Personalised nutrition advice reduces intake of discretionary foods and beverages: findings from the Food4Me randomised controlled trial.
Adults, Food4Me
Discretionary
Discretionary foods and beverages
European
Internet-based
Intervention
Personalised nutrition
Journal
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity
ISSN: 1479-5868
Titre abrégé: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101217089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 06 2021
07 06 2021
Historique:
received:
15
10
2020
accepted:
07
05
2021
entrez:
7
6
2021
pubmed:
8
6
2021
medline:
3
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The effect of personalised nutrition advice on discretionary foods intake is unknown. To date, two national classifications for discretionary foods have been derived. This study examined changes in intake of discretionary foods and beverages following a personalised nutrition intervention using these two classifications. Participants were recruited into a 6-month RCT across seven European countries (Food4Me) and were randomised to receive generalised dietary advice (control) or one of three levels of personalised nutrition advice (based on diet [L1], phenotype [L2] and genotype [L3]). Dietary intake was derived from an FFQ. An analysis of covariance was used to determine intervention effects at month 6 between personalised nutrition (overall and by levels) and control on i) percentage energy from discretionary items and ii) percentage contribution of total fat, SFA, total sugars and salt to discretionary intake, defined by Food Standards Scotland (FSS) and Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG) classifications. Of the 1607 adults at baseline, n = 1270 (57% female) completed the intervention. Percentage sugars from FSS discretionary items was lower in personalised nutrition vs control (19.0 ± 0.37 vs 21.1 ± 0.65; P = 0.005). Percentage energy (31.2 ± 0.59 vs 32.7 ± 0.59; P = 0.031), percentage total fat (31.5 ± 0.37 vs 33.3 ± 0.65; P = 0.021), SFA (36.0 ± 0.43 vs 37.8 ± 0.75; P = 0.034) and sugars (31.7 ± 0.44 vs 34.7 ± 0.78; P < 0.001) from ADG discretionary items were lower in personalised nutrition vs control. There were greater reductions in ADG percentage energy and percentage total fat, SFA and salt for those randomised to L3 vs L2. Compared with generalised dietary advice, personalised nutrition advice achieved greater reductions in discretionary foods intake when the classification included all foods high in fat, added sugars and salt. Future personalised nutrition approaches may be used to target intake of discretionary foods. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01530139 . Registered 9 February 2012.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The effect of personalised nutrition advice on discretionary foods intake is unknown. To date, two national classifications for discretionary foods have been derived. This study examined changes in intake of discretionary foods and beverages following a personalised nutrition intervention using these two classifications.
METHODS
Participants were recruited into a 6-month RCT across seven European countries (Food4Me) and were randomised to receive generalised dietary advice (control) or one of three levels of personalised nutrition advice (based on diet [L1], phenotype [L2] and genotype [L3]). Dietary intake was derived from an FFQ. An analysis of covariance was used to determine intervention effects at month 6 between personalised nutrition (overall and by levels) and control on i) percentage energy from discretionary items and ii) percentage contribution of total fat, SFA, total sugars and salt to discretionary intake, defined by Food Standards Scotland (FSS) and Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG) classifications.
