Skip to main content

Table 1 General characteristics of randomized controlled intervention trials included in the meta-analysis

From: Long-term effects of low-fat diets either low or high in protein on cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reference

Sample size,

Age,

Duration, months

Dietary intervention

Dietary protocol

Energy restricted (kcal)

Drop Out

Study quality

BMI (kg/m2),

Female (%)

Protein(%), Carbohydrates(%), Fat(%)

 

% diabetics

Male (%)

      

Brinkworth et al. 2004 I [23]

58

50.2

16

HP/LF vs.

30%, 40%, 30%

1555 (12 weeks), energy balance (4 weeks), no restriction (follow up)

27%

2

34

77.5%

LP/LF

15%, 55%, 30%

1555 (12 weeks), energy balance (4 weeks), no restriction (follow up)

23%

0%

22.5%

Brinkworth et al. 2004 II [24]

66

>60

15

HP/LF vs.

30%, 40%, 30%

1600 (8 weeks) energy balance (4 weeks), no restriction (follow up)

39%

3

27-40

n.d

LP/LF

15%, 55%, 30%

1600 (8 weeks) energy balance (4 weeks), no restriction (follow up)

42%

100%

n.d

Clifton et al. 2007 [25]

79

49

15

HP/LF vs.

34%, 46%, 20%

1340 (12 weeks), energy balance (follow up, 52 weeks)

29%

2

32.8

100%

LP/LF

17%, 64%, 20%

1340 (12 weeks), energy balance (follow up, 52 weeks)

38%

0%

0%

Dansinger et al. 2005 [26]

80

49

12

HP/LF vs.

30%, 40%, 30%

no

35%

4

35

48%

LP/LF

10-15%, >65%, 10%

no

50%

n.d

52%

Das et al. 2007 [27]

34

35

12

HP/LF vs.

30%, 40%, 30%

1900

18%

2

27.6

n.d

LP/LF

20%, 60%, 20%

1960

12%

0%

n.d

Delbridge et al. 2009 [28]

141

44

12

HP/LF vs.

30%, 40%, 30%

no

37%

3

39

50%

LP/LF

15%, 55%, 30%

no

41%

n.d

50%

Due et al. 2004[29]

50

39.6

12

HP/LF vs.

30%, 40%, 30%

no

8%

1

30.4

76%

LP/LF

15%, 55%, 30%

no

28%

0%

24%

Gardner et al. 2007 [22]

232

40.6

12

HP/LF vs.

30%, 40%, 30%

yes

23%

4

31.33

100%

LP/LF*

10-15%, 55-70%, 10/30%

no/yes

23%

0%

0%

Keogh et al. 2007 [31]

25

48.7

12

HP/LF vs.

40%, 33%, 27%

1435

n.d

1

32.9

68%

LP/LF

20%, 60%, 20%

1435

n.d

0%

32%

Krebs et al. 2012 [32]

419

57.9

24

HP/LF vs.

30%, 40%, 30%

-500

30%

4

36.6

60%

LP/LF

15%, 55%, 30%

-500

24%

100%

40%

Larsen et al. 2011 [33]

99

59.2

12

HP/LF vs.

30%, 40%, 30%

1530 (3 months), energy balance (follow up)

19%

4

27-40

52%

LP/LF

15%, 55%, 30%

1530 (3 months), energy balance (follow up)

20%

100%

48%

Layman et al. 2008 [30]

130

45.4

12

HP/LF vs.

30%, 40%, 30%

1700 women, 1900 men

36%

2

32.6

55%

LP/LF

15%, 55%, 30%

1700 women, 1900 men

55%

n.d

45%

McAuley et al. 2006 [34]

48

n.d

12

HP/LF vs.

30%, 40%, 30%

no

7%

2

n.d

100%

LP/LF

15%, 55%, 30%

no

25%

Insulin resistant

0%

Sacks et al. 2009 [35]

406

50.5

24

HP/LF vs.

25%, 55%, 20%

-750

22%

4

33

64%

LP/LF

15%, 65%, 20%

-750

16%

0%

36%

Wycherley et al. 2012 [36]

123

20-65

12

HP/LF vs.

35%, 40%, 25%

1700

43%

4

27-40

0%

LP/LF

17%, 58%, 25%

1700

44%

 
 

0%

100%

      
  1. *two kind of LP/LF diets (very LF: 10% and LF: 30% of total energy content).
  2. HP, high-protein; LF, low fat; LP, low-protein; n.d, no data.
Back to article page

Nutrition Journal

ISSN: 1475-2891

Contact us