4.5 Article

Personalized nutrition: pretreatment glucose metabolism determines individual long-term weight loss responsiveness in individuals with obesity on low-carbohydrate versus low-fat diet

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
Volume 43, Issue 10, Pages 2037-2044

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41366-018-0298-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health - Gelesis Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Objectives The interaction between fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and fasting insulin (FI) concentrations and diets with different carbohydrate content were studied as prognostic markers of weight loss as recent studies up to 6 months of duration have suggested the importance of these biomarkers. Subjects/Methods This was a retrospective analysis of a clinical trial where participants with obesity were randomized to an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet or a low-fat diet with low energy content (1200-1800 kcal/day [approximate to 5.0-7.5 MJ/d]; <= 30% calories from fat) for 24 months. Participants were categorized (pretreatment) as normoglycemic (FPG < 5.6 mmol/L) or prediabetic (FPG >= 5.6-6.9 mmol/L) and further stratified by median FI. Linear mixed models were used to examine outcomes by FPG and FI values. Results After 2 years, participants with prediabetes and high FI lost 7.2 kg (95% CI 2.1;12.2, P = 0.005) more with the low-fat than low-carbohydrate diet, whereas those with prediabetes and low FI tended to lose 6.2 kg (95% CI -0.9;13.3, P = 0.088) more on the low-carbohydrate diet than low-fat diet [mean difference: 13.3 kg (95% CI 4.6;22.0, P = 0.003)]. No differences between diets were found among participants with normoglycemia and either high or low FI (both P >= 0.16). Conclusions Fasting plasma glucose and insulin are strong predictors of the weight loss response to diets with different macronutrient composition and might be a useful approach for personalized weight management.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available