4.2 Article

Five year results of a prospective very low calorie diet or conventional weight loss programme in type 2 diabetes

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN NUTRITION AND DIETETICS
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 121-127

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-277X.2002.00342.x

Keywords

intensive conventional diet; very low calorie diet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To complete 5-year follow-up of an intensive weight loss programme in established type 2 diabetic subjects. Methods Forty-five obese type 2 diabetic subjects, Body mass index (BMI) > 30, expressed interest in an intensive weight loss programme. Group 1 comprised 15 who selected very low calorie diet (VLCD), Group 2, 15 selected intensive conventional diet and exercise (ICD), 15 failed to follow either programme. Group sessions of eight to 15 subjects continued weekly for 6 months, then monthly for 12 months with prospective recording at 3, 6 and 12 months and then annually of quality of life, BMI, waist/hip ratio, blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, serum fructosamine and serum lipids. Results Weight loss was slower in the intensive conventional diet group than in the VLCD group, but better maintained at 5 years: group 1, 4.8 +/- 6 kg; group 2, 8.9 +/- 4 kg. In the intensive conventional diet group, 5 year high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was increased 1.78 +/- 0.26 mmol L-1 vs. 1.10 +/- 0.32 mmol L-1 at baseline, and diastolic blood pressure reduced 74.5 +/- 13.3 vs. 85.5 +/- 13.3 at baseline, both P < 0.05. Conclusions Out-patient VLCD treatment proved safe and effective in overweight diabetic subjects but those who chose conventional diet and exercise had a slower but more sustained weight loss. Diabetic patients willing to attempt VLCD may safely lose sufficient weight to allow major surgery, but weight regain is inevitable. Patients willing to undertake a long-term group programme of conventional diet can sustain significant weight loss for 5 years, but still require antidiabetic medication.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available