Provision of Food Differing in Energy Density Affects Long Term Weight Loss

The Pennsylvania State University, 226 Henderson Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Obesity research (Impact Factor: 4.95). 07/2005; 13(6):1052-60. DOI: 10.1038/oby.2005.123
Source: PubMed


The energy density (kilocalories per gram) of foods influences short-term energy intake. This 1-year clinical trial tested the effect on weight loss of a diet incorporating one or two servings per day of foods equal in energy but differing in energy density.
Dietitians instructed 200 overweight and obese women and men to follow an exchange-based energy-restricted diet. Additionally, subjects were randomized to consume daily either one or two servings of low energy-dense soup, two servings of high energy-dense snack foods, or no special food (comparison group).
All four groups showed significant weight loss at 6 months that was well maintained at 12 months. The magnitude of weight loss, however, differed by group (p=0.006). At 1 year, weight loss in the comparison (8.1+/-1.1 kg) and two-soup (7.2+/-0.9 kg) groups was significantly greater than that in the two-snack group (4.8+/-0.7 kg); weight loss in the one-soup group (6.1+/-1.1 kg) did not differ significantly from other groups. Weight loss was significantly correlated with the decrease in dietary energy density from baseline at 1 and 2 months (p=0.0001) but not at 6 and 12 months.
On an energy-restricted diet, consuming two servings of low energy-dense soup daily led to 50% greater weight loss than consuming the same amount of energy as high energy-dense snack food. Regularly consuming foods that are low in energy density can be an effective strategy for weight management.

Download full-text


Available from: Barbara Jean Rolls, Oct 02, 2014
  • Source
    • "Manipulation of dietary energy density, broadly defined as kilocalories (kcals) per gram of food (Rolls 2009), has been shown to be a successful strategy for weight loss (Ello-Martin et al. 2007; Rolls et al. 2005). By lowering dietary energy density, a larger volume of food can be consumed, presumably leading to increased satiety without increasing kilocalories (Rolls et al. 2005). Consuming fruits, vegetables, and broth-based soups, which have a low energy density, and reducing foods high in fat, which have a high energy density, has proven to be a successful weight loss strategy (Ello-Martin et al. 2007; Rolls et al. 1999). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Women with exercise-associated menstrual cycle disturbances (EAMD) restrict energy intake. Reducing energy density (ED; kcals·g(-1) of food or beverage) may be a strategy employed by EAMD women to maintain lower energy intake. The purpose of this study was 3-fold: to determine whether EAMD women consume low ED diets; to identify food groups associated with low ED; and to determine concentrations of total peptide YY (PYY), a satiety factor. Twenty-five active females were divided into 2 groups, according to menstrual status: EAMD (n = 12) and ovulatory controls (OV) (n = 13). Two 3-day diet records were analyzed for ED and other parameters. Body composition, fitness, resting metabolic rate, and PYY were measured. Groups did not differ in age, age of menarche, body mass index, maximal aerobic capacity(), body fat (%), or amount of exercise per week. For fat mass (12.4 ± 1.7 vs. 14.9 ± 3.5 kg; p = 0.046), energy availability (28.8 ± 11.5 vs. 42.1 ± 9.2 kcal·kg(-1) FFM; p = 0.006), and energy intake (29.8 ± 9.2 vs. 36.3 ± 10.6 kcals·kg(-1) BW; p = 0.023), EAMD was lower than OV. ED was lower in EAMD than in OV (0.77 ± 0.06 vs. 1.06 ± 0.09 kcal·g(-1); p = 0.018) when all beverages were included, but not when noncaloric beverages were excluded. Vegetable (p = 0.047) and condiment (p = 0.014) consumption and fasting PYY (pg·mL(-1)) (p = 0.006) were higher in EAMD. EAMD ate a lower ED diet through increased vegetable, condiment, and noncaloric beverage consumption, and exhibited higher PYY concentrations. These behaviors may represent a successful strategy to restrict calories and maximize satiety.
    Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism 06/2011; 36(3):382-94. DOI:10.1139/h11-030 · 2.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Rolls and colleagues found results consistent with ours in a 12 month study of 200 overweight and obese individuals. In this study all subjects were on a calorie restricted diet, but after 1 year, subjects consuming a low energy density soup twice a day as compared to subjects eating a high energy density snack with the same energy content as the soup had significantly greater weight loss[13]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health risks linked to obesity and the difficulty most have in achieving weight loss underscore the importance of identifying dietary factors that contribute to successful weight loss. This study examined the association between change in dietary energy density and weight loss over time. Subjects were 213 men and women with BMI of 30-39 kg/m2 and without chronic illness enrolled in 2004 in a randomized trial evaluating behavioral treatments for long-term weight loss. Subjects completed a 62-item food frequency questionnaire at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months. Pearson correlations between BMI and energy density (kcals/g of solid food) at baseline were not significantly different from zero (r = -0.02, p = 0.84). In a longitudinal analysis, change in energy density was strongly related to change in BMI. The estimated beta for change in BMI (kg/m2) of those in the quartile representing greatest decrease in energy density at 18 months compared to those in the quartile with the least was -1.95 (p = 0.006). The association was especially strong in the first six months (estimated beta = -1.43), the period with greatest weight loss (mean change in BMI = -2.50 kg/m2 from 0-6 months vs. 0.23 kg/m2 from 12-18 months) and the greatest contrast with respect to change in energy density. Decreased energy density predicted weight loss in this 18 month weight loss study. These findings may have important implications for individual dietary advice and public health policies targeting weight control in the general population.
    International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 09/2009; 6(1):57. DOI:10.1186/1479-5868-6-57 · 4.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Eating foods with lower energy density (fewer calories per unit weight) has been shown to reduce overall energy intake and (over time) reduce the prevalence of overweight and obesity. This conclusion is supported by evidence from short-term experimental studies, which consistently find that decreasing the energy density of the diet enhances satiation and lowers energy intake among experimental subjects (Darmon et al., 2004; Devitt and Mattes, 2004; Rolls et al., 2005; Blass, 2008). Given the importance of obesity and other new food market circumstances some suggest that it might be appropriate to modify the FSP to better achieve improved dietary quality for the poor, and especially children in poor households. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Some have suggested that the US food stamp program (FSP) should be revised with a view to combating obesity among the poor. In this paper, we assess the likely impacts of allowing FSP participants to purchase only healthy foods when using food stamps. Our results indicate that FSP participants would probably increase their consumption of healthy food, but the implications for their purchases of unhealthy food are not clear. Market-wide consequences are even less clear, because changing what may be purchased using food stamps would lead to higher prices for healthy foods and lower prices for unhealthy foods and these price effects would feed back into consumer decisions, with adverse effects on consumption patterns of both participants and non-participants in the FSP. In addition, more restrictive rules on the use of food stamps would discourage participation in the FSP. We conclude that, while reforming the FSP may indeed to lead to better diets among participants, it is likely to be an ineffective and inefficient instrument for bringing about desired nutritional outcomes unless accompanied by additional policy instruments.
    Food Policy 04/2009; 34(2):176-184. DOI:10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.10.013 · 1.80 Impact Factor
Show more