Evaluating a 'non-diet' wellness intervention for improvement of metabolic fitness, psychological well-being and eating and activity behaviors. Dietary counseling improves patient outcomes: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in colorectal cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Preliminary trial of the effect of general practice based nutritional advice.
Current public health policy recommends weight loss for obese individuals, and encourages energy-restricted diets. Others advocate an alternative, 'non-diet' approach which emphasizes eating in response to physiological cues (eg hunger and satiety) and enhancing body acceptance.
                To evaluate the effects of a 'health-centered' non-diet wellness program, and to compare this program to a traditional 'weight loss-centered' diet program.
                Six-month, randomized clinical trial.
                Free-living, general community.
                Obese, Caucasian, female, chronic dieters, ages 30-45 y (n=78).
                Six months of weekly group intervention in a non-diet wellness program or a traditional diet program, followed by 6 months of monthly after-care group support.
                Anthropometry (weight, body mass index); metabolic fitness (blood pressure, blood lipids); energy expenditure; eating behavior (restraint, eating disorder pathology); psychology (self-esteem, depression, body image); attrition and attendance; and participant evaluations of treatment helpfulness. Measures obtained at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 1 y.
                (1 y after program initiation): Cognitive restraint increased in the diet group and decreased in the non-diet group. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in many metabolic fitness, psychological and eating behavior variables. There was high attrition in the diet group (41%), compared to 8% in the non-diet group. Weight significantly decreased in the diet group (5.9+/-6.3 kg) while there was no significant change in the non-diet group (-0.1+/-4.8 kg).
                Over a 1 y period, a diet approach results in weight loss for those who complete the intervention, while a non-diet approach does not. However, a non-diet approach can produce similar improvements in metabolic fitness, psychology and eating behavior, while at the same time effectively minimizing the attrition common in diet programs. To investigate the impact of dietary counseling or nutritional supplements on outcomes in cancer patients: nutritional, morbidity, and quality of life (QoL) during and 3 months after radiotherapy.
                A total of 111 colorectal cancer outpatients referred for radiotherapy, stratified by staging, were randomly assigned: group 1 (G1; n = 37), dietary counseling (regular foods); group 2 (G2; n = 37), protein supplements; and group 3 (G3; n = 37), ad libitum intake. Nutritional intake (diet history), status (Ottery's Subjective Global Assessment), and QoL (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0) were evaluated at baseline, at the end, and 3 months after radiotherapy.
                At radiotherapy completion, energy intake increased in G1/G2 (P < or = .04), G1 more than G2 (P = .001), and decreased in G3 (P < .01). Protein intake increased in G1/G2 (P < or = .007), G1 less than G2 (not significant), and decreased in G3 (P < .01). At 3 months, G1 maintained nutritional intake and G2/G3 returned to baseline. After radiotherapy and at 3 months, rates of anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were higher in G3 (P < .05). At radiotherapy completion, in G1 all QoL function scores improved proportionally to adequate intake or nutritional status (P < .05); whereas in G2 only three of six function scores improved proportionally to protein intake (P = .04), and in G3 all scores worsened (P < .05). At 3 months, G1 patients maintained/improved function, symptoms, and single-item scores (P < .02); in G2, only few function and symptom scales improved (P < .05); in G3, QoL remained as poor as after radiotherapy. In G1/G2, respectively, improvement/deterioration of QoL correlated with better or poorer intake or nutritional status (P < .003).
                During radiotherapy, both interventions positively influenced outcomes; dietary counseling was of similar or higher benefit, whereas even 3 months after RT, it was the only method to sustain a significant impact on patient outcomes. Despite formal recommendations for dietary change to reduce the incidence of ischaemic heart disease, the acceptability and effectiveness of the proposed diets have not been well investigated in population based studies. In this preliminary investigation of nutritional advice in a well population, subjects in one group practice were randomized to receive either dietary instruction or simple follow up without instruction. The dietary recommendations were well received, and a substantial proportion of subjects reported altering their diets in accordance with them. There were modest beneficial changes in plasma lipid levels among men. Thus, using general practice as an avenue for promoting dietary change is feasible, and may be effective among men.
No specific approach can be recommended from this review. It is unclear why 'treatment as usual' performed so poorly, or why dietary advice alone appeared so unacceptable, as the reasons for non-completion were not reported. There is an urgent need for large well-designed trials in this area.