4.5 Article

Weight loss effects from vegetable intake: a 12-month randomised controlled trial

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 68, 期 7, 页码 778-785

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2014.39

关键词

-

资金

  1. Horticulture Australia Limited from Australian Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Direct evidence for the effects of vegetable intake on weight loss is qualified. The study aimed to assess the effect of higher vegetable consumption on weight loss. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A single blind parallel controlled trial was conducted with 120 overweight adults (mean body mass index=29.98 kg/m(2)) randomised to two energy deficit healthy diet advice groups differing only by doubling the serving (portion) sizes of vegetables in the comparator group. Data were analysed as intention-to-treat using a linear mixed model. Spearmans rho bivariate was used to explore relationships between percentage energy from vegetables and weight loss. RESULTS: After 12 months, the study sample lost 6.5 +/- 5.2 kg (P < 0.001 time) with no difference between groups (P > 0.05 interaction). Both groups increased vegetable intake and lost weight in the first 3 months and. the change in weight was significantly correlated with higher proportions of energy consumed as vegetables (rho = -0.217, P=0.024). Fasting glucose, insulin and triglyceride levels decreased (P < 0.001 time) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels increased (P < 0.001 time), with no difference between groups. Weight loss was sustained for 12 months by both groups, but the comparator group reported greater hunger satisfaction (P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Advice to consume a healthy low-energy diet leads to sustained weight loss, with reductions in cardiovascular disease risk factors regardless of an emphasis on more vegetables. In the short term, consuming a higher proportion of the dietary energy as vegetables may support a greater weight loss and the dietary pattern appears sustainable.

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