| Literature DB >> 22253969 |
Michael B Zemel1, Dorothy Teegarden, Marta Van Loan, Dale A Schoeller, Velimir Matkovic, Roseann M Lyle, Bruce A Craig.
Abstract
A 12-week randomized controlled multi-center clinical trial was conducted in 106 overweight and obese adults. Diets were designed to produce a 2,093 kJ/day energy deficit with either low calcium (LC; ~600 mg/day), high calcium (HC; ~1,400 mg/day), or high dairy (HD; three dairy servings, diet totaling ~1,400 mg/day). Ninety-three subjects completed the trial, and 68 met all a priori weekly compliance criteria. Both HC and HD contained comparable levels of calcium, but HC was only ~30% as effective as HD in suppressing 1,25-(OH)(2)D and exerted no significant effects on weight loss or body composition compared to LC. In the group that met compliance criteria, HD resulted in ~two-fold augmentation of fat loss compared to LC and HC (HD: -4.43 ± 0.53 kg; LC: -2.69 ± 0.0.53 kg; HC: -2.23 ± 0.73 kg, p < 0.025); assessment of all completers and an intent-to-treat analysis produced similar trends. HD augmentated central (trunk) fat loss (HD: -2.38 ± 0.30 kg; HC: -1.42 ± 0.30 kg; LC: -1.36 ± 0.42 kg, p < 0.05) and waist circumference (HD: -7.65 ± 0.75 cm; LC: -4.92 ± 0.74 cm; LC: -4.95 ± 1.05 cm, p < 0.025). Similar effects were noted among all subjects completing the study and in an intent-to-treat analysis. These data indicate that dairy-rich diets augment weight loss by targeting the fat compartment during energy restriction.Entities:
Keywords: calcium; dairy; energy restriction; multi-center; vitamin D
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 22253969 PMCID: PMC3257590 DOI: 10.3390/nu1010083
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Distribution of Subjects.
| Purdue | Tennessee | USDA Davis | Ohio State | Total | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LC1 | HC2 | HD3 | LC | HC | HD | LC | HC | HD | LC | HC | HD | LC | HC | HD | |
| 11 | 11 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 2 | 38 | 36 | 32 | |
| 11 | 9 | 11 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 36 | 29 | 28 | |
| 9 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 26 | 19 | 23 | |
1 LC, Low Calcium
2 HC, High Calcium
3 HD, High Dairy
Baseline Characteristics of Enrolled Subjects 1.
| Parameters | LC | HC | HD | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25.35 ± 4.88 | 26.24+4.82 | 25.55+4.99 | 0.7228 | |
| 165.53 ± 7.89 | 166.27+10.78 | 167.24+6.21 | 0.7072 | |
| 30 Female/8 Male | 30 Female/6 Male | 24 Female/8 Male | 0.7242 | |
| 80.10 ± 12.40 | 82.74 ± 14.81 | 80.11 ± 12.16 | 0.6224 | |
| 29.35 ± 2.76 | 29.86 ± 2.57 | 28.78 ± 2.85 | 0.2748 | |
| 32.11 ± 4.73 | 32.38 ± 6.98 | 32.28 ± 7.35 | 0.9830 | |
| 44.54 ± 10.28 | 46.83 ± 11.53 | 44.53 ± 9.05 | 0.5627 | |
| 88.80 ± 10.67 | 90.37 ± 9.97 | 89.77 ± 10.34 | 0.8055 | |
| 23.13 ± 4.79 | 21.84 ± 5.05 | 22.69 ± 5.07 | 0.6017 | |
| 21.34 ± 11.77 | 30.28 ± 15.87 | 27.16 ± 18.70 | 0.1229 | |
| 52.55 ± 4.76 | 50.81 ± 4.97 | 54.23 ± 4.05 | *0.0240 | |
| 496 ± 81.9 | 451 ± 105 | 488 ± 104 | 0.7244 | |
| 101.03 ± 32.96 | 77.55 ± 28.43 | 91.27 ± 30.08 | *0.0148 | |
| 73.21 ± 6.41 | 70.6 ± 7.49 | 73.31 ± 8.00 | 0.2184 | |
| 115.20 ± 11.09 | 110.86 ± 10.02 | 113.39 ± 10.45 | 0.2218 | |
| 8.60 ± 3.39 | 10.13 ± 5.29 | 11.37 ± 6.61 | 0.1286 | |
| 4.75 ± 0.54 | 4.67 ± 0.42 | 4.78 ± 0.56 | 0.6825 |
1 mean ± standard deviation
Self-reported energy and macronutrient intake during intervention 1.
