Abstract

Meta-analysis, which drives evidence-based practice, typically focuses on the average response of subjects to a treatment. For instance in nutritional research the difference in average weight of participants on different diets is typically used to draw conclusions about the relative efficacy of interventions. As a result of their focus on the mean, meta-analyses largely overlook the effects of treatments on inter-subject variability. Recent tools from the study of biological evolution, where inter-individual variability is one of the key ingredients for evolution by natural selection, now allow us to study inter-subject variability using established meta-analytic models. Here we use meta-analysis to study how low carbohydrate (LC) ad libitum diets and calorie restricted diets affect variance in mass. We find that LC ad libitum diets may have a more variable outcome than diets that prescribe a reduced calorie intake. Our results suggest that whilst LC diets are effective in a large proportion of the population, for a subset of individuals, calorie restricted diets may be more effective. There is evidence that LC ad libitum diets rely on appetite suppression to drive weight loss. Extending this hypothesis, we suggest that between-individual variability in protein appetite may drive the trends that we report. A priori identification of an individual’s target intake for protein may help define the most effective dietary intervention to prescribe for weight loss.

Details

Title
Meta-analysis of variance: an illustration comparing the effects of two dietary interventions on variability in weight
Author
Senior, Alistair M 1 ; Gosby, Alison K 2 ; Lu, Jing 3 ; Simpson, Stephen J 2 ; Raubenheimer, David 4 

 Charles Perkins Centre; School of Mathematics and Statistics 
 Charles Perkins Centre; School of Life and Environmental Sciences 
 Charles Perkins Centre 
 Charles Perkins Centre; School of Life and Environmental Sciences; Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia 
Pages
244-255
Publication year
2016
Publication date
2016
Publisher
Oxford University Press
e-ISSN
20506201
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
3171844038
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Foundation for Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.