88 research outputs found

    Mediterranean diet adherence and genetic background roles within a web-based nutritional intervention: the Food4Me study

    Get PDF
    Mediterranean Diet (MedDiet) adherence has been proven to produce numerous health benefits. In addition, nutrigenetic studies have explained some individual variations in the response to specific dietary patterns. The present research aimed to explore associations and potential interactions between MedDiet adherence and genetic background throughout the Food4Me web-based nutritional intervention. Dietary, anthropometrical and biochemical data from volunteers of the Food4Me study were collected at baseline and after 6 months. Several genetic variants related to metabolic risk features were also analysed. A Genetic Risk Score (GRS) was derived from risk alleles and a Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS), based on validated food intake data, was estimated. At baseline, there were no interactions between GRS and MDS categories for metabolic traits. Linear mixed model repeated measures analyses showed a significantly greater decrease in total cholesterol in participants with a low GRS after a 6-month period, compared to those with a high GRS. Meanwhile, a high baseline MDS was associated with greater decreases in Body Mass Index (BMI), waist circumference and glucose. There also was a significant interaction between GRS and the MedDiet after the follow-up period. Among subjects with a high GRS, those with a high MDS evidenced a highly significant reduction in total carotenoids, while among those with a low GRS, there was no difference associated with MDS levels. These results suggest that a higher MedDiet adherence induces beneficial effects on metabolic outcomes, which can be affected by the genetic background in some specific markers

    Clustering of adherence to personalised dietary recommendations and changes in healthy eating index within the Food4Me study

    Get PDF
    Objective: To characterise clusters of individuals based on adherence to dietary recommendations and to determine whether changes in Healthy Eating Index (HEI) scores in response to a personalised nutrition (PN) intervention varied between clusters. Design: Food4Me study participants were clustered according to whether their baseline dietary intakes met European dietary recommendations. Changes in HEI scores between baseline and month 6 were compared between clusters and stratified by whether individuals received generalised or PN advice. Setting: Pan-European, Internet-based, 6-month randomised controlled trial. Subjects: Adults aged 18–79 years (n1480). Results: Individuals in cluster 1 (C1) met all recommended intakes except for red meat, those in cluster 2 (C2) met two recommendations, and those in cluster 3 (C3) and cluster 4 (C4) met one recommendation each. C1 had higher intakes of white fish, beans and lentils and low-fat dairy products and lower percentage energy intake from SFA (P<0·05). C2 consumed less chips and pizza and fried foods than C3 and C4 (P<0·05). C1 were lighter, had lower BMI and waist circumference than C3 and were more physically active than C4 (P<0·05). More individuals in C4 were smokers and wanted to lose weight than in C1 (P<0·05). Individuals who received PN advice in C4 reported greater improvements in HEI compared with C3 and C1 (P<0·05). Conclusions: The cluster where the fewest recommendations were met (C4) reported greater improvements in HEI following a 6-month trial of PN whereas there was no difference between clusters for those randomised to the Control, non-personalised dietary intervention

    Online dietary intake estimation : The food4me food frequency questionnaire

    Get PDF
    Copyright ©Hannah Forster, Rosalind Fallaize, Caroline Gallagher, Clare B O’Donovan, Clara Woolhead, Marianne C Walsh, Anna L Macready, Julie A Lovegrove, John C Mathers, Michael J Gibney, Lorraine Brennan, Eileen R Gibney. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 09.06.2014. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.Dietary assessment methods are important tools for nutrition research. Online dietary assessment tools have the potential to become invaluable methods of assessing dietary intake because, compared with traditional methods, they have many advantages including the automatic storage of input data and the immediate generation of nutritional outputs. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop an online food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) for dietary data collection in the Food4Me study and to compare this with the validated European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC) Norfolk printed FFQ. Methods: The Food4Me FFQ used in this analysis was developed to consist of 157 food items. Standardized color photographs were incorporated in the development of the Food4Me FFQ to facilitate accurate quantification of the portion size of each food item. Participants were recruited in two centers (Dublin, Ireland and Reading, United Kingdom) and each received the online Food4Me FFQ and the printed EPIC-Norfolk FFQ in random order. Participants completed the Food4Me FFQ online and, for most food items, participants were requested to choose their usual serving size among seven possibilities from a range of portion size pictures. The level of agreement between the two methods was evaluated for both nutrient and food group intakes using the Bland and Altman method and classification into quartiles of daily intake. Correlations were calculated for nutrient and food group intakes. Results: A total of 113 participants were recruited with a mean age of 30 (SD 10) years (40.7% male, 46/113; 59.3%, 67/113 female). Cross-classification into exact plus adjacent quartiles ranged from 77% to 97% at the nutrient level and 77% to 99% at the food group level. Agreement at the nutrient level was highest for alcohol (97%) and lowest for percent energy from polyunsaturated fatty acids (77%). Crude unadjusted correlations for nutrients ranged between .43 and .86. Agreement at the food group level was highest for other fruits (eg, apples, pears, oranges) and lowest for cakes, pastries, and buns. For food groups, correlations ranged between .41 and .90. Conclusions: The results demonstrate that the online Food4Me FFQ has good agreement with the validated printed EPIC-Norfolk FFQ for assessing both nutrient and food group intakes, rendering it a useful tool for ranking individuals based on nutrient and food group intakes.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

    Effects of a web-based personalized intervention on physical activity in European adults: a randomized controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background: The high prevalence of physical inactivity worldwide calls for innovative and more effective ways to promote physical activity (PA). There are limited objective data on the effectiveness of Web-based personalized feedback on increasing PA in adults. Objective: It is hypothesized that providing personalized advice based on PA measured objectively alongside diet, phenotype, or genotype information would lead to larger and more sustained changes in PA, compared with nonpersonalized advice. Methods: A total of 1607 adults in seven European countries were randomized to either a control group (nonpersonalized advice, Level 0, L0) or to one of three personalized groups receiving personalized advice via the Internet based on current PA plus diet (Level 1, L1), PA plus diet and phenotype (Level 2, L2), or PA plus diet, phenotype, and genotype (Level 3, L3). PA was measured for 6 months using triaxial accelerometers, and self-reported using the Baecke questionnaire. Outcomes were objective and self-reported PA after 3 and 6 months. Results: While 1270 participants (85.81% of 1480 actual starters) completed the 6-month trial, 1233 (83.31%) self-reported PA at both baseline and month 6, but only 730 (49.32%) had sufficient objective PA data at both time points. For the total cohort after 6 months, a greater improvement in self-reported total PA (P=.02) and PA during leisure (nonsport) (P=.03) was observed in personalized groups compared with the control group. For individuals advised to increase PA, we also observed greater improvements in those two self-reported indices (P=.006 and P=.008, respectively) with increased personalization of the advice (L2 and L3 vs L1). However, there were no significant differences in accelerometer results between personalized and control groups, and no significant effect of adding phenotypic or genotypic information to the tailored feedback at month 3 or 6. After 6 months, there were small but significant improvements in the objectively measured physical activity level (P<.05), moderate PA (P<.01), and sedentary time (P<.001) for individuals advised to increase PA, but these changes were similar across all groups. Conclusions: Different levels of personalization produced similar small changes in objective PA. We found no evidence that personalized advice is more effective than conventional “one size fits all” guidelines to promote changes in PA in our Web-based intervention when PA was measured objectively. Based on self-reports, PA increased to a greater extent with more personalized advice. Thus, it is crucial to measure PA objectively in any PA intervention study
    corecore