Article

An ad libitum, very low-fat diet results in weight loss and changes in nutrient intakes in postmenopausal women.

Department of Family & Consumers Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, 95819-6053, uSA.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association (Impact Factor: 3.92). 12/2003; 103(12):1600-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2003.09.017
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine whether a very low-fat diet (<15% of energy intake) consumed ad libitum during an 8-month period can achieve weight loss of 5% to 10% of initial body weight while still providing adequate intakes of other essential nutrients.
Longitudinal, 8-month, ad libitum, free living, very low-fat diet trial.
Fifty-four of the sixty-four healthy postmenopausal women recruited completed the entire study (age 59+/-8 years, BMI=29.6+/-6.3). Twenty-four of these women used hormone replacement therapy, thirty women did not.
Weekly sessions aimed at teaching and reinforcing a very low-fat intake diet for eight months. MAIN: outcome measures Body weight, percent body fat, waist-to-hip ratio, resting energy expenditure, respiratory quotient, and nutrient intakes derived from 7-day food records at the beginning and at 2, 4, 6, and 8 months of the study. Statistical analysis performed Repeated measures analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc analysis were used to analyze significant differences in mean data (P<.05).
Fat intake decreased from 33.2+/-7.5% to 11+/-4% over the 8-month intervention period (P<.00001). Weight loss was 6.0 kg+/- 4.2 kg (P<.000038), an 8% weight change, and decrease in percent body fat of 2.7%+/-0.2% (P< or =.000046). Weight correlated better with the self-reported fat intake (r=0.321, P<.01) than the energy intake (r=0.263, P<.05) at baseline. Fiber intake increased from 16 g+/-0.6 g to 23 g+/-0.2 g (P<.0005). All micronutrient intakes remained at or above preintervention ranges, except for a decrease in vitamin E intake from 8.1 mg+/-4.0 mg to 3.7 mg+/-1.1 mg (P<.0005) on the very low-fat diet and linoleic acid from 6.3%+/-1.5% to 2.5%+/-0.7% (P<.000001) with no significant reduction in linolenic acid. Hormone replacement was not associated with the amount of weight loss.
This study demonstrates that adherence to a very low-fat diet consumed ad libitum causes weight loss in the 5% to 10% range and a reduction of body fat. These reductions, along with the observed decreases in fat intake, are associated with improved health outcomes. Because of the decreased vitamin E and n-3 fatty acid intake, emphasis on foods high in these nutrients may need to be encouraged for those consuming a very low-fat diet.

0 Followers
 · 
90 Views
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is uncertainty regarding the prevention of migraine crises by changing the lifestyle of patients. The aim of this randomized, crossover intervention trial was to evaluate the effects of a low lipid intake on the incidence and severity of migraine crises, in comparison to a diet with moderate lipid intake. After a 2-month run-in when patients received preventive medication but were left on their habitual diet, a low-lipid or a normal-lipid diet was randomly prescribed for 3 months and thereafter diets were crossed over for the following 3 months. Headache was diagnosed based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders (IHCD) III criteria. The number and severity of attacks were assessed using a self-reported calendar. Adherence to the diet was assessed by a food frequency questionnaire. An analysis was performed on the 83 episodic or chronic migraineurs (63 female and 20 male), in the age range of 18-57 years, who completed both intervention periods. Obese subjects had a significantly higher number of attacks than those overweight or with normal body weight (24.7 ± 8, 16.3 ± 12, and 15.6 ± 11, respectively, p < 0.03) with a significant relationship between the body mass index (BMI) and the number of monthly attacks (r = 0.238, p < 0.03). The number (2.9 ± 3.7 vs. 6.8 ± 7.5, p < 0.001) and severity (1.2 + 0.9 vs. 1.7 ± 0.9, p < 0.01) of attacks significantly decreased during both intervention periods, with a significant difference in favour of the low-lipid diet. In this group of patients, the low-lipid diet significantly affected the number and severity of migraine attacks in comparison to a normal-lipid diet. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT 01917474. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Nutrition Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases 12/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.numecd.2014.12.006 · 3.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increased energy intakes are contributing to overweight and obesity. Growing evidence supports the role of protein appetite in driving excess intake when dietary protein is diluted (the protein leverage hypothesis). Understanding the interactions between dietary macronutrient balance and nutrient-specific appetite systems will be required for designing dietary interventions that work with, rather than against, basic regulatory physiology. Data were collected from 38 published experimental trials measuring ad libitum intake in subjects confined to menus differing in macronutrient composition. Collectively, these trials encompassed considerable variation in percent protein (spanning 8-54% of total energy), carbohydrate (1.6-72%) and fat (11-66%). The data provide an opportunity to describe the individual and interactive effects of dietary protein, carbohydrate and fat on the control of total energy intake. Percent dietary protein was negatively associated with total energy intake (F = 6.9, P < 0.0001) irrespective of whether carbohydrate (F = 0, P = 0.7) or fat (F = 0, P = 0.5) were the diluents of protein. The analysis strongly supports a role for protein leverage in lean, overweight and obese humans. A better appreciation of the targets and regulatory priorities for protein, carbohydrate and fat intake will inform the design of effective and health-promoting weight loss diets, food labelling policies, food production systems and regulatory frameworks.
    Obesity Reviews 03/2014; 15(3):183-91. DOI:10.1111/obr.12131 · 7.86 Impact Factor

Similar Publications