Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Effect of Allowing Choice of Diet on Weight Loss: A Randomized Trial.

Annals of internal medicine
January 1, 1970
William S Yancy et al. (9 authors)
Journal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.Human StudyClinical
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to determine whether allowing participants to choose between a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) or a low-fat diet (LFD) would improve weight loss compared to random assignment.

Results Summary

The study found no significant difference in weight loss between the choice group (5.7 kg) and the comparator group (6.7 kg) at 48 weeks. Secondary outcomes, such as dietary adherence and quality of life, were similar between groups.

Population

Outpatients with a BMI ≥30 kg/m² at a Veterans Affairs medical center (older veterans).

Effective Dosage

Not specified

Duration

48 weeks

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (7)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
choice of diet (low-carbohydrate diet or low-fat diet)
no change
weight loss
outpatients with a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2
-
did not improve
#1
choice of diet (low-carbohydrate diet or low-fat diet)
decrease
weight
choice group
5.7 kg (95% CI, 4.3 to 7.0 kg)
estimated mean weight loss was
#2
random assignment to a diet (low-carbohydrate diet or low-fat diet)
decrease
weight
comparator group
6.7 kg (CI, 5.4 to 8.0 kg)
estimated mean weight loss was
#3
choice of diet versus random assignment to a diet
decrease
weight loss
-
-1.1 kg (CI, -2.9 to 0.8 kg); P = 0.26
mean difference was
#4
choice of diet versus random assignment to a diet
no change
dietary adherence
-
-
were similar
#5
choice of diet versus random assignment to a diet
no change
physical activity
-
-
were similar
#6
choice of diet versus random assignment to a diet
no change
weight-related quality of life
-
-
were similar
#7
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Choosing a diet rather than being prescribed one could improve weight loss. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether offering choice of diet improves weight loss. DESIGN: Double-randomized preference trial of choice between 2 diets (choice) versus random assignment to a diet (comparator) over 48 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01152359). SETTING: Outpatient clinic at a Veterans Affairs medical center. PATIENTS: Outpatients with a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2. INTERVENTION: Choice participants received information about their food preferences and 2 diet options (low-carbohydrate diet [LCD] or low-fat diet [LFD]) before choosing and were allowed to switch diets at 12 weeks. Comparator participants were randomly assigned to 1 diet for 48 weeks. Both groups received group and telephone counseling for 48 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was weight at 48 weeks. RESULTS: Of 105 choice participants, 61 (58%) chose the LCD and 44 (42%) chose the LFD; 5 (3 on the LCD and 2 on the LFD) switched diets at 12 weeks, and 87 (83%) completed measurements at 48 weeks. Of 102 comparator participants, 53 (52%) were randomly assigned to the LCD and 49 (48%) were assigned to the LFD; 88 (86%) completed measurements. At 48 weeks, estimated mean weight loss was 5.7 kg (95% CI, 4.3 to 7.0 kg) in the choice group and 6.7 kg (CI, 5.4 to 8.0 kg) in the comparator group (mean difference, -1.1 kg [CI, -2.9 to 0.8 kg]; P = 0.26). Secondary outcomes of dietary adherence, physical activity, and weight-related quality of life were similar between groups at 48 weeks. LIMITATIONS: Only 2 diet options were provided. Results from this sample of older veterans might not be generalizable to other populations. CONCLUSION: Contrary to expectations, the opportunity to choose a diet did not improve weight loss.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Caloric RestrictionChoice BehaviorDiet, Carbohydrate-RestrictedDiet, Fat-RestrictedDiet, ReducingDouble-Blind MethodExerciseFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesityPatient CompliancePatient PreferenceQuality of LifeWeight Loss
Study Links
Quality Scores
SafetyNot Assessed
Efficacy65/10
Quality80/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations38
Citations/Year3.8
Relative Citation Ratio1.63
NIH Percentile68%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.75
Weight Score1.82
Normalized Score0.62
Related Supplements