<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_431"
                     title="Down a Beer to Improve Bone Health? Not So Fast"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/tb/18347?impressionId=1265787798327"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;A flagon of ale may indeed be a good source of dietary silicon, a recent study showed, but experts say any attempt to link beer drinking to bone health is not based on scientific data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study of 100 commercial beers in the February issue of the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture&lt;/em&gt;, by Charles Bamforth, PhD, DSc, and Troy Casey, of the University of California Davis, examined the silicon content that results from different ingredients and brewing processes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although a press release issued with the study prominently mentioned the link between silicon and bone health, the study itself did not look at bone mineral density or analyze any patient data at all, according to several researchers contacted by &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt; and ABC News.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors wrote that they explored the silicon content in beer because the popular beverage has been identified as one of the richest potential sources of dietary silicon in the Western diet. The average intake is 20 to 50 mg/day.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The beers sampled contained an average of 29.4 mg/L of silicon, with a range of 6.4 to 56.4 mg/L. Beers made from a barley-based grist (as opposed to wheat-based beers ) and brews containing more hops had the highest silicon levels.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The beer type with the overall highest silicon level was India Pale Ale, with an average of 41.2 mg/L. Other ales came in second with 32.8 mg/L.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nonalcoholic beers, light lagers, and wheat beers had the least silicon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the end, the authors concluded that &quot;beer is a substantial source of silicon in the diet&quot; and that &quot;beers containing high levels of malted barley and hops are richest in silicon,&quot; but they did not attempt to establish a link between beer drinking and bone health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Experts contacted for comment on the study also cautioned the public against establishing any such connection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;To conclude any bone health benefits from this study would require a great leap,&quot; Tim Byers, MD, MPH, deputy director of the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora, wrote in an e-mail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Other researchers noted that previous studies have shown an association between alcohol consumption and an increased risk of fracture.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That&apos;s probably because of a greater chance of falling after drinking, according to Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, of the Harvard School of Public Health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In fact, Stephen Richardson, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Medical Center, noted that &quot;alcohol consumption is a risk factor for osteoporosis.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Still, there is some evidence supporting a positive link between overall dietary silicon and bone health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A 2004 cross-sectional study in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of Bone and Mineral Research&lt;/em&gt; that used data from the Framingham Offspring cohort found a significant association between greater dietary silicon intake, including that from beer, and higher bone mineral density in the hip in men and premenopausal women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers concluded: &quot;These findings suggest that higher dietary silicon intake in men and younger women may have salutary effects on skeletal health, especially cortical bone health, that has not been previously recognized.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another study by the same group published last year in the &lt;em&gt;American Journal of Clinical Nutrition&lt;/em&gt; found that moderate consumption of alcohol, including beer, wine, and liquor, was associated with higher bone mineral density in men and postmenopausal women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, it also showed that men who drank too much liquor were more likely to have lower spine and hip bone mineral density.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The relationship between beer and bone mineral density appeared to be mediated by silicon, the researchers concluded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bottom line: considering the increased fracture risk and the various other problems associated with drinking too much alcohol, experts agree that guzzling beer is not strategy for improving bone health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;In the absence of bone density values or preferably fracture incidence, it would be premature to tout beer as a preventative or treatment,&quot; Richardson said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David Katz, MD, MPH, of the Yale School of Public Health, agreed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This is NOT a reason to drink beer,&quot; he said in an e-mail. &quot;This is simply a bit of good news for those who do drink beer already  --  yours truly among them!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors did not make any financial disclosures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This article was developed in collaboration with ABC News. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; mce_src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_391"
