Nutrient adequacy during weight loss interventions: a randomized study in women comparing the dietary intake in a meal replacement group with a traditional food group
2007

Comparing Meal Replacements and Traditional Diets for Weight Loss in Women

Sample size: 96 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Ashley Judith M, Herzog Holly, Clodfelter Sharon, Bovee Vicki, Schrage Jon, Pritsos Chris

Primary Institution: University of Nevada, Reno

Hypothesis

Does incorporating meal replacements into a weight loss diet improve nutrient adequacy compared to a traditional food diet?

Conclusion

Both dietitian-led groups successfully lost weight while improving overall dietary adequacy, with the meal replacement group showing a more adequate nutrient intake.

Supporting Evidence

  • Both groups had similar weight loss results, but the meal replacement group had better nutrient intake.
  • The meal replacement group showed a significant difference in vitamin and mineral intake compared to the traditional food group.
  • Participants in both groups improved their intake of fruits and vegetables.

Takeaway

This study looked at two ways for women to lose weight: one group used regular food, and the other used meal replacements. Both groups lost weight, but the meal replacement group got more vitamins and minerals.

Methodology

Ninety-six overweight or obese women were randomized into two groups: one followed a traditional food diet, and the other incorporated meal replacements, with dietary intake monitored over one year.

Potential Biases

Potential bias in self-reported dietary records and the influence of financial incentives on food choices.

Limitations

The study had a 27% attrition rate, and self-reported dietary intake may have limitations such as underreporting.

Participant Demographics

Generally healthy overweight or obese women aged 25-50 years with a BMI of 25-35 kg/m2.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p ≤ 0.05

Statistical Significance

p ≤ 0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1475-2891-6-12

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication