Article

Randomized trial of weight-loss-diets for young adults varying in fish and fish oil content.

Unit for Nutrition Research, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Landspitali University Hospital, University of Iceland, Eiriksgata-29, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland.
International Journal of Obesity (Impact Factor: 5.39). 11/2007; 31(10):1560-6. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803643
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To investigate the effect of including seafood and fish oils, as part of an energy-restricted diet, on weight loss in young overweight adults.
Randomized controlled trial of energy-restricted diet varying in fish and fish oil content was followed for 8 weeks. Subjects were randomized to one of four groups: (1) control (sunflower oil capsules, no seafood); (2) lean fish (3 x 150 g portions of cod/week); (3) fatty fish (3 x 150 g portions of salmon/week); (4) fish oil (DHA/EPA capsules, no seafood). The macronutrient composition of the diets was similar between the groups and the capsule groups, were single-blinded.
A total of 324 men and women aged 20-40 years, BMI 27.5-32.5 kg/m(2) from Iceland, Spain and Ireland.
Anthropometric data were collected at baseline, midpoint and endpoint. Confounding factors were accounted for, with linear models, for repeated measures with two-way interactions. The most important interactions for weight loss were (diet x energy intake), (gender x diet) and (gender x initial-weight).
An average man in the study (95 kg at baseline receiving 1600 kcal/day) was estimated to lose 3.55 kg (95% CI, 3.14-3.97) (1); 4.35 kg (95% CI, 3.94-4.75) (2); 4.50 kg (95% CI, 4.13-4.87) (3) and 4.96 kg (95% CI, 4.53-5.40) on diet (4) in 4 weeks, from baseline to midpoint. The weight-loss from midpoint to endpoint was 0.45 (0.41-0.49) times the observed weight loss from baseline to midpoint. The diets did not differ in their effect on weight loss in women. Changes in measures of body composition were in line with changes in body weight.
In young, overweight men, the inclusion of either lean or fatty fish, or fish oil as part of an energy-restricted diet resulted in approximately 1 kg more weight loss after 4 weeks, than did a similar diet without seafood or supplement of marine origin. The addition of seafood to a nutritionally balanced energy-restricted diet may boost weight loss.

0 Followers
 · 
134 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To evaluate the potential body weight-lowering effects of dietary supplementation with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and α-lipoic acid separately or combined in healthy overweight/obese women following a hypocaloric diet.Methods This is a short-term double-blind placebo-controlled study with parallel design that lasted 10 weeks. Of the randomized participants, 97 women received the allocated treatment [Control, EPA (1.3 g/d), α-lipoic acid (0.3 g/d), and EPA + α-lipoic acid (1.3 g/d + 0.3 g/d)], and 77 volunteers completed the study. All groups followed an energy-restricted diet of 30% less than total energy expenditure. Body weight, anthropometric measurements, body composition, resting energy expenditure, blood pressure, serum glucose, and insulin and lipid profile, as well as leptin and ghrelin levels, were assessed at baseline and after nutritional intervention.ResultsBody weight loss was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in those groups supplemented with α-lipoic acid. EPA supplementation significantly attenuated (P < 0.001) the decrease in leptin levels that occurs during weight loss. Body weight loss improved lipid and glucose metabolism parameters but without significant differences between groups.Conclusions The intervention suggests that α-lipoic acid supplementation alone or in combination with EPA may help to promote body weight loss in healthy overweight/obese women following energy-restricted diets.
    Obesity 12/2014; 23(2). DOI:10.1002/oby.20966 · 4.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prevailing thinking about obesity and related diseases holds that quantifying calories should be a principal concern and target for intervention. Part of this thinking is that consumed calories – regardless of their sources – are equivalent; i.e. ‘a calorie is a calorie’. The present commentary discusses various problems with the idea that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and with a primarily quantitative focus on food calories. Instead, the authors argue for a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types. In particular, the authors consider how calorie-focused thinking is inherently biased against high-fat foods, many of which may be protective against obesity and related diseases, and supportive of starchy and sugary replacements, which are likely detrimental. Shifting the focus to qualitative food distinctions, a central argument of the paper is that obesity and related diseases are problems due largely to food-induced physiology (e.g. neurohormonal pathways) not addres- sable through arithmetic dieting (i.e. calorie counting). The paper considers potential harms of public health initiatives framed around calorie balance sheets – targeting ‘calories in’ and/or ‘calories out’ – that reinforce messages of overeating and inactivity as underlying causes, rather than intermediate effects, of obesity. Finally, the paper concludes that public health should work primarily to support the consumption of whole foods that help protect against obesity-promoting energy imbalance and metabolic dysfunction and not continue to promote calorie-directed messages that may create and blame victims and possibly exacerbate epidemics of obesity and related diseases.
    Public Health Nutrition 11/2014; DOI:10.1017/S1368980014002559 · 2.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Effective strategies are required to reduce the prevalence of overweight and obesity; however, the effectiveness of current weight loss programmes is variable. One contributing factor may be the difference in weight loss success between men and women. A systematic review was conducted to determine whether the effectiveness of weight loss interventions differs between men and women. Randomized controlled trials published up until March 2014 were included. Effect sizes (Hedges' g) were used to examine the difference in weight outcomes between men and women. A total of 58 studies met the eligibility criteria with 49 studies of higher quality included in the final data synthesis. Eleven studies that directly compared weight loss in men and women reported a significant sex difference. Ten of these reported that men lost more weight than women; however, women also lost a significant amount of weight. Analysis of effect sizes found small differences in weight loss favouring men for both diet (g = 0.489) and diet plus exercise (g = 0.240) interventions. There is little evidence from this review to indicate that men and women should adopt different weight loss strategies. Current evidence supports moderate energy restriction in combination with exercise for weight loss in both men and women.
    Obesity Reviews 02/2015; 16(2). DOI:10.1111/obr.12241 · 7.86 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from