the diogenes studyafresh.region-stuttgart.de/uploads/media/fci... · 2 diogenes the basics • 34...
TRANSCRIPT
1 www.diogenes-eu.org Contract no. FP6-2005-513946
The Diogenes Study – Food Research in the service of HEALTH
Thomas Meinert Larsen Associate Professor Department of Human Nutrition Centre for Advanced Food Technology Faculty of Life Sciences University of Copenhagen
WORK SHOP: ”Food Research and Food Production – priority setting weith smart specialisation strategies” Brussels, Belgium, October 13, 2011
2 www.diogenes-eu.org
DiOGenes
The basics
• 34 partners, in 14 European countries • Includes 3 food industry multinationals and 5 SMEs • € 20.1 million total budget, of which € 14.5 million EU
funding • 5-year project, started 1st January 2005 • Co-ordinator: University of Maastricht, The Netherlands
• Executive Director: Prof. Wim HM Saris
DG Research European Commission
3
FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY
DiOGenes Diet, Obesity and Genes
External Advisory Group
Project Board Project Coordinator
General Assembly Project Secretariat
PM
DIDT
DIDT Coordinator
RTD lines Coordinator
RTD2 RTD3 RTD4 RTD5 RTD1
: Optimizing GI and Protein content of the diet: RCT Intervention : Identification gene-nutrients weight regulation/predictors weight variation : Epidemiological approach to assess current risk of weight gain/data Hub : Lifestyle and psycho-social aspects of food intake : To develop food products that support weight management : Dissemination, Innovation, Demonstration, Training
RTD1
DIDT
RTD2
RTD3
RTD4
RTD5
www.diogenes-eu.org www.diogenes-eu.org
The DiOGenes research lines
RTD 3 Population studies
RTD 5 Food technology
RTD 1 Diet intervention
RTD 2 Genetics/Transcriptomics/ Proteomics/Metabolomics
Data Hub
RTD 6
An Integrated Project of the EU 6th Framework Programme for
Research and Technological Development (2005-2009) Co-ordinator Wim Saris, University of Maastricht
RTD 4 Psychological predictors & behaviour
Slide 5
Can protein and glycemic index be used as tools to help regulate body weight ?
Starting weight
Time
Natural course of weight gain
Increasing success
Body weight (kg)
Weight loss phase
Weight maintenance phase
years months
Slide 6
Total Fat (E%) 25-35
Total Carbohydrate (E%) 55-60
Total Protein (E%) 10-20
Total Saturated Fat (E%) <10
Total Monounsaturated Fat (E%) 5-15
Total Polyunsaturated Fat (E%) 5-10
Added Sugar (E%) <10
WHAT IS IN THE CURRENT DIETARY GUIDELINES ?
”Based on best available
evidence”
7 www.diogenes-eu.org Contract no. FP6-2005-513946
8
The Clinical Evidence of GI - RCTs GIycemic index Duration n Diets Body weight
change (LGI vs. others)
Ad libitum Raben et al. (1997) 2 weeks 20 nw High-sucrose (LGI) vs. high-starch (HGI) Increase
Bouche et al. (2002) 5 weeks 11 ow LGI vs. HGI NS (FM decrease)
Ebbeling et al. (2003) 6 months 16 ob LGL vs. energy-restricted LF BMI + FM decrease
Sloth et al. (2004) 10 weeks 45 ow Low-GI vs. HGI NS
McMillan-Price et al. (2006) 12 weeks 129 ow + ob LGI, HC vs. HGI, HC vs. LGI, HP vs. HGI, HP NS
Moses et al. (2006) 26 weeks 62 nw (pregnant) LGI vs. high-fibre, moderate-to-high GI Decrease (birth weight)
Energy-restricted Wolever et al. (1992) 6 weeks 6 ow + ob LGI vs. HGI foods NS
Slabber et al. (1994) 12 weeks 30 ow + ob LGI vs. HGI NS
Slabber et al. (1994) 12 weeks 16 ow + ob LGI vs. HGI Decrease
Agus et al. (2000) 6 days 10 ow + ob LGI vs. HGI NS
Spieth et al. (2000) 4 months 107 ow LGI vs. LF Decrease
Raatz et al. (2005) 12 weeks 29 ob HGI vs. LGI vs. HF NS
Thompson et al. (2005) 48 weeks 90 ob HGI, high-dairy vs. LGI, high-dairy NS
BMI: body mass index, FM: fat mass, HC: high-carbohydrate, HF: high-fat, HGI: high-glycemic index, LF: low-fat, LGI: low-glycemic index, LGL: low-glycemic load, NS: non-significant, nw: normal-weight, ob: obese, ow: overweight
No clear / consistent picture…. maybe too small sample size
9
The Clinical Evidence of HP - RCTs
No clear / consistent picture…. maybe too small sample size
High protein High protein
High protein
High protein
Low GI (& GL)
High fat Low GI Low GI
Low GI
Low carb
High Protein
A number of the most known (and used) diets already take us of high protein (and low GI) as a central element
11
Diogenes takes use of the most reliable scientific methods:
Intervention
Cohort Case-Control
Cross-sectional studies Correlation studies
DIOGENES-RCT WP1
DIOGENES-EPI WP3
12 www.diogenes-eu.org
Diogenes diet intervention Multicentre trial in 8 European cities
Copenhagen (Astrup A, Larsen TM) Maastricht (van Baak M, Saris W) Berlin (Pfeiffer A) Cambridge (Jebb S) Prague (Kunesova M) Pamplona (Martinez JA) Sofia (Hanjieva S) Heraklion (Kafatos A)
The study is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00390637
13 www.diogenes-eu.org Contract no. FP6-2005-513946
• Family (adult + child)
• One adult with BMI > 27 (preferably higher)�
• Healthy
• 1-3 children (preferably iso-BMI > 25)
• Adults obtain > 8% weight loss during 8 w LCD
Inclusion criteria
www.diogenes-eu.org
Weight loss on 8 week LCD
www.diogenes-eu.org www.diogenes-eu.org
Diet Composition, ad libitum (Targeted)
∆ of 15 GI units
LP/LGI LP/HGI HP/LGI HP/HGI Control
Protein E% 13 (8-18) 13 (8-18) 25 (20-30) 25 (20-30) 15 (10-20)
CHO + fibre E% 60 (55-65) 60 (55-65) 48 (43-53) 48 (43-53) 60 (55-65)
Fat E% 27 (22-32) 27 (22-32) 27 (22-32) 27 (22-32) 25 (20-30)
Glycemic index low high low high medium
∆ of 15 GI units
www.diogenes-eu.org
Low protein, high GI
www.diogenes-eu.org
Details on methodology published in: Larsen TM, Dalskov S, van Baak M et al. Obes Rev 2010; 11(1):76-91. Moore CS, Lindroos AK, Kreutzer M et al. Obes Rev 2010; 11(1):67-75.
Study design
18 www.diogenes-eu.org
Diogenes diet intervention
Shop model - shopping 1-2 times weekly to aim at 100% food supply - control the macronutrient composition at every session
Dietary guidance - individual / group meetings with the dietician (8 sessions) - written information about the specific intervention diet - no specific emphasis on physical activity
19 New England Journal of Medicine, published online Nov 25, 2010.
www.diogenes-eu.org
Patient flow
COMPLETERS: 548 Subjects
www.diogenes-eu.org
Major end-point: Drop-out rate Assignment to: HP vs. LP diets
associated with 20.0% lower drop out rate,
p=0.05.
Assignment to: LGI vs. HGI diets
associated with 22.6% lower drop-out rate,
p<0.02.
Drop-out/Randomised (%)
LP/LGI 44/150 (29.3)ab
LP/HGI 58/155 (37.4) b
HP/LGI 35/159 (22.0) a
HP/HGI 48/155 (31.0) ab
CTR 40/154 (26.0) ab
Overall 225/773 (29.1)
The superscripts a and b are indicating if two groups are significantly different (p<0.05) in a logistic regression model after adjustment for centre, centre type (shop/intervention), gender, BMI at post-LCD, BW loss during LCD, family type, and age at screening. This is the case if they do not share a common letter
22
Compliance to Glycemic Index (shop centres)
50525456586062646668
baseline 4 weeks 26 weeks
LP/LGILP/HGIHP/LGIHP/HGIcontrol
* * *
* * *
~8 units
FOOD Diaries: All 8 centres: 5 GI units difference
23
Compliance to dietary protein intake as assessed by 24 hour urinary nitrogen excretion
FOOD Diaries: All 8 centres: 5.4 E% difference
Pre-LCD
www.diogenes-eu.org
Results: Body weight changes
• Overall weight regain was relatively low (0.56 kg), and that the overall weight loss in completers as therefore quite high (10.6 kg)
• Completers analysis (N=548) (kg, mean, 95% CI);
LP/LGI (N=106): 0.3 (-0.74, 1.40) LP/HGI (N=97): 1.7 (0.48, 2.87) HP/LGI (N=124): -0.4 (-1.70, 0.93) HP/HGI (N= 107): 0.6 (-0.65, 1.78) CTR (N=114): 0.8 (-0.17, 1.86) Overall group difference p-value: 0.01 (ANCOVA)
• The assignment to LP and HGI diets completer analysis (N=548), linear regression model) produced higher weight regain of LP: 1.14 kg (0.23,2.06) (p=0.02) HGI: 1.09 (0.18, 2.00) (p=0.02)
25
Completers at Week 26
ITT
In an ITT-analysis (N=773, mixed linear model) the weight regain was 0.93 kg (95 % CI: 0.31; 1.55, p=0.003) lower by HP than LP, and 0.95 kg (0.33; 1.57, p=0.003) lower by LGI than HGI diets.
