Table 2.
Table summarising the changes in dietary intake at baseline and at end point of intervention
| References | Intervention (n per arm) | Dietary assessment tool used | Composition of prescribed diet | Composition of diet consumed* | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guldbrand et al.( 18 ) | LFD (31) v. LCD (30) | 3-d food record | LFD: 55–60 % CHO, 10–15 % protein, 30 % fat | LFD: 47 % CHO, 20 % protein, 31 % fat | There was a significant between group differences for the percentage of energy from CHO, fat (P<0·001) and for protein (P=0·009) |
| LCD: 20 % CHO, 30 % protein, 50 % fat | LCD: 31 % CHO, 24 % protein, 44 % fat | ||||
| Brehm et al.( 19 ) | High-MUFA diet (43) v. high-CHO (CHO) diet (52) | 3-d food record | MUFA: 45 % CHO, 15 % protein, 40 % fat (20 % MUFA) | MUFA: 46 % CHO, 16 % protein, 38 % fat (20 % MUFA) | The high-MUFA-diet group consumed significantly more total fat, PUFA and MUFA than the high-CHO group (P<0·001) |
| CHO: 60 % CHO, 15 % protein, 25 % fat | CHO: 54 % CHO, 18 % protein, 28 % fat | ||||
| Fabricatore et al.( 9 ) | Low fat (39) v. low GL (40) | 3-d food record | Low fat: <30 % fat | Low fat: 32·9 % fat GL 121·3 | Reductions in energy from fat were significantly greater among those in the low-fat group at week 40 (P≤0·01) |
| Low GL: 3 or less servings of moderate-GL and 1 or less serving of high-GL foods/d | Low GL: 39·8 % fat GL 88·6 | Low-GL group had significantly greater reductions in energy from CHO (P≤0·01) and significantly greater reductions in dietary GI (P≤0·003) and GL (P≤0·03) | |||
| Changes on other measured dietary variable were not significantly different between groups | |||||
| Elhayany et al.( 12 ) | LCM (61) v. TM (63) v. ADA diet (55) | FFQ and 24-h recall | LCM: 35 % low-GI CHO, 15–20 % protein, 45 % fat rich in MUFA | No breakdown of the actual macronutrient content which was consumed during the intervention | Statistically significant trend in percentage of energy from PUFA intake, highest 12·9 % for LCM, to 11·5 % in TM, and lowest in ADA 11·2 % (P=0·002) |
| TM: 50–55 % low-GI CHO, 15–20 % protein, 30 % fat rich in MUFA | Same significant trend observed for MUFA fat intake (14·6, 12·8, and 12·6 % for LCM, TM and ADA, respectively, P<0·001). | ||||
| ADA: 50–55 % CHO, 15–20 % protein, 30 % fat | Opposite trend seen for % of energy from CHO, highest for ADA 45·4 % then 45·2 % for TM and lowest for the LCM with 41·9 % (P=0·011) | ||||
| Barnard et al.( 13 ) | Low-fat vegan diet (49) v. ADA diet (50) | 3-d food record | Low-fat vegan diet: 75 % CHO, 15 % protein, 10 % fat | Low-fat vegan diet: 66·3 % CHO, 14·8 % protein, 22·3 % fat | At the end point of intervention, dietary adherence was met by 51 % of participants in the vegan group and 48 % of those in the ADA group |
| ADA: 60–70 % CHO, 15–20 % protein and 30 % fats | ADA: 46·5 % CHO, 21·14 % protein and 33·7 % | ||||
| Esposito et al.( 10 ) | LCMD (107) v. LFD (108) | Food diary records | LCMD: 50 % CHO, 20 % protein, no <30 % fat | LCMD: 44·2 % CHO, 18 % protein, 39·1 % fat, 10 % SFA, 17·6 % MUFA | Between group differences in % CHO and MUFA significantly different throughout the trial |
| LFD: no >30 % fat with no >10 % SFA | LFD: 51·8 % CHO, 17·9 % protein, 29·4 % fat, 9·4 % SFA, 12·4 % MUFA | ||||
| Pedersen et al.( 14 ) | HPD (21) v. SPD (24) | FFQ and 24 h urea excretion | HPD: 40 % CHO, 30 % protein, 30 % fat | HPD: 39·2 % CHO, 26 % protein, 34·8 % fat | At 12 months adjusted urea excretion was significantly different between groups (519 (sd 39) for HPD and 456 (sd 25) for the SPD group, P=0·04) indicating compliance to protein prescription |
| SPD: 50 % CHO, 20 % protein, 30 % fat | SPD: 44·8 % CHO, 21·1 % protein, 34·0 % fat | ||||
| Iqbal et al.( 17 ) | LCD (40) v. LFD (28) | 3-d food record | LCD: <30 g/d CHO | LCD: 192·8 g/d CHO | Authors concluded that macronutrient intake was not significantly different between groups at any point. Authors concluded that both groups failed to achieve dietary targets |
| Low fat: ≤30 % of energy for fat with <7 % of energy from SFA | Low fat: 33·6 % of energy from fat | ||||
| Ma et al.( 11 ) | ADA diet (21) v. low-GI diet (19) | 7-d dietary recall | ADA: 60–70 % CHO, 15–20 % protein and 30 % fats | ADA: 38 % CHO, 80 GI, 20 % protein, 43 % fat | Differences in dietary GI did not reach significance until 12 months (P=0·07), however GL was significantly lower in the low-GI diet at 6 months (97 v. 141; P=0·02) |
| Low GI: participants given goals to reduce daily dietary GI score to 55 | Low GI: daily GI score of 76 37 % CHO, 76 GI, 20 % protein, 43 % fat | ||||
| Milne et al.( 15 ) | Weight management diet (21) v. high-CHO/fibre diet (21) v. modified lipid diet (22) | 24-h recall | Weight management diet: restrict extrinsic simple sugars and energy dense foods, no advice for macronutrient contribution | Weight management diet: 47·6 % CHO, 18·8 %, 33·6 %, 17·3 g dietary fibre/d | Authors concluded that almost none of the participants succeeded in achieving currently recommended intakes of either CHO or unsaturated fat |
| High CHO/fibre: 55 % CHO, 15 % protein, 30 % fat, 30 g or more dietary fibre/d | High CHO/fibre: 46·6 % CHO, 21·0 % protein, 32·4 % fat, 21·1 dietary fibre/d | ||||
| Modified lipid diet: 45 % CHO, 19 % protein, 36 % fat | Modified lipid diet: 46·4 % CHO, 19·7 % protein, 33·9 % fat | ||||
| Larsen et al.( 16 ) | HPD (53) v. high-CHO diet (46) | 3-d food record | HPD: 40 % CHO, 30 % protein, 30 % fat | HPD: 41·8 % CHO, 26·5 % protein, 30·7 % fat | Significant differences between groups in the quantities of CHO and protein consumed |
| High CHO: 55 % CHO, 15 % protein, 30 % fat | High CHO: 48·2 % CHO, 18·9 % protein, 32·0 % fat |
LFD, low-fat diet; LCD, low carbohydrate diet; CHO, carbohydrate; low GL, low glycaemic load; GI, glycaemic index; LCM, low carbohydrate Mediterranean; TM, traditional Mediterranean; ADA, American Diabetes Association; LCMD, low carbohydrate Mediterranean diet; HPD, high-protein diet; SPD, standard protein diet.
*
Values are from reported dietary intakes at the end point of intervention.