Back

Effect of Gene-based vs. Standard Weight-Loss Recommendations on Anthropometry, Lipid and Glucose Markers, and Dietary Intake: The MyGeneMyDiet Study

Nacis, J. S.; Labrador, J. P. H.; Ronquillo, D. G. D.; Rementilla, J. C.; Rodriguez, M. P.; Madrid, M. L.; Frane, R. D.; Santos, N. L. C.; Dablo, A. M. F. D.; Carrillo, J. J. V.; Fernandez, M. G.; Fanio, D. J. V.; Martirez, D. A. S.; Paller, M. V.; Monje, H. S. S.; Cabigan, R. M. V.; Bausas, A. A.; Agra, G. M.; Bunhiyan, R. C.; van Duijnhoven, F. J. B.; Gonzales, G. B.

2025-03-03 nutrition
10.1101/2025.03.02.25323063 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundGene-based nutrition recommendations have emerged as a strategy for weight management, but their effectiveness over standard advice remains uncertain. ObjectiveThis study evaluated MyGeneMyDiet(R) recommendations versus standard advice on anthropometry, biochemical markers, and dietary intake in overweight and obese Filipino adults over 12 months. MethodsIn this 12-month randomized controlled trial, participants received either MyGeneMyDiet(R) or standard advice. Both groups underwent regular nutrition counseling during the active phase (months 0-6) before transitioning to free-living conditions (months 6-12). Primary outcomes included weight, BMI, waist circumference, and body fat percentage; secondary outcomes were dietary intake and biochemical markers. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach, with paired t-tests for within-group comparisons and ANCOVA for between-group differences. Sensitivity analyses used Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) and Inverse Probability of Attrition Weighting (IPAW) to address loss-to-follow-up. ResultsOf 136 screened, 52 participants (19-59 years) were enrolled (MyGeneMyDiet(R), n = 29; standard recommendation, n = 23), with 27 completing the study (MyGeneMyDiet(R), n = 15; standard recommendation, n = 12). Weight changes over 12 months were minimal, with no substantial differences between groups. At month 6, baseline-adjusted analyses showed no meaningful differences in weight (-0.36 kg [95% CI: -1.77, 1.04]), BMI (0.11 kg/m{superscript 2} [-0.51, 0.73]), waist circumference (-0.27 cm [-2.23, 1.69]), or body fat percentage (0.92% [-0.86, 1.05]). These trends persisted on month 12. While both groups reduced dietary intake, the MyGeneMyDiet(R) group showed greater decreases in total calories (-461 kcal, P = 0.001), protein (-12 g, P = 0.007), carbohydrates (-46 g, P = 0.015), and fat (-22 g, P = 0.014), though between-group differences remained modest. ConclusionsGene-based and standard weight management advice led to comparable weight and metabolic outcomes over 12 months. While gene-based recommendations influenced dietary intake, these changes did not improve anthropometric or biochemical outcomes. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT05098899.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.5%
2
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.9%
3
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
4
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
5
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.2%
7
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
8
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
9
Diabetologia
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.9%
10
Frontiers in Nutrition
23 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.6%
11
The Journal of Nutrition
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
12
Current Developments in Nutrition
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
13
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
International Journal of Obesity
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
15
Food & Function
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
16
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Endocrinology
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
18
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.2%
19
Obesity
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
20
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
21
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
22
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
23
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
26
The Journal of Physiology
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Appetite
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%