* P < 0.05 for difference from 0;
# P < 0.01 HP vs other diets, no effect of GI or protein*GI interaction; gender and initial weight as covariates
SHOP CENTRES (N=204, at 6 month): Better weight maintenance in high protein groups
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1 2 3 4 5
weig
ht
ch
an
ge (
kg
)
LP/LGI LP/HGI HP/LGI control HP/HGI
*
*
*
# # ~1.8 kg
Van Baak, M et al. Abstract, ECO 2008. Manuscript with 1y data in preparation
www.diogenes-eu.org
HP/LGI diet the most promising for weight control in children
Papadaki et al. Pediatrics, vol 126, no. 5, November 2010
www.diogenes-eu.org
Conclusions from Diogenes-RCT
• A low GI diet high in calories from protein prevented weight regain after a 12 % weight loss.
• The high-protein/low GI diet was
associated with lower drop out rate
The Diogenes cohort (RTD 3.1)
• 89432 participants (37125 men and 52307 women) • Originated from 5 EPIC cohorts (Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, UK
and Denmark) with baseline dietary information
repeated anthropometric measures of weight and waist circumference
Free of prevalent diabetes, cancer and CHD at baseline • Baseline age 53 (20-78) years
• mean follow-up time of 6.5 (1.9-12.5) years
Overall aim • To investigate the associations between diet (with main focus on protein and
GI/GL) and subsequent changes in weight or waist circumference in a large prospective cohort study
Intake of animal or plant protein (per 150 kcal) and yearly weight changes (g/y)
Adjusted for baseline age, height, weight, follow-up time, changes in smoking status, education, physical activity, and HRT and menopause status (women)
Overall est: Animal protein 56 g/y (95 %CI: 27 to 86) per 150 kcal
Overall est: Plant protein 18 g/y (95 %CI: -39 to 96) per 150 kcal
Halkjær et al. Int J Obes (Lond)2011:35:1104-13.
Protein from food groups and yearly changes in weight or waist circumference
Weight changes (g/year) Waist changes (cm/year)
Per 150 kcal Estimate (95% CI) Estimate (95% CI)
Protein from
Red/proc meat 81.0 (46.8 to 115.3) 0.11 (0.04-0.17)
Poultry 114.9 (49.8 to 180.0) 0.04 (-0.05 to 0.13)
Fish 40.8 (-16.9 to 98.5) -0.08 (-0.15 to -0.0)
Dairy 13.2 (-26.2 to 52.7) -0.05 (-0.08 to -0.02)
Estimates are summed estimates based on the random effects meta-analysis model (overall sum for men and women)
Halkjær et al. Int J Obes (Lond)2011:35:1104-13.
www.diogenes-eu.org
Additional challenges & obstacles
ROME 2006
Dias 33
Potential environmental effects of 1 kg
of food or drinks
Is a high protein diet environmentally
sustainable?
www.diogenes-eu.org
Can we increase recommendations for protein intake, given the global environmental constraints?
www.diogenes-eu.org
Next steps for research ? • Resolve conflicting evidence • Is the HP/LGI diet effective in the long term (> 1 year) ?
• Weight change and risk of T2D & CVD ?�
• Is the HP/LGI diet safe in the long term ? • Effects on kidney, bone, cancer etc. ?�
• Can the HP/LGI be maintained in the long term (>1 year) ? • Is it palatable enough? • Is it compatible with local traditions/cuisine?�
• Is HP/LGI diet compatible with visions of environmental sustainability? • Can vegetable sources of protein replace animal sources? • Can technological development lower the environmental impact of � producing animal sources of protein?
www.diogenes-eu.org
Acknowledgements
….DIOGENES Partners ….Dieticians & other technical staff ….all the food sponsors. ….and the study participants (for their patience)
www.diogenes-eu.org
Thank you for your attention