Abstract
This secondary analysis assessed the association of a plant-based index (PDI), healthful (hPDI), and unhealthful (uPDI), with weight loss in overweight adults. Participants (n = 244) were randomly assigned to a vegan (n = 122) or control group (n = 122) for 16 weeks. Three-day dietary records were analyzed and PDI indices were calculated. A repeated measure ANOVA was used for statistical analysis. All three scores increased in the vegan group; the effect sizes were: PDI +10.6 (95% CI +8.6 to +12.6; p < 0.001); hPDI +10.9 (95% CI +8.4 to +13.4; p < 0.001); and uPDI +5.4 (95% CI +3.4 to +7.4; p < 0.001). The change in all three scores significantly correlated with change in body weight: PDI (r = −0.40; p < 0.001); hPDI (r = −0.37; p < 0.001); and uPDI (r = −0.21; p = 0.002). These findings suggest that minimizing the consumption of animal products and oil may be an effective weight loss strategy in overweight adults. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02939638.
Subject terms: Nutrition, Obesity
Introduction
Plant-based diets have been associated with lower body weight and reduced type 2 diabetes prevalence. Based on observational studies, some have proposed quantifying the healthfulness of plant-food dietary patterns, creating plant-based (PDI), healthful plant-based (hPDI), and unhealthful (uPDI) plant-based dietary indices [1]. However, the association of such categorization with body weight has not been confirmed in randomized trials. A secondary analysis of previously published data [2] assessed the association of PDI, hPDI, and uPDI in the context of a vegan diet, with weight loss in overweight adults.
Methods
As described previously [2], this randomized trial was conducted between January 2017 and February 2019 in Washington, DC. This study follows the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline. The protocol (Supplement 1) was approved by the Chesapeake Institutional Review Board. All participants provided written informed consent.
Participants were randomly assigned to a vegan or control group (Suppl. Fig. 1). The vegan group was asked to follow a low-fat vegan diet consisting of fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes. The control group was asked to make no diet changes. No instructions on diet quality were given to either group.
At baseline and week 16, a 3-day dietary record (two weekdays and one weekend day) was completed by each participant and analyzed by a registered dietitian certified in the Nutrition Data System for Research [3]. The PDI, hPDI, and uPDI were calculated [1]. A repeated measures ANOVA was used by a statistician blinded to dietary interventions. Results are presented as means with 95% confidence intervals. Pearson correlation was used to evaluate the magnitude and significance of the association between the changes in body weight and changes in all three indices and their individual food components. After Bonferroni correction, p values less than 0.003 (0.05/17) were considered significant. In addition, a stepwise forward multiple regression analysis was fit (using all food components as candidate predictors) to determine food components independently predictive of change in body weight.
Results
Of 3115 people screened by telephone, 244 overweight adults met participation criteria and were assigned to the vegan (n = 122) or control (n = 122) groups. The analysis included 223 (91.0%) completers.
Dietary intake
Self-reported energy intake was reduced in both groups, more in the vegan group (effect size: −367.6 kcal/day [95% CI −536.8 to −198.5]; p < 0.001). The macronutrient content did not change significantly in the control group, while the vegan group participants increased their intake of carbohydrate (effect size: +22.5% of daily energy [95% +20.1 to +24.9]; p < 0.001) and fiber (effect size: +11.5 g/day [95% +8.1 to +14.8]; p < 0.001), and reduced consumption of fat (effect size: −18.0 % of daily energy [95% −20.1 to −15.8]; p < 0.001), protein (effect size: −4.7 % of daily energy [95% −6.1 to −3.4]; p < 0.001), and cholesterol (effect size: −215 mg/day [95% −261 to −169]; p < 0.001).
Body weight and body composition
Body weight decreased in the vegan group (effect size: −5.9 kg [95% CI −6.7 to −5.0]; p < 0.001). The majority of the weight reduction was due to the reduction in fat mass (effect size: −4.1 kg [95% CI −4.7 to −3.5] kg; p < 0.001), and visceral fat (−209 cm3 [95% CI −304 to −114]; p < 0.001).
PDI, hPDI, uPDI
All three scores increased in the vegan group, compared with no change in the control group; the effect sizes were: PDI + 10.6 (95% CI +8.6 to +12.6; p < 0.001); hPDI +10.9 (95% CI +8.4 to +13.4; p < 0.001); and uPDI +5.4 (95% CI +3.4 to +7.4; p < 0.001). The change in all three scores significantly correlated with change in body weight, with PDI (r = −0.40; p < 0.001) and hPDI (r = −0.37; p < 0.001) having stronger correlations than uPDI (r = −0.21; p = 0.002).
PDI food scores
The scores for fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes increased significantly in the vegan group (Table 1), and changes were negatively associated with changes in body weight (Table 2). The consumption of all animal products decreased in the vegan group. Changes were positively associated with changes in body weight. The change in vegetable oil intake correlated positively with weight changes (r = +0.27; p < 0.001). A multiple linear regression model (r2 = 0.26; p < 0.001) showed that the following food components were independently associated with weight loss: whole grains (p = 0.006) and legumes (p = 0.007) showed a negative association, while meat (p < 0.001), vegetable oils (p = 0.006), and sweets (p = 0.01) showed a positive association. The R-squared is about 0.26 for this model.
Table 1.
Plant-based dietary index (PDI), healthful (hPDI), and unhealthful plant-based dietary index (uPDI), and the individual food components at baseline and 16 weeks.
| Vegan group | Control group | Effect size | P value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 0 | Week 16 | Change | Week 0 | Week 16 | Change | |||
| PDI | 52.9 (51.5–54.3) | 62.3 (61.3–63.3) | +9.4 (+7.8 to +10.9)*** | 52.8 (51.5–54.0) | 51.6 (50.0–53.1) | −1.2 (−2.6 to +0.1) | +10.6 (+8.6 to +12.6) | p < 0.001 |
| hPDI | 55.4 (53.7–57.1) | 67.7 (66.8–68.6) | +12.3 (+10.6 to +14.0)*** | 55.8 (54.0–57.7) | 57.2 (55.3–59.1) | +1.4 (−0.4 to +3.2) | +10.9 (+8.4 to +13.4) | p < 0.001 |
| uPDI | 53.8 (52.4–55.1) | 59.0 (58.0–60.0) | +5.2 (+3.8 to +6.6)*** | 53.5 (52.1–54.9) | 53.3 (51.7–54.8) | −0.2 (−1.6 to +1.2) | +5.4 (+3.4 to +7.4) | p < 0.001 |
| PDI Food Components (points) | ||||||||
| Fruits | 3.0 (2.7–3.2) | 3.8 (3.6–4.0) | +0.8 (+0.5 to +1.1)*** | 3.0 (2.7–3.3) | 3.0 (2.7–3.2) | −0.0 (−0.4 to +0.3) | +0.8 (+0.4 to +1.3) | p < 0.001 |
| Vegetables | 3.0 (2.7–3.3) | 3.8 (3.5–4.0) | +0.8 (+0.5 to +1.1)*** | 3.0 (2.7–3.3) | 3.0 (2.7–3.3) | +0.0 (−0.3 to +0.4) | +0.8(+0.3 to +1.2) | 0.001 |
| Whole Grains | 3.0 (2.7–3.2) | 4.1 (3.9–4.4) | +1.2 (+0.8 to +1.5)*** | 3.0 (2.7–3.3) | 2.7 (2.4–2.9) | −0.3 (−0.0 to–0.7) | +1.5 (+1.0 to +1.9) | p < 0.001 |
| Nuts | 2.8 (1.4–2.6) | 2.1 (1.0–1.9) | −0.8 (−1.0 to +1.5)*** | 3.1 (2.8–3.4) | 3.0 (2.7–3.3) | −0.1(−0.4 to +0.2) | −0.6 (−0.2 to −1.1) | 0.003 |
| Legumes | 2.7 (1.6–2.4) | 4.3 (4.0–4.5) | +1.6 (+1.2 to +1.9)*** | 2.8 (2.4–3.1) | 2.6 (2.3–2.9) | −0.2 (−0.5 to +0.2) | +1.7 (+1.3 to +2.2) | p < 0.001 |
| Vegetable Oils | 3.2 (2.9–3.4) | 1.9 (1.7–2.1) | −1.3 (−1.6 to +1.9)*** | 2.8 (2.5–3.1) | 2.9 (1.5–2.6) | +0.1 (−0.2 to +0.5) | −1.4 (−0.9 to −1.9) | p < 0.001 |
| Coffee and Tea | 2.9 (2.7–3.2) | 2.8 (2.5–3.0) | −0.2 (−0.4 to +0.0) | 3.0 (2.8–3.3) | 3.0 (2.7–3.3) | −0.0 (−0.3 to +0.2) | −0.2 (−0.5 to +0.2) | 0.34 |
| Fruit Juice | 2.6 (2.3–2.9) | 3.0 (2.7–3.3) | 0.4 (−0.0 to +0.8) | 2.8 (2.4–3.1) | 2.5 (2.2–2.9) | −0.2 (−0.6 to +0.2) | +0.6 (+0.1 to +1.2) | 0.03 |
| Sugar Sweetened Beverages | 2.2 (1.9–2.5) | 1.7 (1.5–2.0) | −0.5 (−0.9 to–0.2)** | 2.6 (2.3–3.0) | 2.4 (1.8–2.1) | −0.2 (−0.5 to +0.1) | −0.7 (−0.3 to −1.1) | 0.20 |
| Refined Grains | 3.1 (2.9–3.4) | 1.9 (1.7–2.1) | −1.3 (−1.6 to–0.9)*** | 2.8 (2.6–3.1) | 2.0 (1.8–2.2) | −0.8 (−1.2 to–0.5) | −0.4 (−0.9 to +0.0) | 0.07 |
| Potatoes | 2.7 (2.3–3.0) | 2.7 (2.3–3.0) | +0.0 (−0.4 to +0.4) | 2.5 (2.2–2.8) | 2.6 (2.3–2.9) | +0.1 (−0.33 to +0.5) | −0.1 (−0.7 to +0.5) | 0.74 |
| Sweets | 3.2 (3.0–3.5) | 3.1(2.8–3.3) | −0.1 (−0.5 to +0.2) | 2.8 (2.5–3.0) | 2.6 (2.3–2.9) | −0.2 (−0.5 to +0.2) | +0.4 (+0.0 to +0.8) | 0.87 |
| Animal Fats | 3.0 (2.7–3.3) | 4.5 (4.4–4.7) | +1.6 (+1.3 to +1.9) | 3.1 (2.8–3.4) | 3.3 (3.0–3.7) | +0.2(−0.2 to +0.6) | +1.3 (+0.9 to +1.9) | p < 0.001 |
| Dairy | 3.1(2.8–3.3) | 5.0 (4.9–5.0) | +1.9 (+1.6 to +2.2)*** | 2.9 (2.7–3.2) | 3.1 (2.8–3.4) | +0.2(−0.1 to +0.5) | +1.7 (+1.3 to +2.1) | p < 0.001 |
| Eggs | 3.1 (2.8–3.4) | 4.9 (4.9–5.0) | +1.8 (+ 1.6 to +2.1)*** | 3.2 (2.9–3.5) | 3.2 (2.9–3.5) | +0.0 (−0.3 to +0.3) | +1.8 (+1.4 to +2.2) | p < 0.001 |
| Animal Misc. | 3.0 | 3.0 | +0.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | +0.0 | 0 (0 to 0) | - |
| Meat | 3.0 (2.8–3.3) | 5.0 (5.0–5.0) | +1.9 (+1.7 to +2.2)*** | 3.0 (2.7–3.2) | 3.1 (2.8–3.4) | +0.2 (−0.1 to +0.4) | +1.8 (+1.4 to +2.2) | p < 0.001 |
| Seafood | 3.4 (3.1–3.7) | 4.9 (4.8–5.0) | +1.5 (+1.2 to +1.8)*** | 3.4 (3.0–3.7) | 3.4 (3.1–3.8) | +0.1 (−0.3 to +0.5) | +1.5 (+1.0 to +2.0) | p < 0.001 |
| TOTAL | 53.0 (51.5–54.0) | 62.3 (61.3–63.3) | +9.4 (+7.8 to +11.0)*** | 52.8 (51.5–54.0) | 51.6 (50.0–53.1) | −1.2 (−2.6 to +0.1) | +10.6 (+8.6 to +12.6) | p < 0.001 |
Data are presented as means with 95% confidence intervals.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Table 2.
Pearson correlations between changes in body weight and changes in the individual food components of the plant-based dietary index (PDI).
| PDI Food Components | Δ Body weight |
|---|---|
| Fruits | r = −0.20; p = 0.003 |
| Vegetables | r = −0.19; p = 0.005 |
| Whole Grains | r = −0.33; p < 0.001 |
| Nuts | r = +0.09; p = 0.18 |
| Legumes | r = −0.29; p < 0.001 |
| Vegetable Oils | r = +0.27; p < 0.001 |
| Coffee and Tea | r = +0.03; p = 0.63 |
| Fruit Juice | r = −0.01; p = 0.83 |
| Sugar Sweetened Beverages | r = +0.07; p = 0.33 |
| Refined Grains | r = +0.10; p = 0.14 |
| Potatoes | r = −0.08; p = 0.26 |
| Sweets | r = +0.09; p = 0.16 |
| Animal Fats | r = +0.19; p = 0.005 |
| Dairy | r = +0.20; p = 0.003 |
| Eggs | r = +0.21; p = 0.002 |
| Meat | r = +0.36; p < 0.001 |
| Seafood | r = +0.18; p = 0.008 |
After Bonferroni correction, p values less than 0.003 (0.05/17) are considered significant.
Discussion
In a 2021 study in three U.S. prospective cohorts, increased PDI and hPDI were associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes; changes in uPDI were not [4]. These findings were confirmed by an analysis of their plasma metabolite profiles [5]. Our findings show, however, that changes in all plant-based indices—PDI, hPDI, and uPDI were inversely associated with weight changes. Replacing animal products with either so-called healthful or unhealthful plant-based foods was associated with weight loss, and change in oil intake was positively associated with change in body weight. The food components that were independently associated with weight loss included whole grains and legumes, which showed a negative association, while meat, vegetable oil, and sweets showed a positive association.
The strengths of the current trial include a randomized, parallel design, which accounted for seasonal effects. The study also has limitations. The PDI scores were based on self-reported diet records. The participants were volunteers and may not represent the general population.
In conclusion, all three scores increased in the vegan group and correlated negatively with changes in body weight. These findings suggest that minimizing the consumption of animal products and vegetable oil may be an effective weight-loss strategy.
Supplementary information
Acknowledgements
HK had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Author contributions
HK and NDB designed and executed the study; HB and TZ-M prepared the data for analysis; RH performed the statistical analysis. All authors had full access to the data, contributed to the manuscript, and approved its final version.
Funding
This work was funded by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Competing interests
HK, HB, TZ-M, and RH received compensation from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine for their work on this study. NDB is an Adjunct Professor of Medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine. He serves without compensation as president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and Barnard Medical Center in Washington, DC, nonprofit organizations providing educational, research, and medical services related to nutrition. He writes books and articles and gives lectures related to nutrition and health and has received royalties and honoraria from these sources.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41430-023-01371-y.
References
- 1.Satija A, Bhupathiraju SN, Rimm EB, Spiegelman D, Chiuve SE, Borgi L, et al. Plant-based dietary patterns and incidence of type 2 diabetes in US men and women: results from three prospective cohort studies. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002039. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kahleova H, Petersen KF, Shulman GI, Alwarith J, Rembert E, Tura A, et al. Effect of a low-fat vegan diet on body weight, insulin sensitivity, postprandial metabolism, and intramyocellular and hepatocellular lipid levels in overweight adults: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e2025454. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.25454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Schakel SF, Sievert YA, Buzzard IM. Sources of data for developing and maintaining a nutrient database. J Am Diet Assoc. 1988;88:1268–71. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8223(21)07997-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Chen Z, Drouin-Chartier JP, Li Y, Baden MY, Manson JE, Willett WC, et al. Changes in plant-based diet indices and subsequent risk of type 2 diabetes in women and men: three U.S. prospective cohorts. Diabetes Care. 2021;44:663–71. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1636. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Wang F, Baden MY, Guasch-Ferré M, Wittenbecher C, Li J, Li Y, et al. Plasma metabolite profiles related to plant-based diets and the risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2022;65:1119–32. doi: 10.1007/s00125-022-05692-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.