLife; LL) were assessed. METHODS:One hundred and twenty obese patients (body mass index ≥35 kg/m² ) underwent a screening period of 3 months on the LFRE. Those who lost >5% of their body weight were maintained on this approach for an additional 3 months, whereas those who lost >10% at this time were maintained for 1 year. Patients failing to achieve these targets were randomly allocated to either the LCHP (n = 38) or LL (n = 34) for a period of 9 months. RESULTS: Significantly greater weight loss was seen for patients on the LL than the LCHP at 3 (mean (± SD) -11.6 ± 12.9 vs -2.8 ± 4.5 kg, respectively; P < 0.0001) and 9 months (-15.1 ± 21.1 vs -1.9 ± 5.0 kg, respectively; P < 0.0001) after screening. Significantly greater improvement in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, fasting glucose, and diastolic blood pressure was seen at 3 months in patients on the LL compared with the LCHP (P < 0.05). These differences were no longer significant at 9 months, with the exception of fasting glucose. The attrition rate was elevated in the LCHP group, but did not differ significantly from the LL group. CONCLUSION:Greater weight loss and improved CV risk were achieved with the LL, which mostly reflects the patient support provided for each dietary treatment.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: With the current obesity epidemic, the search for effective weight loss approaches is required. In the present study, changes in weight, body composition and cardiovascular (CV) risk in response to a low-fat, reduced-energy diet (LFRE), a low-carbohydrate/high-protein diet (LCHP), or a commercially available very low-calorie diet (LighterLife; LL) were assessed. METHODS: One hundred and twenty obesepatients (body mass index ≥35 kg/m² ) underwent a screening period of 3 months on the LFRE. Those who lost >5% of their body weight were maintained on this approach for an additional 3 months, whereas those who lost >10% at this time were maintained for 1 year. Patients failing to achieve these targets were randomly allocated to either the LCHP (n = 38) or LL (n = 34) for a period of 9 months. RESULTS: Significantly greater weight loss was seen for patients on the LL than the LCHP at 3 (mean (± SD) -11.6 ± 12.9 vs -2.8 ± 4.5 kg, respectively; P < 0.0001) and 9 months (-15.1 ± 21.1 vs -1.9 ± 5.0 kg, respectively; P < 0.0001) after screening. Significantly greater improvement in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, fasting glucose, and diastolic blood pressure was seen at 3 months in patients on the LL compared with the LCHP (P < 0.05). These differences were no longer significant at 9 months, with the exception of fasting glucose. The attrition rate was elevated in the LCHP group, but did not differ significantly from the LL group. CONCLUSION: Greater weight loss and improved CV risk were achieved with the LL, which mostly reflects the patient support provided for each dietary treatment.
Authors: M Aceves-Martins; C Robertson; D Cooper; A Avenell; F Stewart; P Aveyard; M de Bruin Journal: J Hum Nutr Diet Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 3.089