Anette Due1,2, Thomas M Larsen3, Huiling Mu4, Kjeld Hermansen5, Steen Stender6, Søren Toubro7,8, David B Allison9, Arne Astrup3. 1. Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 30, 1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark. adue@phmetropol.dk. 2. Department of Nutrition and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Technology, Metropolitan University College, Pustervig 8, 1126, Copenhagen, Denmark. adue@phmetropol.dk. 3. Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 30, 1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark. 4. Department of Pharmaceutics and Analytical Chemistry, University of Copenhagen and Biocentrum, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Department of Endocrinology and Internal Medicine MEA, Aarhus University Hospital, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. 6. Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Copenhagen University Hospital, Gentofte, Denmark. 7. Research Unit, Universitetsparken 2, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark. 8. Novo Nordisk, Depart 4177 GLP-1 & Obesity, 2860, Søborg, Denmark. 9. Department of Biostatistics, Nutrition Obesity Research Center, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the effect of three diets in their ability to sustain weight loss and improve type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk markers after 18-month intervention. METHODS: Following a ≥8 % weight loss, 131 healthy, overweight/obese (BMI ± SD 31.5 ± 2.6 kg/m2) men (n = 55) and women (n = 76) aged 28.2 ±4.8 years were randomized to either 1. Moderate fat (40 E%) with 20 E% MUFA and low in glycemic index (GI) (MUFA, n = 54), 2. Low fat (25 E%) and medium in GI (LF, n = 51) or 3. Control (35 E% fat) and high in GI (CTR, n = 26) all with similar protein content, and all provided ad libitum. First 6-month intervention with 100 % food provision (previously reported) following 12 months of moderately intensive intervention with 20 % food provision now reported. RESULTS:Attrition rate was higher in MUFA (63 %) than in LF (37 %, P = 0.019) and CTR (42 %, P = 0.09) group. Weight regain in completers was not different between groups (mean ± SEM), MUFA 7.1 ± 2.1 % versus LF 5.6 ± 1.3 % versus CTR 7.2 ± 1.5 %, nor was body fat regain, MUFA 4.8 ± 1.0 % versus LF 4.7 ± 0.8 % versus CTR 5.7 ± 0.6 %. The MUFA group reduced LDL/HDL ratio by -0.47 ± 0.09 compared with -0.23 ± 0.11 in LF (P < 0.05) and 0.06 ± 0.14 (P < 0.005) in CTR groups. CONCLUSIONS:Weight regain or body composition did not differ between diets over 18 months. No effects on risk markers for T2D or CVD were found, with the exception of an improvement in the LDL/HDL ratio by the MUFA diet compared to the CTR diet. The LF diet was generally more satisfactory and the MUFA diet seemed more difficult to follow.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To test the effect of three diets in their ability to sustain weight loss and improve type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk markers after 18-month intervention. METHODS: Following a ≥8 % weight loss, 131 healthy, overweight/obese (BMI ± SD 31.5 ± 2.6 kg/m2) men (n = 55) and women (n = 76) aged 28.2 ± 4.8 years were randomized to either 1. Moderate fat (40 E%) with 20 E% MUFA and low in glycemic index (GI) (MUFA, n = 54), 2. Low fat (25 E%) and medium in GI (LF, n = 51) or 3. Control (35 E% fat) and high in GI (CTR, n = 26) all with similar protein content, and all provided ad libitum. First 6-month intervention with 100 % food provision (previously reported) following 12 months of moderately intensive intervention with 20 % food provision now reported. RESULTS: Attrition rate was higher in MUFA (63 %) than in LF (37 %, P = 0.019) and CTR (42 %, P = 0.09) group. Weight regain in completers was not different between groups (mean ± SEM), MUFA 7.1 ± 2.1 % versus LF 5.6 ± 1.3 % versus CTR 7.2 ± 1.5 %, nor was body fat regain, MUFA 4.8 ± 1.0 % versus LF 4.7 ± 0.8 % versus CTR 5.7 ± 0.6 %. The MUFA group reduced LDL/HDL ratio by -0.47 ± 0.09 compared with -0.23 ± 0.11 in LF (P < 0.05) and 0.06 ± 0.14 (P < 0.005) in CTR groups. CONCLUSIONS: Weight regain or body composition did not differ between diets over 18 months. No effects on risk markers for T2D or CVD were found, with the exception of an improvement in the LDL/HDL ratio by the MUFA diet compared to the CTR diet. The LF diet was generally more satisfactory and the MUFA diet seemed more difficult to follow.
Authors: David J A Jenkins; Cyril W C Kendall; Gail McKeown-Eyssen; Robert G Josse; Jay Silverberg; Gillian L Booth; Edward Vidgen; Andrea R Josse; Tri H Nguyen; Sorcha Corrigan; Monica S Banach; Sophie Ares; Sandy Mitchell; Azadeh Emam; Livia S A Augustin; Tina L Parker; Lawrence A Leiter Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Katherine R Tuttle; Lynn A Shuler; Diane P Packard; Joan E Milton; Kenn B Daratha; Douglas M Bibus; Robert A Short Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-03-26 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Christine L Pelkman; Valerie K Fishell; Deborah H Maddox; Thomas A Pearson; David T Mauger; Penny M Kris-Etherton Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: L S A Augustin; C W C Kendall; D J A Jenkins; W C Willett; A Astrup; A W Barclay; I Björck; J C Brand-Miller; F Brighenti; A E Buyken; A Ceriello; C La Vecchia; G Livesey; S Liu; G Riccardi; S W Rizkalla; J L Sievenpiper; A Trichopoulou; T M S Wolever; S Baer-Sinnott; A Poli Journal: Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 4.222
Authors: Kevin D Hall; I Sadaf Farooqi; Jeffery M Friedman; Samuel Klein; Ruth J F Loos; David J Mangelsdorf; Stephen O'Rahilly; Eric Ravussin; Leanne M Redman; Donna H Ryan; John R Speakman; Deirdre K Tobias Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 8.472