Marcia L Stefanick1, Christopher D Gardner2, Lucia Aronica1,3, Joseph Rigdon4, Lisa C Offringa1. 1. Department of Medicine, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. cgardner@stanford.edu. 3. Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Quantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Biological sex factors and sociocultural gender norms affect the physiology and behavior of weight loss. However, most diet intervention studies do not report outcomes by sex, thereby impeding reproducibility. The objectives of this study were to compare 12-month changes in body weight and composition in groups defined by diet and sex, and adherence to a healthy low carbohydrate (HLC) vs. healthy low fat (HLF) diet. PARTICIPANTS/ METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the DIETFITS trial, in which 609 overweight/obese nondiabetic participants (age, 18-50 years) were randomized to a 12-month HLC (n = 304) or HLF (n = 305) diet. Our first aim concerned comparisons in 12-month changes in weight, fat mass, and lean mass by group with appropriate adjustment for potential confounders. The second aim was to assess whether or not adherence differed by diet-sex group (HLC women n = 179, HLC men n = 125, HLF women n = 167, HLF men n = 138). RESULTS: 12-month changes in weight (p < 0.001) were different by group. HLC produced significantly greater weight loss, as well as greater loss of both fat mass and lean mass, than HLF among men [-2.98 kg (-4.47, -1.50); P < 0.001], but not among women. Men were more adherent to HLC than women (p = 0.02). Weight loss estimates within group remained similar after adjusting for adherence, suggesting adherence was not a mediator. CONCLUSIONS: By reporting outcomes by sex significant weight loss differences were identified between HLC and HLF, which were not recognized in the original primary analysis. These findings highlight the need to consider sex in the design, analysis, and reporting of diet trials.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Biological sex factors and sociocultural gender norms affect the physiology and behavior of weight loss. However, most diet intervention studies do not report outcomes by sex, thereby impeding reproducibility. The objectives of this study were to compare 12-month changes in body weight and composition in groups defined by diet and sex, and adherence to a healthy low carbohydrate (HLC) vs. healthy low fat (HLF) diet. PARTICIPANTS/ METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the DIETFITS trial, in which 609 overweight/obese nondiabetic participants (age, 18-50 years) were randomized to a 12-month HLC (n = 304) or HLF (n = 305) diet. Our first aim concerned comparisons in 12-month changes in weight, fat mass, and lean mass by group with appropriate adjustment for potential confounders. The second aim was to assess whether or not adherence differed by diet-sex group (HLC women n = 179, HLC men n = 125, HLF women n = 167, HLF men n = 138). RESULTS: 12-month changes in weight (p < 0.001) were different by group. HLC produced significantly greater weight loss, as well as greater loss of both fat mass and lean mass, than HLF among men [-2.98 kg (-4.47, -1.50); P < 0.001], but not among women. Men were more adherent to HLC than women (p = 0.02). Weight loss estimates within group remained similar after adjusting for adherence, suggesting adherence was not a mediator. CONCLUSIONS: By reporting outcomes by sex significant weight loss differences were identified between HLC and HLF, which were not recognized in the original primary analysis. These findings highlight the need to consider sex in the design, analysis, and reporting of diet trials.
Authors: Marie-Pierre St-Onge; Taylor Salinardi; Kristin Herron-Rubin; Richard M Black Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Natalie D Luscombe-Marsh; Manny Noakes; Gary A Wittert; Jennifer B Keogh; Paul Foster; Peter M Clifton Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Christopher D Gardner; John F Trepanowski; Liana C Del Gobbo; Michelle E Hauser; Joseph Rigdon; John P A Ioannidis; Manisha Desai; Abby C King Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Emma Farnsworth; Natalie D Luscombe; Manny Noakes; Gary Wittert; Eleni Argyiou; Peter M Clifton Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: D Joe Millward; Helen Truby; Kenneth R Fox; M Barbara E Livingstone; Ian A Macdonald; Peter Tothill Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Tanja Stocks; Lars Angquist; Karina Banasik; Marie N Harder; Moira A Taylor; Jörg Hager; Peter Arner; Jean-Michel Oppert; J Alfredo Martinez; Jan Polak; Francis Rousseau; Dominique Langin; Stephan Rössner; Claus Holst; Ian A MacDonald; Yoichiro Kamatani; Andreas F H Pfeiffer; Marie Kunesova; Wim H M Saris; Torben Hansen; Oluf Pedersen; Arne Astrup; Thorkild I A Sørensen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Natalie M Papini; Myungjin Jung; Amanda Cook; Nanette V Lopez; Lauren T Ptomey; Stephen D Herrmann; Minsoo Kang Journal: J Eat Disord Date: 2022-05-04