Back

Diet order affects energy balance in randomized crossover feeding studies that vary in macronutrients but not ultra-processing

Sciarrillo, C. M.; Guo, J.; Darcey, V. L.; Hall, K. D.

2023-10-04 nutrition
10.1101/2023.10.03.23296501 medRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUNDCrossover studies can induce order effects, especially when they lack a wash-out period. OBJECTIVETo explore diet order effects on energy balance and food intake between randomized diet order groups in two inpatient crossover studies originally designed to compare within-subject differences in ad libitum energy intake between either minimally processed low carbohydrate (LC) versus low fat (LF) diets or macronutrient-matched diets composed of mostly minimally processed food (MPF) or ultra-processed food (UPF). METHODSDiet order group comparisons of changes in body weight, body composition, and differences in energy expenditure, and food intake were assessed over four weeks in 20 adults randomized to either the LC followed immediately by the LF diet (LC[-&gt;]LF) or the opposite order (LF[-&gt;]LC) as well as 20 adults randomized to either the MPF followed by UPF (MPF[-&gt;]UPF) diets or the opposite order (UPF[-&gt;]MPF). RESULTSSubjects randomized to LC[-&gt;]LF lost 2.9 {+/-} 1.1 kg more body weight (p < 0.001) and 1.5 {+/-} 0.6 kg more body fat (p = 0.03) than the LF[-&gt;]LC group likely because the LC[-&gt;]LF group consumed 922 {+/-} 304 kcal/d less than the LFaLC group (p = 0.0024). Reduced energy intake in LC[-&gt;]LF vs LFaLC was driven by the last two weeks (-1610 {+/-} 306 kcal/d; p<0.00001) perhaps due to carryover effects of gut adaptations over the first two weeks arising from large differences in the mass of food (1295 {+/-} 209 g/d; p<0.00001) and fiber intake (58 {+/-} 5 g/d; p<0.00001). There were no diet order effects on ad libitum energy intake, body weight, or body composition change between UPF[-&gt;]MPF versus MPF[-&gt;]UPF groups. CONCLUSIONSDiet order influences daily ad libitum energy intake, body weight change, and fat change within the context of a 4-week crossover inpatient diet study varying in macronutrients, but not varying in extent and purpose of processing. Funding sourcesIntramural Research Program of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT03407053 and NCT03878108

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.0%
2
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.5%
3
The Journal of Nutrition
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
50% of probability mass above
4
Frontiers in Nutrition
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.3%
5
Appetite
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
6
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
7
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
8
Current Developments in Nutrition
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.6%
10
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
11
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
12
Food & Function
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
International Journal of Obesity
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.9%
16
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
17
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
18
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
19
The Journal of Physiology
134 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
21
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 78%
0.6%