4.7 Article

Comparing the benefits of diet and exercise in the treatment of dyslipidemia

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 16-24

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/pmed.2002.1052

Keywords

dyslipidemia; cardiovascular disease prevention; diet; exercise; quality of life; preference SF-36 Health Survey; randomized controlled trial

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Lifestyle changes are advocated as a first line of treatment for dyslipidemia. However, few studies have directly compared various combinations of diets and exercise. Methods. In a randomized controlled pilot study, we compared the standard lifestyle recommendations (NCEP step I diet with regular exercise) and more intense interventions including the NCEP step I diet with a supervised aerobic exercise program and the step II diet with and without a supervised aerobic exercise program. We measured risk factors, dietary intake, time on treadmill, and health-related quality of life at baseline and after 3 months. Results. Out of 198 eligible subjects, 47 (24%) were willing to participate and 41 completed the study. No significant change were observed with standard lifestyle recommendations. In contrast, participants in the more intense interventions lost weight (-1.7 to -3.7 kg) and reduced their total cholesterol (-4% to -6%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-6%), and systolic blood pressure (-7.3 to -8.8 mmHg). Participants in the exercise program significantly increased their exercise capacity (1.6 to 1.9 AMTS). Overall, each 10% reduction in body weight was associated with a 7.6% reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Conclusion. Standard lifestyle recommendations had little effect on blood lipid levels but more intense lifestyle interventions may be effective at improving blood lipids, other risk factors, and quality of life. (C) 2002 American Health Foundation and Elsevier Science (USA).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available