Dataset Information

Differences in Weight Loss Between Persons on Standard Balanced vs Nutrigenetic Diets in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND & AIMS:Many companies provide genetic tests for obesity-related polymorphisms (nutrigenetics) and make dietary recommendations for weight loss that are based on the results. We performed a randomized controlled trial to determine whether more participants who followed a nutrigenetic-guided diet lost ?5% of their body weight than participants on a standard balanced diet for 8 and 24 weeks. METHODS:We performed a prospective study of 51 obese or overweight U.S. veterans on an established weight management program at the Veterans Administration San Diego Healthcare System (the MOVE! program). Participants were randomly assigned to groups placed on a nutrigenetic-guided diet (balanced, low-carbohydrate, low-fat, or Mediterranean; n = 30) or a standard balanced diet (n = 21). Nutrigenetic diets were selected on the basis of results from the Pathway FIT test. RESULTS:There was no significant difference in the percentage of participants on the balanced diet vs the nutrigenetic-guided diet who lost 5% of their body weight at 8 weeks (35.0% ± 20.9% vs 26.9% ± 17.1%, respectively; P = .28) or at 24 weeks. Both groups had difficulty adhering to the diets. However, adherence to the nutrigenetic-guided diet correlated with weight loss (r = 0.74; P = 4.0 × 10(-5)), but not adherence to standard therapy (r = 0.34; P = .23). Participants who had low-risk polymorphisms for obesity lost more weight than all other participants at 8 weeks (5.0% vs 2.9%, respectively; P = .02) and had significantly greater reductions in body mass index (6.4% vs 3.6%, respectively; P = .03) and waist circumference (6.5% vs 2.6%, respectively; P = .02) at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS:In a prospective study, a nutrigenetic-based diet did not increase weight loss compared with a standard balanced diet. However, genetic features can identify individuals most likely to benefit from a balanced diet weight loss strategy; these findings require further investigation. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01859403.

SUBMITTER: Frankwich KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4546861 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differences in Weight Loss Between Persons on Standard Balanced vs Nutrigenetic Diets in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Frankwich Karen A KA Egnatios Jeremy J Kenyon Mandy L ML Rutledge Thomas R TR Liao Patricia S PS Gupta Samir S Herbst Karen L KL Zarrinpar Amir A

Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 20150310 9

<h4>Background & aims</h4>Many companies provide genetic tests for obesity-related polymorphisms (nutrigenetics) and make dietary recommendations for weight loss that are based on the results. We performed a randomized controlled trial to determine whether more participants who followed a nutrigenetic-guided diet lost ≥5% of their body weight than participants on a standard balanced diet for 8 and 24 weeks.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a prospective study of 51 obese or overweight U.S. veterans o ...[more]

