4.7 Review

Meal pattern and risk factor evaluation in one-year completers of a weight reduction program for obese men - the 'Gustaf' study

Journal

JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 247, Issue 1, Pages 30-38

Publisher

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2796.2000.00569.x

Keywords

energy intake; meal pattern; men; obesity; risk factors; weight loss

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To evaluate changes in meal patterns and in obesity related risk factors after 1 year of treatment in obese men, Design Data from two 24-h dietary recalls, performed at base-line and after 1 year of treatment, were related to changes in medical risk factors. Setting Academic obesity unit. Subjects Sixty-three men, aged 44 (eight) years (mean [SD]) and Base-line Body Mass Index (BMI) 37.4 (4.6) kg m(-2). who had completed I year of treatment, The men were subdivided by tertiles according to weight change: tertile I (n = 21), mean +0.3 kg, tertile II (n = 21), mean -5.8 kg and tertile III (n = 21), mean -14.2 kg, Main outcome measures Weight loss, changes in meal patterns and in obesity related medical risk factors. Results The reported mean energy intake decreased after treatment in tertiles II and III by 700 (1300) kcal (P < 0.05) and 700 (900) kcal (P = 0.001), respectively, In tertile III the energy-% from fat decreased (P < 0.05) with a reciprocal increase in energy-% from protein (P < 0.05), The frequency of snacks of a low nutritional quality decreased (P < 0.01) in tertile III together with an increase in energy-% from 'hot meals of good quality' (P < 0.05). Obesity related risk factors (anthropometry, brood pressure, serum lipid concentrations, blood glucose and plasma insulin) improved in a beneficial way only in tertile III, Conclusions The weight loss in the successful tertile LII men was to a great extent explained by fewer low quality snacks but more energy from high quality meals, These changes reflected the behaviour modification strategy recommended.

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