Journal Home
Search for

Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 195-201 (March 2010)


View previous. 8 of 12 View next.

Effects of a low glycemic load diet versus a low-fat diet in subjects with and without the metabolic syndrome

T.O. KlemsdalaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, I. Holmea, H. Nerlanda, T.R. Pedersenab, S. Tonstada

Received 15 November 2008; received in revised form 11 March 2009; accepted 13 March 2009. published online 08 June 2009.

Abstract 

Background and aim

Although many studies report benefits of low glycemic diets, the clinical effects as a whole are mixed. The study aim was to compare a low glycemic load (LGL) diet versus a low-fat diet in a trial with a moderately intense dietary intervention in subjects with varying degrees of metabolic syndrome.

Methods and results

Men and women aged 30–65 years, with a BMI of 28–40kg/m2 (28–35 for women) and at least one criterion of metabolic syndrome were randomized to the two diets. A total of 202 subjects were included, of which 126 (62%) had metabolic syndrome (≥3 criteria). The completion rate was 81%. At 3 months, weight loss was greater in the LGL group (−4.8±3.9kg versus −3.8±3.5kg; P=0.06) compared to the low-fat group. At 1 year, however, weight loss was similar in both groups (−4.0±5.5kg versus −4.3±6.2kg; n.s.), but waist circumference reduction was less in the LGL group (−3.9±5.3cm versus −5.8±6.8cm; P=0.03). In contrast, diastolic blood pressure decreased significantly more in the LGL group (−4.0±8.7mmHg versus −1.1±8.5mmHg; P=0.02). We also observed a significant interaction between the presence of the metabolic syndrome and the effect of the two diets on waist circumference, with a less favorable effect of the LGL diet in subjects without the syndrome (P=0.039).

Conclusion

After 12 months, both diets reduced body weight and the metabolic disturbances similarly, but the LGL diet appeared more suitable for subjects with metabolic syndrome, and was less effective in those without it.

a Department of Preventive Cardiology, Center for Preventive Medicine, Ullevaal University Hospital, Oslo, Kirkeveien 166, N-0407 Oslo, Norway

b University of Oslo, Faculty of Medicine, Oslo Norway

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +47 22 11 94 56; fax: +47 22 11 99 75.

 This study was supported by a grant from the Norwegian National Research Council.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00230919.

PII: S0939-4753(09)00070-2

doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2009.03.010


View previous. 8 of 12 View next.