Table 1

General characteristics of randomized controlled intervention trials included in the 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%

*two kind of LP/LF diets (very LF: 10% and LF: 30% of total energy content).

HP, high-protein; LF, low fat; LP, low-protein; n.d, no data.

Schwingshackl and Hoffmann

Schwingshackl and Hoffmann Nutrition Journal 2013 12:48   doi:10.1186/1475-2891-12-48

Open Data