                     title="Rare Genetic Deletion Linked to Morbid Obesity (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.009"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Genetics/GeneralGenetics/tb/18286?impressionId=1265787798327"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Missing sections of DNA may have a powerful impact on weight for a small segment of the population, researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nearly all teens and adults found to have a particular deletion of roughly 30-genes on chromosome 16p11.2 were obese  --  most morbidly so  --  with a body mass index of at least 40 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, Philippe Froguel, MD, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues reported in &lt;em&gt;Nature&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While the variant appeared to explain only a small proportion of morbid obesity  --  0.7% in the study population  --  it was never present in healthy, normal-weight controls.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Although the recent rise in obesity in the developed world is down to an unhealthy environment, with an abundance of unhealthy food and many people taking very little exercise, the difference in the way people respond to this environment is often genetic,&quot; Froguel said in a prepared statement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But with further findings like these, it may be possible to identify such individuals through genetic testing, he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If so, &quot;We can then offer them appropriate support and medical interventions, such as the option of weight-loss surgery, to improve their long-term health,&quot; Froguel declared.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although researchers speculate that one in 20 cases of obesity may have a genetic cause, the genetic component remains largely elusive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even accounting for such a small fraction of cases, the newly discovered 16p11.2 variant would be the second most frequent known genetic cause of obesity, Froguel&apos;s group said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Extensive genome-wide association studies have linked numerous single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to obesity, but added all together they account for only a small fraction of the known heritable component, the researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The &apos;common disease, common variant&apos; hypothesis is increasingly coming under challenge,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Their team first identified the genetic deletion in teen and adults with learning difficulties or delayed development.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because the 31 individuals who had the nearly identical deletions of at least 593 kilobases at chromosome 16p11.2 in one copy of their DNA all had a BMI of over 30 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, the researchers decided to dig a little deeper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Cohorts with extreme phenotypes that include obesity may be enriched for rare but very potent risk variants,&quot; making them easier to discover, they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So they undertook a case-control study among 312 patients at three centers in Britain and France who presented with congenital malformations, developmental delay, or both, in addition to obesity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The same deletions were seen in 2.9% of these individuals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The function of the missing genes are not well known, but some have previously been associated with delayed development, autism, and schizophrenia.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Notably, though, the frequency of deletion of these genes in the obese case-control cohort was &quot;appreciably higher&quot; than the less than 1% seen in the autism and other studies that didn&apos;t include obesity as an inclusion criteria, the researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A second independent survey of genetic data at eight cytogenetic centers in France, Switzerland, and Estonia turned up a 0.6% rate among 3,947 people with developmental delay, malformations, or both, but who were not selected for obesity (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.00022 versus the cohort selected for obesity).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Analysis of those with the missing genes revealed an age-dependent link to weight: All four teens and adults were obese. Children were often obese (four of 15) or overweight (two of 15). Children under 2 years all had normal weight.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So to see whether the deletion was independent of neurodevelopmental problems, Froguel&apos;s group examined genome-wide association study data from general population cohorts totaling 11,856 individuals along with 2,772 from childhood obesity and adult morbid obesity case-control studies, 931 in an extreme early-onset obesity study, and 141 who had bariatric weight-loss surgery.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All adult carriers of the deletion were obese with the exception of one who was apparently diabetic. Each of the seven children and adolescents who carried the variant had a BMI in the top 0.1% for their age and gender.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;None had any reported developmental or cognitive problems. Four had reported hyperphagia with excessive hunger and food intake.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Altogether, the 16p11.2 deletions predicted 29.8-fold elevated risk of obesity (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.00000058) and 43.0-fold elevated risk of morbid obesity (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.000000064) compared with lean or normal weight.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By extrapolation, the researchers extrapolated that about 0.4% of all morbidly obese cases are attributable to an inherited 16p11.2 deletion, with 0.3% arising from a de novo deletion in the same genetic region.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Although they may be heterogeneous in nature, these deletions are highly likely to be the causal variants,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by &quot;Le Conseil Regional Nord Pas de Calais/FEDER&quot; along with various governmental and industry supporters for the various component studies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers reported no financial conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_352"
