4.5 Article

High intake of dairy during energy restriction does not affect energy balance or the intestinal microflora compared with low dairy intake in overweight individuals in a randomized controlled trial

期刊

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2017-0234

关键词

calcium; dairy; energy restriction; body weight; microbiota

资金

  1. Danish Council for Strategic Research
  2. Danish Dairy Research foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During weight loss, dairy calcium is proposed to accelerate weight and fat-mass loss through increased fecal fat excretion. The primary objective was to investigate if a high-dairy energy-restricted diet is superior to low dairy in terms of changes in body weight, body composition, and fecal fat excretion over 24 weeks. Secondary objectives included fecal energy and calcium excretion, resting energy expenditure, blood pressure, lipid metabolism, and gut microbiota. In a randomized, parallelarm intervention study, 11 men and 69 women (body mass index, 30.6 +/- 0.3 kg/m(2); age, 44 +/- 1 years) were allocated to a 500-kcal (2100 kJ) -deficit diet that was either high (HD: 1500 mg calcium/day) or low (LD: 600 mg calcium/day) in dairy products for 24 weeks. Habitual calcium intake was similar to 1000 mg/day. Body weight loss (HD: -6.6 +/- 1.3 kg, LD: -7.9 +/- 1.5 kg, P = 0.73), fat-mass loss (HD: -7.8% +/- 1.3%, LD: -8.5% +/- 1.1%, P = 0.76), changes in fecal fat excretion (HD: -0.57 +/- 0.76 g, LD: 0.46 +/- 0.70 g, P = 0.12), and microbiota composition were similar for the groups over 24 weeks. However, total fat-mass loss was positively associated with relative abundance of Papillibacter (P = 0.017) independent of diet group. Consumption of a high-dairy diet did not increase fecal fat or accelerate weight and fat-mass loss beyond energy restriction over 24 weeks in overweight and obese adults with a habitual calcium intake of similar to 1000 mg/day. However, this study indicates that Papillibacter is involved in body compositional changes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据