Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Effect of a Personalized Diet to Reduce Postprandial Glycemic Response vs a Low-fat Diet on Weight Loss in Adults With Abnormal Glucose Metabolism and Obesity: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA network open
September 1, 2022
Collin J Popp et al. (19 authors)
Journal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, N.I.H., ExtramuralResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tHuman StudyClinical
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to compare the weight loss efficacy of a standardized low-fat diet versus a personalized diet targeting postprandial glycemic response in adults with abnormal glucose metabolism and obesity.

Results Summary

The low-fat diet resulted in a -4.31% weight loss at 6 months, which was not significantly different from the personalized diet (-3.26%). There were no significant differences in body composition or adaptive thermogenesis, but the low-fat diet showed a greater increase in resting energy expenditure.

Population

Adults aged 18-80 with a BMI of 27-50 and hemoglobin A1c levels of 5.7%-8.0%, excluding those with advanced type 2 diabetes or kidney disease.

Effective Dosage

<25% of energy intake from fat

Duration

6 months

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (7)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
personalized diet targeting a reduction in postprandial glycemic response
no change
weight loss
adults with abnormal glucose metabolism and obesity
-
did not result in greater weight loss
#1
low-fat diet
decrease
weight
adults with abnormal glucose metabolism and obesity
-4.31% (95% CI, -5.37% to -3.24%)
resulted in weight change
#2
personalized diet
decrease
weight
adults with abnormal glucose metabolism and obesity
-3.26% (95% CI, -4.25% to -2.26%)
resulted in weight change
#3
personalized diet vs low-fat diet
no change
weight loss
adults with abnormal glucose metabolism and obesity
difference between groups, 1.05% (95% CI, -0.40% to 2.50%)
was not significantly different
#4
personalized diet vs low-fat diet
no change
body composition
adults with abnormal glucose metabolism and obesity
-
There were no between-group differences
#5
personalized diet vs low-fat diet
no change
adaptive thermogenesis
adults with abnormal glucose metabolism and obesity
-
There were no between-group differences
#6
low-fat diet vs personalized diet
increase
resting energy expenditure
adults with abnormal glucose metabolism and obesity
difference between groups, 92.3 (95% CI, 0.9-183.8) kcal/d
was significantly greater
#7
Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Interindividual variability in postprandial glycemic response (PPGR) to the same foods may explain why low glycemic index or load and low-carbohydrate diet interventions have mixed weight loss outcomes. A precision nutrition approach that estimates personalized PPGR to specific foods may be more efficacious for weight loss. OBJECTIVE: To compare a standardized low-fat vs a personalized diet regarding percentage of weight loss in adults with abnormal glucose metabolism and obesity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Personal Diet Study was a single-center, population-based, 6-month randomized clinical trial with measurements at baseline (0 months) and 3 and 6 months conducted from February 12, 2018, to October 28, 2021. A total of 269 adults aged 18 to 80 years with a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) ranging from 27 to 50 and a hemoglobin A1c level ranging from 5.7% to 8.0% were recruited. Individuals were excluded if receiving medications other than metformin or with evidence of kidney disease, assessed as an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation, to avoid recruiting patients with advanced type 2 diabetes. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to either a low-fat diet (<25% of energy intake; standardized group) or a personalized diet that estimates PPGR to foods using a machine learning algorithm (personalized group). Participants in both groups received a total of 14 behavioral counseling sessions and self-monitored dietary intake. In addition, the participants in the personalized group received color-coded meal scores on estimated PPGR delivered via a mobile app. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the percentage of weight loss from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in body composition (fat mass, fat-free mass, and percentage of body weight), resting energy expenditure, and adaptive thermogenesis. Data were collected at baseline and 3 and 6 months. Analysis was based on intention to treat using linear mixed modeling. RESULTS: Of a total of 204 adults randomized, 199 (102 in the personalized group vs 97 in the standardized group) contributed data (mean [SD] age, 58 [11] years; 133 women [66.8%]; mean [SD] body mass index, 33.9 [4.8]). Weight change at 6 months was -4.31% (95% CI, -5.37% to -3.24%) for the standardized group and -3.26% (95% CI, -4.25% to -2.26%) for the personalized group, which was not significantly different (difference between groups, 1.05% [95% CI, -0.40% to 2.50%]; P = .16). There were no between-group differences in body composition and adaptive thermogenesis; however, the change in resting energy expenditure was significantly greater in the standardized group from 0 to 6 months (difference between groups, 92.3 [95% CI, 0.9-183.8] kcal/d; P = .05). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A personalized diet targeting a reduction in PPGR did not result in greater weight loss compared with a low-fat diet at 6 months. Future studies should assess methods of increasing dietary self-monitoring adherence and intervention exposure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03336411.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
AdultBlood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diet, Fat-RestrictedFemaleGlucoseGlycated HemoglobinHumansMetforminMiddle AgedObesityWeight Loss
Study Links
Quality Scores
SafetyNot Assessed
Efficacy65/10
Quality85/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations30
Citations/Year10.0
Relative Citation Ratio3.02
NIH Percentile85.1%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.95
Weight Score2.97
Normalized Score0.63
Related Supplements