PMID: 25769412

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLifestyle interventions have shown to be effective when continuous personal support was provided. However, there is lack of knowledge whether a telemedical-approach with personal coaching contributes to long-term weight losses in overweight employees. We, therefore, tested the hypothesis that telemedical-based lifestyle interventions accompanied with telemedical coaching lead to larger weight losses in overweight persons in an occupational health care setting.MethodsOverweight employees (n=180) with a body mass index (BMI) of >27 kg/m2 were randomized into either a telemedical (TM) group (n=61), a telemedical coaching (TMC) group (n=58), or a control group (n=61). Both intervention groups were equipped with scales and pedometers automatically transferring the data into a personalized online portal, which could be monitored from participants and coaches. Participants of the TMC group received additionally one motivational care call per week by mental coaches to discuss the current data (current weight and steps) and achieving goals such as a healthy lifestyle or weight reduction. The control group remained in routine care. Clinical and anthropometric data were determined after the 12-week intervention. Additionally, weight change was followed up after 12 months.ResultsParticipants of TMC (-3.1 ± 4.8 kg, p<0.0001) and TM group (-1.9 ± 4.0 kg; p=0.0012) significantly reduced weight and sustained it during the 1-year follow-up, while the control group showed no change. Compared to the control group only weight loss in the TMC group was significantly different (p<0.001) after 12 months. TMC and TM group also reduced BMI, waist circumference, and LDL cholesterol. Moreover, TMC group improved additionally systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and HbA1c.ConclusionsTelemedical devices in combination with telemedical coaching lead to significant long-term weight reductions in overweight persons in an occupational health care setting. This study is registered with NCT01868763, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:BackgroundSome popular weight loss diets restricting carbohydrates (CHO) claim to be more effective, and have additional health benefits in preventing cardiovascular disease compared to balanced weight loss diets.Methods and findingsWe compared the effects of low CHO and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets in overweight and obese adults assessed in randomised controlled trials (minimum follow-up of 12 weeks), and summarised the effects on weight, as well as cardiovascular and diabetes risk. Dietary criteria were derived from existing macronutrient recommendations. We searched Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL (19 March 2014). Analysis was stratified by outcomes at 3-6 months and 1-2 years, and participants with diabetes were analysed separately. We evaluated dietary adherence and used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. We calculated mean differences (MD) and performed random-effects meta-analysis. Nineteen trials were included (n = 3209); 3 had adequate allocation concealment. In non-diabetic participants, our analysis showed little or no difference in mean weight loss in the two groups at 3-6 months (MD 0.74 kg, 95%CI -1.49 to 0.01 kg; I2 = 53%; n = 1745, 14 trials; moderate quality evidence) and 1-2 years (MD 0.48 kg, 95%CI -1.44 kg to 0.49 kg; I2 = 12%; n = 1025; 7 trials, moderate quality evidence). Furthermore, little or no difference was detected at 3-6 months and 1-2 years for blood pressure, LDL, HDL and total cholesterol, triglycerides and fasting blood glucose (>914 participants). In diabetic participants, findings showed a similar pattern.ConclusionsTrials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes, are randomised to low CHO diets and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence exist that primary care referral to an open-group behavioural programme is an effective strategy for management of obesity, but little evidence on optimal intervention duration is available. We aimed to establish whether 52-week referral to an open-group weight-management programme would achieve greater weight loss and improvements in a range of health outcomes and be more cost-effective than the current practice of 12-week referrals.MethodsIn this non-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we recruited participants who were aged 18 years or older and had body-mass index (BMI) of 28 kg/m2 or higher from 23 primary care practices in England. Participants were randomly assigned (2:5:5) to brief advice and self-help materials, a weight-management programme (Weight Watchers) for 12 weeks, or the same weight-management programme for 52 weeks. We followed-up participants over 2 years. The primary outcome was weight at 1 year of follow-up, analysed with mixed-effects models according to intention-to-treat principles and adjusted for centre and baseline weight. In a hierarchical closed-testing procedure, we compared combined behavioural programme arms with brief intervention, then compared the 12-week programme and 52-week programme. We did a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis using person-level data and modelled outcomes over a 25-year time horizon using microsimulation. This study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN82857232.FindingsBetween Oct 18, 2012, and Feb 10, 2014, we enrolled 1269 participants. 1267 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the brief intervention (n=211), the 12-week programme (n=528), and the 52-week programme (n=528). Two participants in the 12-week programme had been found to be ineligible shortly after randomisation and were excluded from the analysis. 823 (65%) of 1267 participants completed an assessment at 1 year and 856 (68%) participants at 2 years. All eligible participants were included in the analyses. At 1 year, mean weight changes in the groups were -3·26 kg (brief intervention), -4·75 kg (12-week programme), and -6·76 kg (52-week programme). Participants in the behavioural programme lost more weight than those in the brief intervention (adjusted difference -2·71 kg, 95% CI -3·86 to -1·55; p<0·0001). The 52-week programme was more effective than the 12-week programme (-2·14 kg, -3·05 to -1·22; p<0·0001). Differences between groups were still significant at 2 years. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. Over 2 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; compared with brief intervention) was £159 per kg lost for the 52-week programme and £91 per kg for the 12-week programme. Modelled over 25 years after baseline, the ICER for the 12-week programme was dominant compared with the brief intervention. The ICER for the 52-week programme was cost-effective compared with the brief intervention (£2394 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) and the 12-week programme (£3804 per QALY).InterpretationFor adults with overweight or obesity, referral to this open-group behavioural weight-loss programme for at least 12 weeks is more effective than brief advice and self-help materials. A 52-week programme produces greater weight loss and other clinical benefits than a 12-week programme and, although it costs more, modelling suggests that the 52-week programme is cost-effective in the longer term.FundingNational Prevention Research Initiative, Weight Watchers International (as part of an UK Medical Research Council Industrial Collaboration Award).

Dataset Information

Differences in Weight Loss Between Persons on Standard Balanced vs Nutrigenetic Diets in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Publications

Differences in Weight Loss Between Persons on Standard Balanced vs Nutrigenetic Diets in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets