Table 3.
Comparison of dietary intake between hydrogen sulfide responsive and non-responsive participants.
| Variable | Overall |
Animal-based intervention |
Plant-based intervention |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-responder (n = 2) | Responder (n = 3) | Non-responder | Responder | Non-responder | Responder | |
|
| ||||||
| Calories | 2123 ± 513 | 2109 ± 661 | 1911 ± 105 | 1913 ± 978 | 1925 ± 851 | 2124 ± 537 |
| %CHO | 47 ± 10 | 48 ± 9.7 | 30 ± 1.4 | 40 ± 9.1 | 59 ± 3.5 | 62 ± 5.9 |
| %Fat | 36 ± 6.1 | 35 ± 7.5 | 45 ± 0 | 43 ± 5.0 | 28 ± 4.2 | 24 ± 8.0 |
| %Pro | 16 ± 5.0 | 16 ± 4.1 | 23 ± 1.4 | 17 ± 4.5 | 12 ± 3.0 | 14 ± 3.6 |
| Total CHO (g) | 257 ± 96 | 261 ± 99 | 146 ± 2 | 204 ± 141 | 283 ± 103 | 331 ± 61 |
| Total fiber | 26 ± 14 | 30 ± 20 | 7.0 ± 0.0 | 11 ± 4.0 | 39 ± 11 | 57 ± 14 |
| Insoluble | 18 ± 12 | 22 ± 16 | 2.5 ± 0.7 | 5.7 ± 3.1 | 29 ± 11 | 44 ± 12 |
| Soluble | 7.6 ± 2.4 | 7.7 ± 3.8 | 4.0 ± 0.0 | 5.0 ± 1.0 | 10 ± 0 | 13 ± 4.0 |
| Total fat (g) | 86 ± 21 | 82 ± 38 | 98 ± 5.0 | 90 ± 39 | 65 ± 38 | 64 ± 35 |
| Saturated fat (g) | 27.3 ± 9.9 | 25.8 ± 13.2 | 39.5 ± 5.0 | 35 ± 16.6 | 10.5 ± 5.0 | 11 ± 6.6 |
| Total pro (g) | 86 ± 22 | 83 ± 15 | 105 ± 1.4 | 75 ± 18 | 62 ± 15 | 82 ± 10 |
| Animal Protein | 48 ± 36 | 39 ± 22 | 92 ± 2.1a | 53 ± 13a | 1.3 ± 0.35 | 0.93 ± 0.95 |
| Vegetable protein | 38 ± 21 | 43 ± 24 | 13.3 ± 4.1 | 22.3 ± 8.9 | 60 ± 15 | 81 ± 10 |
| Protein sulfur | 0.68 ± 0.22 | 0.62 ± 0.14 | 0.93 ± 0.03a | 0.56 ± 0.15a | 0.41 ± 0.17 | 0.49 ± 0.02 |
a
Differs between non-responder and responder cohorts.