4.2 Article

The diet quality of adult women participating in a behavioural weight-loss programme

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN NUTRITION AND DIETETICS
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 360-369

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2011.01159.x

Keywords

diet quality; internet; weight loss

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Diet quality plays an important role in health and has been shown to impact the risk of heart disease and certain cancers. The present study aimed to examine baseline and 16-week follow-up levels of energy intake, energy density and diet quality, as measured by the Healthy Eating Index 2005 (HEI-2005), in overweight and obese women participating in a behavioural weight-loss programme. Methods: Sixty-six women [mean (SD) age 48.6 (10.8) years; body mass index 31.8 (3.7) kg m(-2); 92% Caucasian] completed dietary measures at baseline and follow-up. All participants received a 16-week Internet Behavioural weight-loss programme based on the core of the Diabetes Prevention Program. Dietary intake was measured using the 2005 Block food frequency questionnaire. Diet quality was calculated using the HEI-2005. Paired t-tests were used to determine changes over time. Results: There was a reduction in reported energy intake [7.867 (3.232) MJ versus 5.748 (1.775) MJ, P < 0.001] over the 16 weeks. Participants had an increase in diet quality [HEI score = 53.9 (9.9) versus 57.4 (10.6), P = 0.002] as well as a reduction in energy density [0.0088 (0.0021) MJ g(-1) to 0.0080 (0.0021) MJ g(-1) (P = 0.002)]. All micronutrient intakes decreased over the 16 weeks. Conclusions: Participation in a 16-week behavioural weight-loss programme significantly improved diet quality and reduced dietary energy density and energy intake in adult women. However, despite the overall increase in diet quality score, there were deficiencies in key micronutrients in the diets of most women at the conclusion of the 16-week study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available