RESULTS
Of the 1607 adults at baseline, n = 1270 (57% female) completed the intervention. Percentage sugars from FSS discretionary items was lower in personalised nutrition vs control (19.0 ± 0.37 vs 21.1 ± 0.65; P = 0.005). Percentage energy (31.2 ± 0.59 vs 32.7 ± 0.59; P = 0.031), percentage total fat (31.5 ± 0.37 vs 33.3 ± 0.65; P = 0.021), SFA (36.0 ± 0.43 vs 37.8 ± 0.75; P = 0.034) and sugars (31.7 ± 0.44 vs 34.7 ± 0.78; P < 0.001) from ADG discretionary items were lower in personalised nutrition vs control. There were greater reductions in ADG percentage energy and percentage total fat, SFA and salt for those randomised to L3 vs L2.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with generalised dietary advice, personalised nutrition advice achieved greater reductions in discretionary foods intake when the classification included all foods high in fat, added sugars and salt. Future personalised nutrition approaches may be used to target intake of discretionary foods.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01530139 . Registered 9 February 2012.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34092234
doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01136-5
pii: 10.1186/s12966-021-01136-5
pmc: PMC8183081
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01530139']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
70Références
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Dec;45(12):569-81
pubmed: 1810719
Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Aug;104(2):288-97
pubmed: 27357094
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019 Jul;73(7):997-1005
pubmed: 30446763
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jun 09;16(6):e150
pubmed: 24911957
Adv Nutr. 2018 Sep 01;9(5):544-560
pubmed: 30107475
Am J Prev Med. 2019 Aug;57(2):209-219
pubmed: 31248745
Health Psychol Rev. 2014;8(3):270-85
pubmed: 25053214
Public Health Nutr. 2005 Oct;8(7A):1133-52
pubmed: 16277825
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jul;63(7):865-71
pubmed: 18957970
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Aug 11;16(8):e190
pubmed: 25113936
Proc Nutr Soc. 2015 May;74(2):130-8
pubmed: 25497396
Circ Res. 2019 Mar;124(5):779-798
pubmed: 30817261
Circulation. 2015 Aug 25;132(8):639-66
pubmed: 26124185
Br J Nutr. 2021 Jun 14;125(11):1291-1298
pubmed: 32943124
BMC Med. 2020 Apr 24;18(1):97
pubmed: 32326961
Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Sep;104(3):827-36
pubmed: 27510539
J Am Coll Nutr. 2020 Jan;39(1):5-15
pubmed: 31855126
Obes Rev. 2020 Dec;21(12):e13126
pubmed: 32761763
Genes Nutr. 2015 Sep;10(5):28
pubmed: 26143178
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jun 30;18(6):e150
pubmed: 27363307
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 14;9(11):e112665
pubmed: 25398084
Eur J Nutr. 2016 Mar;55(2):759-769
pubmed: 25893715
J Nutr. 2016 Sep;146(9):1851S-5S
pubmed: 27511939
Eur J Nutr. 2020 Sep;59(6):2783-2792
pubmed: 31676952
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Apr 1;46(2):578-588
pubmed: 27524815
BMJ. 1998 Apr 18;316(7139):1236-8
pubmed: 9553006
Public Health Nutr. 2017 Jan;20(1):53-63
pubmed: 27492149
J Nutr. 2008 Jan;138(1):226S-234S
pubmed: 18156429
Nutrients. 2017 Oct 25;9(11):
pubmed: 29068397
Obes Rev. 2017 Nov;18(11):1350-1363
pubmed: 28721697
Adv Nutr. 2021 Jun 1;12(3):657-669
pubmed: 33313795
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016 May 06;13:57
pubmed: 27151280
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Feb 05;18(2):e30
pubmed: 26851191
Circulation. 2017 Jul 18;136(3):e1-e23
pubmed: 28620111
Public Health Nutr. 2017 Feb;20(2):274-281
pubmed: 27572276
JMIR Res Protoc. 2018 Apr 09;7(4):e87
pubmed: 29631993
Nutrients. 2018 May 09;10(5):
pubmed: 29747447
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Jul;1170:558-68
pubmed: 19686193
Ann Epidemiol. 2001 Aug;11(6):417-27
pubmed: 11454501
Genes Nutr. 2015 Jan;10(1):450
pubmed: 25491748
Adv Nutr. 2016 May 16;7(3):445-54
pubmed: 27184272
Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 Apr;105(4):854-863
pubmed: 28275129
Am J Clin Nutr. 1982 Nov;36(5):936-42
pubmed: 7137077
Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 May;105(5):1204-1213
pubmed: 28381478
Lancet Public Health. 2019 Aug;4(8):e363-e364
pubmed: 31376851
Circulation. 2002 Jul 23;106(4):523-7
pubmed: 12135957