BACKGROUND: Studies of weight-control diets that are high in protein or low in glycemic index have reached varied conclusions, probably owing to the fact that the studies had insufficient power. METHODS: We enrolled overweight adults from eight European countries who had lost at least 8% of their initial body weight with a 3.3-MJ (800-kcal) low-calorie diet. Participants were randomly assigned, in a two-by-two factorial design, to one of five ad libitum diets to prevent weight regain over a 26-week period: a low-protein and low-glycemic-index diet, a low-protein and high-glycemic-index diet, a high-protein and low-glycemic-index diet, a high-protein and high-glycemic-index diet, or a control diet. RESULTS: A total of 1209 adults were screened (mean age, 41 years; body-mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters], 34), of whom 938 entered the low-calorie-diet phase of the study. A total of 773 participants who completed that phase were randomly assigned to one of the five maintenance diets; 548 completed the intervention (71%). Fewer participants in the high-protein and the low-glycemic-index groups than in the low-protein-high-glycemic-index group dropped out of the study (26.4% and 25.6%, respectively, vs. 37.4%; P=0.02 and P=0.01 for the respective comparisons). The mean initial weight loss with the low-calorie diet was 11.0 kg. In the analysis of participants who completed the study, only the low-protein-high-glycemic-index diet was associated with subsequent significant weight regain (1.67 kg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48 to 2.87). In an intention-to-treat analysis, the weight regain was 0.93 kg less (95% CI, 0.31 to 1.55) in the groups assigned to a high-protein diet than in those assigned to a low-protein diet (P=0.003) and 0.95 kg less (95% CI, 0.33 to 1.57) in the groups assigned to a low-glycemic-index diet than in those assigned to a high-glycemic-index diet (P=0.003). The analysis involving participants who completed the intervention produced similar results. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to diet-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this large European study, a modest increase in protein content and a modest reduction in the glycemic index led to an improvement in study completion and maintenance of weight loss. (Funded by the European Commission; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00390637.).
BACKGROUND: Studies of weight-control diets that are high in protein or low in glycemic index have reached varied conclusions, probably owing to the fact that the studies had insufficient power. METHODS: We enrolled overweight adults from eight European countries who had lost at least 8% of their initial body weight with a 3.3-MJ (800-kcal) low-calorie diet. Participants were randomly assigned, in a two-by-two factorial design, to one of five ad libitum diets to prevent weight regain over a 26-week period: a low-protein and low-glycemic-index diet, a low-protein and high-glycemic-index diet, a high-protein and low-glycemic-index diet, a high-protein and high-glycemic-index diet, or a control diet. RESULTS: A total of 1209 adults were screened (mean age, 41 years; body-mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters], 34), of whom 938 entered the low-calorie-diet phase of the study. A total of 773 participants who completed that phase were randomly assigned to one of the five maintenance diets; 548 completed the intervention (71%). Fewer participants in the high-protein and the low-glycemic-index groups than in the low-protein-high-glycemic-index group dropped out of the study (26.4% and 25.6%, respectively, vs. 37.4%; P=0.02 and P=0.01 for the respective comparisons). The mean initial weight loss with the low-calorie diet was 11.0 kg. In the analysis of participants who completed the study, only the low-protein-high-glycemic-index diet was associated with subsequent significant weight regain (1.67 kg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48 to 2.87). In an intention-to-treat analysis, the weight regain was 0.93 kg less (95% CI, 0.31 to 1.55) in the groups assigned to a high-protein diet than in those assigned to a low-protein diet (P=0.003) and 0.95 kg less (95% CI, 0.33 to 1.57) in the groups assigned to a low-glycemic-index diet than in those assigned to a high-glycemic-index diet (P=0.003). The analysis involving participants who completed the intervention produced similar results. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to diet-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this large European study, a modest increase in protein content and a modest reduction in the glycemic index led to an improvement in study completion and maintenance of weight loss. (Funded by the European Commission; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00390637.).
Authors: C S Moore; A K Lindroos; M Kreutzer; T M Larsen; A Astrup; M A van Baak; T Handjieva-Darlenska; P Hlavaty; A Kafatos; A Kohl; J A Martinez; S Monsheimer; S A Jebb Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: Elena Philippou; Nicola M Neary; Owais Chaudhri; Audrey E Brynes; Anne Dornhorst; Anthony R Leeds; Mary Hickson; Gary S Frost Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Lone G Rasmussen; Hanne Winning; Francesco Savorani; Christian Ritz; Søren B Engelsen; Arne Astrup; Thomas M Larsen; Lars O Dragsted Journal: Genes Nutr Date: 2011-10-09 Impact factor: 5.523
Authors: Allon N Friedman; Lorraine G Ogden; Gary D Foster; Samuel Klein; Richard Stein; Bernard Miller; James O Hill; Carrie Brill; Brooke Bailer; Diane R Rosenbaum; Holly R Wyatt Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Rubén López-Nicolás; Massimo Marzorati; Lia Scarabottolo; Jason C G Halford; Alexandra M Johnstone; Carmen Frontela-Saseta; Angel M Sanmartín; Gaspar Ros-Berruezo; Joanne A Harrold Journal: Curr Obes Rep Date: 2016-03
Authors: Belinda S Lennerz; David C Alsop; Laura M Holsen; Emily Stern; Rafael Rojas; Cara B Ebbeling; Jill M Goldstein; David S Ludwig Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Line Q Bendtsen; Janne K Lorenzen; Nathalie T Bendsen; Charlotte Rasmussen; Arne Astrup Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: M Kunešová; P Hlavatý; E Tvrzická; B Staňková; P Kalousková; N Viguerie; T M Larsen; M A van Baak; S A Jebb; J A Martinez; A F H Pfeiffer; A Kafatos; T Handjieva-Darlenska; M Hill; D Langin; A Zák; A Astrup; W H M Saris Journal: Physiol Res Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 1.881