                     title="ICAO: Future Chronic Disease Risk Goes Beyond BMI (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.009"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Diabetes/tb/18233?impressionId=1265787798327"
                     
      When it comes to predicting chronic disease, body mass index doesn&apos;t tell the whole story, according to a population-based study that found elevated risk with obesity and other metabolic risk factors independently.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Metabolically-healthy obese people tended toward being at least twice as likely to develop multiple metabolic risk factors and diabetes as healthy, normal weight individuals over the subsequent 3.5 years of a study led by Sarah Appleton, a postgraduate student at the University of Adelaide, Australia.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;However, normal weight individuals with metabolic risk factors  --  a group the researchers called &quot;metabolically obese&quot;  --  were at greater risk, she told attendees at the International Congress on Abdominal Obesity in Hong Kong, a conference sponsored by the International Chair on Cardiometabolic Risk.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Overall, just 4.1% of the 3,743 adults in the population-based, North West Adelaide Health Study were in the normal body mass index range at baseline but had at least two of the following metabolic risk factors:&lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Triglyceride levels of 1.7 mmol/L or greater&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;HDL cholesterol under 1.0mmol/L for men or 1.3 mmol/L for women&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Blood pressure of 130/85 mm Hg or higher&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;A fasting plasma glucose of at least 5.6mmol/L or self-reported diabetes&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Treatment for any of these disorders &lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although free of cardiovascular disease when they entered the study through a random population sample of the northwest region of Adelaide, after a mean of 3.5 years of follow-up, this group was 2.48 times at risk of incident cardiovascular disease or stroke events (95% CI 1.1 to 5.4).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with metabolically-healthy, normal weight individuals, those with metabolic risk factors tended to be&lt;strong&gt; &lt;/strong&gt;3.27 times as likely to develop diabetes (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.07).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Identifying these individuals for prevention efforts may require less emphasis on BMI and increased surveillance of central obesity in primary care, the researchers told the congress.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The problem with BMI is it doesn&apos;t tell you where the fat is,&quot; Appleton added in an interview. &quot;Visceral fat is really bad for you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Obese individuals without multiple metabolic risk factors at baseline comprised a larger group (12.1%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They were more likely to be middle age, live in a disadvantaged neighborhood, have smoked at some point, and get less exercise than their metabolically similar, but slimmer peers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Over the subsequent 3.5 years, they were 2.82 times more likely to develop more than one metabolic risk factor than metabolically-healthy, normal weight individuals (95% CI 2.0 to 4.0).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The metabolically-normal obese also tended to be 2.36 times more likely to develop diabetes (95% CI 0.8 to 7.1). On the other hand, their risk of cardiovascular disease wasn&apos;t elevated, &quot;which likely related to the younger age of that group,&quot; Appleton told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Notably, abdominal obesity as determined by a waist circumference of 80 cm and over for men or 95 cm and greater for women was 6.1 times more likely among metabolically healthy individuals if their BMI was in the obese versus normal range.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But those who were in the normal BMI range were 2.2-fold more likely to be overweight or obese according to waist circumference if they had metabolic risk factors, which was statistically significant as well and likely contributed to the health risks they faced over the short-term future, Appleton said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Maintenance of metabolic health in the obese population was more likely for younger individuals (OR 2.83 for age 40 or younger, 95% CI 1.1 to 7.6) and those who were at least moderately physically active (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.1).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Appleton noted that these findings generally fit with data from the U.S. National Health Assessment Survey and Examination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regardless of whether patients have abdominal obesity, BMI obesity, or other metabolic risk factors, the solution is likely similar  --  improved diet and exercise, she said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Department of Health.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Appleton reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_315"
