Adherence and eating experiences differ between participants following a flexitarian or vegetarian diet in a 10-week randomised dietary intervention trial

IF 7.6 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
N.A. Gillies, A. Worthington, L. Li, T.S. Conner, E.N. Bermingham, S.O. Knowles, D. Cameron-Smith, R. Hannaford, A. Braakhuis
{"title":"Adherence and eating experiences differ between participants following a flexitarian or vegetarian diet in a 10-week randomised dietary intervention trial","authors":"N.A. Gillies, A. Worthington, L. Li, T.S. Conner, E.N. Bermingham, S.O. Knowles, D. Cameron-Smith, R. Hannaford, A. Braakhuis","doi":"10.1017/s0029665124000508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Flexitarian, vegetarian and vegan diets are increasingly popular, particularly amongst young adults. This is the first randomised dietary intervention to investigate the health, wellbeing, and behavioural implications of consuming a basal vegetarian diet that additionally includes low-to-moderate amounts of red meat compared to one containing plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) in young adults (NCT04869163)<span>(1)</span>. The objective for the current analysis is to measure adherence to the intervention, nutrition behaviours, and participants’ experience with their allocated dietary group. Eighty healthy young adults participated in this 10-week dietary intervention as household pairs. Household pairs were randomised to receive approximately three serves of beef and lamb meat (average of 390 g total cooked weight per person per week, flexitarian group) or PBMAs (350–400 g, vegetarian group) on top of a basal vegetarian diet. Participants were supported to adopt healthy eating behaviours, and this intervention was developed and implemented using a behaviour change framework<span>(2)</span>. Diet adherence (eating allocated meat or PBMA, abstaining from animal-based foods not provided by researchers) was monitored daily, with total scores calculated at the end of the 10-week intervention period. Eating experiences were measured by the Positive Eating Scale and a purpose-designed exit survey, and a food frequency questionnaire measured dietary intake. Analyses used mixed effects modelling taking household clustering into account. The average total adherence score was 91.5 (SD = 9.0) out of a possible 100, with participants in the flexitarian group scoring higher (96.1, SD = 4.6, compared to 86.7, SD = 10.0; <span>p</span> &lt; 0.001). Those receiving meat were generally more satisfied with this allocation compared to those receiving the PBMAs, even though a leading motivation for participants joining the study was an opportunity to try plant-based eating (35% expressed that that interest). Participants in both intervention groups had increased vegetable intake (<span>p</span> &lt; 0.001), and reported more positive eating experiences (<span>p</span> = 0.020) and satisfaction with eating (<span>p</span> = 0.021) at the end of the 10-week intervention relative to baseline values. Behavioural methods to encourage engagement with the trial were successful, as participants demonstrated excellent adherence to the intervention. The flexitarian and vegetarian diets elicited different responses in adherence and eating experience. This holds relevance for the inclusion of red meat and PBMAs in healthy, sustainable dietary patterns beyond this study alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":20751,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Nutrition Society","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Nutrition Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0029665124000508","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Flexitarian, vegetarian and vegan diets are increasingly popular, particularly amongst young adults. This is the first randomised dietary intervention to investigate the health, wellbeing, and behavioural implications of consuming a basal vegetarian diet that additionally includes low-to-moderate amounts of red meat compared to one containing plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) in young adults (NCT04869163)(1). The objective for the current analysis is to measure adherence to the intervention, nutrition behaviours, and participants’ experience with their allocated dietary group. Eighty healthy young adults participated in this 10-week dietary intervention as household pairs. Household pairs were randomised to receive approximately three serves of beef and lamb meat (average of 390 g total cooked weight per person per week, flexitarian group) or PBMAs (350–400 g, vegetarian group) on top of a basal vegetarian diet. Participants were supported to adopt healthy eating behaviours, and this intervention was developed and implemented using a behaviour change framework(2). Diet adherence (eating allocated meat or PBMA, abstaining from animal-based foods not provided by researchers) was monitored daily, with total scores calculated at the end of the 10-week intervention period. Eating experiences were measured by the Positive Eating Scale and a purpose-designed exit survey, and a food frequency questionnaire measured dietary intake. Analyses used mixed effects modelling taking household clustering into account. The average total adherence score was 91.5 (SD = 9.0) out of a possible 100, with participants in the flexitarian group scoring higher (96.1, SD = 4.6, compared to 86.7, SD = 10.0; p < 0.001). Those receiving meat were generally more satisfied with this allocation compared to those receiving the PBMAs, even though a leading motivation for participants joining the study was an opportunity to try plant-based eating (35% expressed that that interest). Participants in both intervention groups had increased vegetable intake (p < 0.001), and reported more positive eating experiences (p = 0.020) and satisfaction with eating (p = 0.021) at the end of the 10-week intervention relative to baseline values. Behavioural methods to encourage engagement with the trial were successful, as participants demonstrated excellent adherence to the intervention. The flexitarian and vegetarian diets elicited different responses in adherence and eating experience. This holds relevance for the inclusion of red meat and PBMAs in healthy, sustainable dietary patterns beyond this study alone.

在一项为期 10 周的随机饮食干预试验中,采用灵活饮食法或素食法的参与者在坚持饮食和饮食体验方面存在差异
灵活、素食和纯素饮食越来越受欢迎,尤其是在年轻人中。这是首个随机膳食干预项目,旨在研究在青壮年中,与含有植物性肉类替代品(PBMAs)的基本素食相比,额外摄入中低量红肉的基本素食对健康、福祉和行为的影响(NCT04869163)(1)。本次分析的目的是测量干预措施的坚持情况、营养行为以及参与者对所分配饮食组的体验。80名健康的年轻人以家庭为单位参加了这项为期10周的饮食干预。这对家庭被随机分配到在基本素食的基础上食用大约三份牛羊肉(平均每人每周390克熟肉总重量,灵活饮食组)或PBMAs(350-400克,素食组)。这项干预措施是利用行为改变框架(2)制定和实施的。每天监测饮食坚持情况(吃分配的肉类或 PBMA,不吃研究人员未提供的动物性食物),并在 10 周干预期结束时计算总分。饮食体验通过积极饮食量表和专门设计的退出调查进行测量,食物频率问卷测量饮食摄入量。分析采用混合效应模型,并考虑了家庭聚类因素。在100分的满分中,坚持饮食的平均总分为91.5分(标准差=9.0),灵活饮食组的参与者得分更高(96.1分,标准差=4.6,而灵活饮食组为86.7分,标准差=10.0;p <0.001)。尽管参加研究的主要动机是有机会尝试植物性饮食(35% 的人表示有此兴趣),但与接受 PBMAs 的人相比,接受肉类的人普遍对这种分配更满意。两个干预组的参与者都增加了蔬菜摄入量(p < 0.001),并在为期 10 周的干预结束时报告了与基线值相比更积极的饮食体验(p = 0.020)和饮食满意度(p = 0.021)。鼓励参与试验的行为方法取得了成功,因为参与者对干预措施表现出了极高的依从性。灵活饮食和素食在坚持率和饮食体验方面引起了不同的反应。这对于将红肉和多溴联苯甲醚纳入健康、可持续的饮食模式具有现实意义,而不仅仅是这项研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
190
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Proceedings of the Nutrition Society publishes papers and abstracts presented by members and invited speakers at the scientific meetings of The Nutrition Society. The journal provides an invaluable record of the scientific research currently being undertaken, contributing to ''the scientific study of nutrition and its application to the maintenance of human and animal health.'' The journal is of interest to academics, researchers and clinical practice workers in both human and animal nutrition and related fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信