The effect of three different ad libitum diets for weight loss maintenance: a randomized 18-month trial

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/m 2 ) men ( n  = ...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of nutrition 2017-03, Vol.56 (2), p.727-738
Hauptverfasser: Due, Anette, Larsen, Thomas M., Mu, Huiling, Hermansen, Kjeld, Stender, Steen, Toubro, Søren, Allison, David B., Astrup, Arne
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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/m 2 ) 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  
ISSN:1436-6207
1436-6215
DOI:10.1007/s00394-015-1116-6