3.8 Article

Provision of foods differing in energy density affects long-term weight loss

Journal

OBESITY RESEARCH
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages 1052-1060

Publisher

NORTH AMER ASSOC STUDY OBESITY
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2005.123

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ROLLS, BARBARA J., LIANE S. ROE, AMANDA M. BEACH, AND PENNY M. KRIS-ETHERTON. Provision of foods differing in energy density affects long-term weight loss. Obes Res. 2005;13:1052-1060. Objective: The energy density (kilocalories per gram) of foods influences short-term energy intake. This 1-year clinical trial tested the effect on weight loss of a diet incorporating one or two servings per day of foods equal in energy but differing in energy density. Research Methods and Procedures: Dietitians instructed 200 overweight and obese women and men to follow an exchange-based energy-restricted diet. Additionally, subjects were randomized to consume daily either one or two servings of low energy-dense soup, two servings of high energy-dense snack foods, or no special food (comparison group). Results: All four groups showed significant weight loss at 6 months that was well maintained at 12 months. The magnitude of weight loss, however, differed by group (p = 0.006). At 11 year, weight loss in the comparison (8.1 +/- 1.1 kg) and two-soup (7.2 +/- 0.9 kg) groups was significantly greater than that in the two-snack group (4.8 +/- 0.7 kg); weight loss in the one-soup group (6.1 +/- 1.1 kg) did not differ significantly from other groups. Weight loss was significantly correlated with the decrease in dietary energy density from baseline at 1 and 2 months (p = 0.0001) but not at 6 and 12 months. Discussion: On an energy-restricted diet, consuming two servings of low energy-dense soup daily led to 50% greater weight loss than consuming the same amount of energy as high energy-dense snack food. Regularly consuming foods that are low in energy density can be an effective strategy for weight management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available