It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
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.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Charles Perkins Centre; School of Mathematics and Statistics
2 Charles Perkins Centre; School of Life and Environmental Sciences
3 Charles Perkins Centre
4 Charles Perkins Centre; School of Life and Environmental Sciences; Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia