Dataset Information

Effect of ideal protein versus low-fat diet for weight loss: A randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Current guidelines call for peer-reviewed evidence of efficacy and safety for commercial weight loss programs to be recommended as options for those seeking to lose weight.

Objectives

This study investigated the Ideal Protein (IP) system, a commercial weight loss program, compared to a guideline-based, low-calorie/low-fat (LCLF) dietary behavioral intervention on body weight and CVD risk factors in adults with obesity.

Methods

In this randomized, assessor-blinded, parallel-group trial, 192 participants with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 and ≤49 kg/m² were assigned to either the IP Phase I diet or LFLC diet interventions. The IP Phase I is focused on lean protein and vegetables with avoidance of fruit and dairy, while the LFLC diet goals include <30% of daily energy from fat, <7% from saturated fat, 55% from carbohydrate, and an energy deficit of 500 kcal/day. The primary endpoint was change in body weight at 3 months. Secondary endpoints included change in waist circumference (WC), hip circumference (HC), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), fasting glucose (FG), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP).

Results

The mean ± SD of change in weight at 3 months was -9.6 ± 12.7 kg in the IP group as compared to -1.6 ± 27.2 kg in the LFLC group. The mean between-group difference in change at 3 months was -8.1 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] -16.6 to 0.6; p = 0.05). Additional significant between-group differences included WC, HC, TC, and TG levels, all favoring the IP group. There were no serious adverse events during the intervention period.

Conclusions

The present findings demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the IP weight loss program as compared to a guideline-based LCLF dietary behavioral intervention among black and white adults with obesity and CVD risk factors, providing support for the effectiveness of the program.

SUBMITTER: Fernandez CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9159558 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of ideal protein versus low-fat diet for weight loss: A randomized controlled trial.

Fernandez Camilo A CA Potts Kaitlin K Bazzano Lydia A LA

Obesity science & practice 20211015 3

<h4>Background</h4>Current guidelines call for peer-reviewed evidence of efficacy and safety for commercial weight loss programs to be recommended as options for those seeking to lose weight.<h4>Objectives</h4>This study investigated the Ideal Protein (IP) system, a commercial weight loss program, compared to a guideline-based, low-calorie/low-fat (LCLF) dietary behavioral intervention on body weight and CVD risk factors in adults with obesity.<h4>Methods</h4>In this randomized, assessor-blinded ...[more]

PMID: 35664249

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies comparing low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets have not included a comprehensive behavioral treatment, resulting in suboptimal weight loss.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of 2-year treatment with a low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet, each of which was combined with a comprehensive lifestyle modification program.DesignRandomized parallel-group trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00143936)Setting3 academic medical centers.Patients307 participants with a mean age of 45.5 years (SD, 9.7 years) and mean body mass index of 36.1 kg/m(2) (SD, 3.5 kg/m(2)).InterventionA low-carbohydrate diet, which consisted of limited carbohydrate intake (20 g/d for 3 months) in the form of low-glycemic index vegetables with unrestricted consumption of fat and protein. After 3 months, participants in the low-carbohydrate diet group increased their carbohydrate intake (5 g/d per wk) until a stable and desired weight was achieved. A low-fat diet consisted of limited energy intake (1200 to 1800 kcal/d; <or=30% calories from fat). Both diets were combined with comprehensive behavioral treatment.MeasurementsWeight at 2 years was the primary outcome. Secondary measures included weight at 3, 6, and 12 months and serum lipid concentrations, blood pressure, urinary ketones, symptoms, bone mineral density, and body composition throughout the study.ResultsWeight loss was approximately 11 kg (11%) at 1 year and 7 kg (7%) at 2 years. There were no differences in weight, body composition, or bone mineral density between the groups at any time point. During the first 6 months, the low-carbohydrate diet group had greater reductions in diastolic blood pressure, triglyceride levels, and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lesser reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and more adverse symptoms than did the low-fat diet group. The low-carbohydrate diet group had greater increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels at all time points, approximating a 23% increase at 2 years.LimitationIntensive behavioral treatment was provided, patients with dyslipidemia and diabetes were excluded, and attrition at 2 years was high.ConclusionSuccessful weight loss can be achieved with either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet when coupled with behavioral treatment. A low-carbohydrate diet is associated with favorable changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors at 2 years.Primary funding sourceNational Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of low-fat diets for long-term weight loss has been debated for decades, with many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and recent reviews giving mixed results. We aimed to summarise the large body of evidence from RCTs to determine whether low-fat diets contribute to greater weight loss than participants' usual diet, low-carbohydrate diets, and other higher-fat dietary interventions.MethodsWe did a systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the long-term effect (≥1 year) of low-fat and higher-fat dietary interventions on weight loss by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible trials published from database inception up until July 31, 2014. We excluded trials if one intervention group included a non-dietary weight loss component but the other did not, and trials of dietary supplements or meal replacement drink interventions. Data including the main outcome measure of mean difference in weight change between interventions, and whether interventions were intended to lead to weight loss, weight maintenance, or neither, were extracted from published reports. We estimated the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) with a DerSimonian and Laird random effects method.Findings3517 citations were identified by the search and 53 studies met our inclusion criteria, including 68 128 participants (69 comparisons). In weight loss trials, low-carbohydrate interventions led to significantly greater weight loss than did low-fat interventions (18 comparisons; WMD 1·15 kg [95% CI 0·52 to 1·79]; I(2)=10%). Low-fat interventions did not lead to differences in weight change compared with other higher-fat weight loss interventions (19 comparisons; WMD 0·36 kg [-0·66 to 1·37; I(2)=82%), and led to a greater weight decrease only when compared with a usual diet (eight comparisons; -5·41 kg [-7·29 to -3·54]; I(2)=68%). Similarly, results of non-weight-loss trials and weight maintenance trials, for which no low-carbohydrate comparisons were made, showed that low-fat versus higher-fat interventions have a similar effect on weight loss, and that low-fat interventions led to greater weight loss only when compared with usual diet. In weight loss trials, higher-fat weight loss interventions led to significantly greater weight loss than low-fat interventions when groups differed by more than 5% of calories obtained from fat at follow-up (18 comparisons; WMD 1·04 kg [95% CI 0·06 to 2·03]; I(2)=78%), and when the difference in serum triglycerides between the two interventions at follow-up was at least 0·06 mmol/L (17 comparisons; 1·38 kg [0·50 to 2·25]; I(2)=62%).InterpretationThese findings suggest that the long-term effect of low-fat diet intervention on bodyweight depends on the intensity of the intervention in the comparison group. When compared with dietary interventions of similar intensity, evidence from RCTs does not support low-fat diets over other dietary interventions for long-term weight loss.FundingNational Institutes of Health and American Diabetes Association.

Project description:ImportanceInterindividual variability in postprandial glycemic response (PPGR) to the same foods may explain why low glycemic index or load and low-carbohydrate diet interventions have mixed weight loss outcomes. A precision nutrition approach that estimates personalized PPGR to specific foods may be more efficacious for weight loss.ObjectiveTo compare a standardized low-fat vs a personalized diet regarding percentage of weight loss in adults with abnormal glucose metabolism and obesity.Design, setting, and participantsThe Personal Diet Study was a single-center, population-based, 6-month randomized clinical trial with measurements at baseline (0 months) and 3 and 6 months conducted from February 12, 2018, to October 28, 2021. A total of 269 adults aged 18 to 80 years with a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) ranging from 27 to 50 and a hemoglobin A1c level ranging from 5.7% to 8.0% were recruited. Individuals were excluded if receiving medications other than metformin or with evidence of kidney disease, assessed as an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation, to avoid recruiting patients with advanced type 2 diabetes.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to either a low-fat diet (<25% of energy intake; standardized group) or a personalized diet that estimates PPGR to foods using a machine learning algorithm (personalized group). Participants in both groups received a total of 14 behavioral counseling sessions and self-monitored dietary intake. In addition, the participants in the personalized group received color-coded meal scores on estimated PPGR delivered via a mobile app.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the percentage of weight loss from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in body composition (fat mass, fat-free mass, and percentage of body weight), resting energy expenditure, and adaptive thermogenesis. Data were collected at baseline and 3 and 6 months. Analysis was based on intention to treat using linear mixed modeling.ResultsOf a total of 204 adults randomized, 199 (102 in the personalized group vs 97 in the standardized group) contributed data (mean [SD] age, 58 [11] years; 133 women [66.8%]; mean [SD] body mass index, 33.9 [4.8]). Weight change at 6 months was -4.31% (95% CI, -5.37% to -3.24%) for the standardized group and -3.26% (95% CI, -4.25% to -2.26%) for the personalized group, which was not significantly different (difference between groups, 1.05% [95% CI, -0.40% to 2.50%]; P = .16). There were no between-group differences in body composition and adaptive thermogenesis; however, the change in resting energy expenditure was significantly greater in the standardized group from 0 to 6 months (difference between groups, 92.3 [95% CI, 0.9-183.8] kcal/d; P = .05).Conclusions and relevanceA personalized diet targeting a reduction in PPGR did not result in greater weight loss compared with a low-fat diet at 6 months. Future studies should assess methods of increasing dietary self-monitoring adherence and intervention exposure.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03336411.

Project description:BackgroundSome studies have shown that protein-enriched diets can lead to greater weight loss and improvements in biomarkers of metabolic syndrome (MeS) than standard protein diets. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the effect of increased protein intake on weight loss in Mexican adults with MeS.MethodsRandomized controlled trial in 118 adults aged 47.4 ± 11.5 years and meeting the established criteria for MeS were randomized to prescribed hypocaloric diets (500 kcal less than resting metabolic rate) providing either 0.8 g/kg body weight (standard protein diet (SPD)) or 1.34 g/kg body weight (higher protein diet (HPD)) for 6 months. Body weight, waist circumference, percent body fat by bioimpedance analysis, fasting blood glucose, fasting insulin, hemoglobin A1c, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, C-reactive protein, creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase were measured at baseline, 3 months and at 6 months.ResultsThere were 105 subjects (51 for SPD and 54 for HPD) who completed the trial. Overall weight loss was 5.1 ± 3.6 kg in the SPD group compared to 7.0 ± 3.7 kg in the in HPD group. Both groups lost a significant percent of centimeters of waist circumference (SPD -6.5 ± 2.6 cm and HPD -8.8 ± 2.6 cm). There was no statistical difference Except for the varying weight losses the two groups did not show any further differences overall. However in the subgroup judged to be adherent more than 75% of the time with the prescribed diets, there was a significant difference in mean weight loss (SPD -5.8% vs. HPD -9.5%) after adjusting for baseline BMI. Both groups demonstrated significant decreases in waist circumference, glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and VLDL cholesterol, but there were no differences between the groups. There were no changes in blood tests for liver or renal function.ConclusionsThere were no significant differences in weight loss and biomarkers of MeS when the overall group was examined, but the participants with more adherence rate in the HPD group lost significantly more weight than adherent participants in the SPD group.

Dataset Information

Effect of ideal protein versus low-fat diet for weight loss: A randomized controlled trial.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Effect of ideal protein versus low-fat diet for weight loss: A randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets