4.7 Article

Effects of non-nutritive sweetened beverages versus water after a 12-week weight-loss program: A randomized controlled trial

期刊

OBESITY
卷 31, 期 8, 页码 1996-2008

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/oby.23796

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to compare the weight loss effects of non-nutritive sweetened beverages and water after a 12-week behavioral weight-management program. The study found that both non-nutritive sweetened beverages and water were equally effective for weight loss during the program.
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare non-nutritive sweetened (NNS) beverages versus water for weight loss after a 12-week behavioral weight-management program.Methods: This is an ongoing, 2-year, parallel-group, open-label, controlled equivalence trial; week-12 data are reported. Adults with BMI of 27 to 35 kg/m(2) who regularly drank cold beverages were randomized 1:1 to intention-to-treat water or NNS beverages while undergoing a weekly 12-week group behavioral weight-management program. Weight change to week 12 was the primary end point (equivalence: two-sided p > 0.05); changes in waist and hip circumference, blood pressure, glycemic control markers, fasting lipid profiles, liver function tests, hunger (visual analog scale), sugar and sweetener consumption, and activity levels were secondary end points.Results: Overall, 493 participants were randomized (water: n = 246; NNS beverages: n = 247); 24.1% were NNS beverage naive. Weight change was equivalent with water versus NNS beverages (-5.6 vs. -5.8 kg; difference [90% CI]: -0.2 kg [-0.7 to 0.4]). There were no significant differences between groups for secondary end points except reductions in waist circumference (greater with NNS beverages vs. water), glycated hemoglobin, and consumption of any type of sweetener (both greater with water vs. NNS beverages).Conclusions: Weight loss was equivalent with NNS beverages and water following a 12-week behavioral weight-management program.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据