| Parameter | LC | HC | HD |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5610 ± 1013 | 5895 ± 1239 | 6356 ± 1118 | |
| 178 | 186 ± 46 | 191 ± 28 | |
| 60 ± 25 | 60 ± 13 | 71 ± 13 | |
| 42 ± 11 | 45 ± 10 | 49 ± 14 |
1 mean ± standard deviation
Figure 1Effects of dietary treatments on fat loss. Top panel: Adherent subjects. Middle panel: All subjects completing the study. Bottom panel: Intent-to-treat analysis. All data are presented as mean ± standard error.
Figure 2Site-Specific effects of dietary treatments on fat loss in adherent subjects. Top panel: USDA Davis. Middle panel: University of Tennessee. Bottom panel: Purdue. All data are presented as mean ± standard error.
Figure 3Effects of dietary treatments on weight loss. Top panel: Adherent subjects. Middle panel: All subjects completing the study. Bottom panel: Intent-to-treat analysis. All data are presented as mean ± standard error.
Figure 4Effects of dietary treatments on trunk fat loss. Top panel: Adherent subjects. Middle panel: All subjects completing the study. Bottom panel: Intent-to-treat analysis. All data are presented as mean ± standard error.
Figure 5Effects of dietary treatments on change in waist circumference. Top panel: Adherent subjects. Middle panel: All subjects completing the study. Bottom panel: Intent-to-treat analysis. All data are presented as mean ± standard error.
Changes in Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) in Response to Dietary Treatments1 Analysis.
| Adherers | Completers | Intent-to-Treat | |
|---|---|---|---|
| -6.23 ± 1.90 | -5.43 ± 1.62 | -0.04 ± 1.31 | |
| 1.72 ± 2.54 | -0.50 ± 1.75 | -3.59 ± 1.28 | |
| -3.97 ± 1.88 | -3.52 ± 1.61 | -3.381 ± 173 | |
| p = 0.051(treatment) | p = 0.005(site) | p = 0.007(site) | |
| p = 0.027(site) | p = 0.048(treatment x site interaction) | p = 0.014(treatment x site interaction) |
1 Data presented as mean ± standard error
Changes in Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) in Response to Dietary Treatments1 Analysis.
| Adherers | Completers | Intent-to-Treat | |
|---|---|---|---|
| -3.46 ± 1.51 | -2.62 ± 1.31 | -1.53 ± 1.05 | |
| 2.01 ± 2.13 | 1.42 ± 1.49 | 1.25 ± 1.10 | |
| -3.49 ± 1.51 | -3.13 ± 1.35 | -2.71 ± 1.46 | |
| p = 0.082 (treatment) | p = 0.056 | N.S. |
Data presented as mean ± standard error
Change in Plasma Glycerol and Hormones in Response to Dietary Treatments1,2,3.
| Low Calcium | High Calcium | High Dairy | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -15 ± 8a | 31 ± 10b | 40 ± 8b | p < 0.0001 | |
| 0.94 ± 0.81 | 1.62 ± 1.12 | 0.63 ± 0.81 | NS | |
| 0.46 ± 0.53a | -1.73 ± 0.73b | -4.01 ± 0.53c | p < 0.0001 | |
| -1.48 ± 0.74 | -1.47 ± 1.02 | -1.99 ± 0.74 | NS | |
| -5.7 ± 2.5 | -5.0 ± 3.5 | -11.3 ± 2.5 | NS | |
| 1.74 ± 1.85a | -3.80 ± 2.69b | -8.29 ± 1.97c | p < 0.005 |
1Adherent subjects
2Data presented as mean ± standard error.
3Non-matching superscript in each row denote significant differences.
Figure 6Correlation between change in plasma 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D and change in total body fat (upper panel) and trunk fat (lower panel) among all subjects completing the study.