                     title="A Few Extra Pounds May Benefit Older People (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.004"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/GeneralGeriatrics/tb/18183?impressionId=1265787798327"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;A little excess weight after age 70 could do the body some good, according to results of a study involving 9,000 older patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overweight participants in the cohort study had the lowest 10-year mortality. Normal-weight and obese participants ages 70 to 75 had a similar and slightly higher risk of death, Leon Flicker, PhD, of the Western Australian Center for Health and Aging in Perth, and colleagues found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The findings add to evidence suggesting that being overweight in older age is not such a bad thing and might even be beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;These results lend further credence to claims that the body mass index [BMI] thresholds for overweight and obese are overly restrictive for older people,&quot; the researchers concluded in an article in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American Geriatrics Society&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors also found that a sedentary lifestyle doubled the mortality risk for older women but did not affect survival of older men.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The World Health Organization has established four BMI thresholds to characterize body weight: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;&amp;lt;18.5 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, underweight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;18.5 to 24.9 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, normal weight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;25 to 29.9 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, overweight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;&amp;#8805;30 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, obese&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that the thresholds were derived primarily from studies of younger and middle-age adults. Whether the cut points for overweight and obese are appropriate for older individuals has remained unclear.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two systematic reviews and a meta-analysis showed no increased mortality risk associated with a BMI in the overweight range for older people (&lt;em&gt;Arch Intern Med&lt;/em&gt; 2001; 161: 1194-1203, &lt;em&gt;Obesity Rev&lt;/em&gt; 2007; 8: 41-59). However, methodologic differences complicated the comparison of different studies, Flicker and colleagues wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So they sought to address some of the uncertainty by analyzing data from two large Australian cohort studies involving more than 9,000 individuals ages 70 to 75 (4,677 men, 4,563 women).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The principal objectives were to determine the BMI threshold associated with the lowest mortality in older people and to determine whether the relationship between BMI and mortality differed between men and women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data for the analysis came from self-reported measures of height and weight, which the authors used to calculate BMI for the study participants. Participants also provided demographic, lifestyle, and health information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using the WHO criteria for BMI, the authors found that 1.3% of men and 3.1% of women were underweight; 43.5% of men and 50.3% of women were normal weight; 44.3% of men and 33.5% of women were overweight; and 11% of men and 13.1% of women were obese.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During 10 years of follow-up, overweight study participants had a 13% lower risk of death compared with normal-weight participants (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94). Obese participants had a mortality risk similar to that of normal-weight participants (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Self-reported sedentary lifestyle doubled the mortality risk for women across all BMI categories (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.41). In contrast, sedentary lifestyle increased the mortality risk for men by 28% (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.44).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Separate analyses involving common causes of death, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, showed similar relationships between BMI and mortality risk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Even after removing the effects of early mortality, those who were overweight were still at lowest risk, a finding consistent with the observation that weight loss in older age groups is associated with greater mortality,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Overweight older people are not at greater mortality risk, and there is little evidence that dieting in this age group confers any benefit,&quot; they added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors had no relevant disclosures&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_279"
                     title="Low-Carb Diet Edges Low Fat Plus Weight-Loss Drug (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.002"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/tb/18131?impressionId=1265787798327"
                     
      Weight loss was the same and blood pressure control was more effective with a low-carbohydrate diet than a low-fat regimen supplemented by the diet drug orlistat (Xenical, Alli), a randomized trial found.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Among 146 overweight or obese outpatients, both treatment plans led to weight loss of about 10% after 48 weeks, with similar improvements in glycemic and blood lipid measures, according to William S. Yancy Jr., MD, MHS, of Duke University, and colleagues.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;But mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure declined by 5.9 and 4.5 mm Hg, respectively, in the low-carb diet compared with a slight increase in patients on the low-fat diet plus orlistat (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001 for both measures), the researchers reported in the Jan. 25 issue of &lt;em&gt;Archives of Internal Medicine&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Both interventions also included small-group sessions with a dietitian every two weeks for the first six months. Yancy and colleagues indicated that participants with the best attendance at these meetings seemed to benefit the most.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean weight loss was 14% to 15% among participants who attended at least 80% of the sessions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This latter finding &quot;may indicate the usefulness of these sessions, signify motivated participants, or both,&quot; the researchers wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;How to identify these select individuals [with high attendance] a priori and how to move more individuals into this category is vital to reversing the obesity epidemic,&quot; they added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Yancy and colleagues indicated that the study was the first head-to-head, randomized trial comparing a low-carb diet with a low fat regimen plus orlistat (now readily available over-the-counter).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Participants were recruited from outpatient clinics attached to the VA Medical Center in Durham. Their mean age was 52 and they had a mean body mass index of 39.3. Only slightly more than one-quarter of patients in each group were women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Low-carb dieters could eat as much meat and eggs as they liked, along with up to 112 g of hard cheese, 0.48 L of leafy greens and other low-carbohydrate vegetables, and half as much in other vegetables such as asparagus and broccoli. There was no specific caloric limit.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Participants assigned to the low-fat diet were told to keep total fat to less than 30% of total caloric content and saturated fat less than 10%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Cholesterol intake was to be less than 300 mg/day. Patients in this group were encouraged to reduce total caloric intake by 500 to 1,000 kcal less than the estimated weight-maintenance level. Pocket guides, handouts, and individual assistance were provided to help patients meet these goals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients in the low-fat group also received orlistat at 120 mg before meals three times daily.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean weight loss with the low-fat diet plus orlistat after 48 weeks was 8.5%, compared with 9.5% in the low-carb diet group (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.60), Yancy and colleagues reported.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Body weight in kilograms and waist circumference also declined slightly more with the low-carb diet but, again, the difference was not statistically significant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Total cholesterol declined by an average of 8.9 mg/dL with the low-fat diet plus orlistat, versus a decrease of 3.8 mg/dL in the low-carb group (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.29). A similar but also nonsignificant difference was seen in LDL cholesterol. Triglyceride levels actually declined more with the low-carb diet but that, too, was not statistically significant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A nonsignificant trend was also seen for the low-carb diet to be associated with greater improvements in fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and glycated hemoglobin levels.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The sole significant difference between outcomes, apart from blood pressure, was in serum urea nitrogen, which increased by a mean of 3.19 mg/dL with the low-carb diet and by 1.23 mg/dL with low fat plus orlistat (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.01).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both diets appeared to be successful in terms of adherence, on average. Those on the low-fat diet cut their saturated fat intake by half and total fat by 40%. Participants assigned to the low-carb diet reduced their mean daily carbohydrate intake from 262 g/day at baseline to just 62 g/day at their final evaluation at week 48.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Total caloric intake declined by 29% in each group from baseline.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Yancy and colleagues noted that participants were not paid or given food or access to exercise facilities. &quot;Our goal was to design the interventions so that they closely mimicked a weight-loss program that could be instituted in an outpatient clinic,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But in an accompanying editorial, Robert F. Kushner, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, questioned whether either regimen was truly practical in ordinary practice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In particular, he pointed to the apparently considerable role of the dietitian-led counseling sessions. Currently, he noted, such sessions &quot;are not a covered benefit by most health plans for the treatment of obesity and most primary care practice offices do not have the resources to conduct group sessions.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kushner also observed that primary care physicians were not directly involved in the treatment plans.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He suggested that more emphasis should be placed on engaging and empowering primary care physicians in treating obesity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Healthcare reform and training is needed to allow primary care physicians to tackle the obesity crisis,&quot; Kushner wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One limitation to the study, the authors noted, was that patients were not charged for orlistat. &quot;This could have increased dietary adherence, group session attendance, and/or participant retention compared with the [low-carb diet],&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another limitation was the lack of blinding in the study, they said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Funding for the study came from the Department of Veterans Affairs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yancy and another study author have received research funding from the Robert C. Atkins Foundation. Atkins developed the low-carbohydrate diet program that bears his name. No other potential conflicts of interest were reported by study authors or Kushner.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>