Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A randomized clinical trial of a standard versus vegetarian diet for weight loss: the impact of treatment preference

International Journal of Obesity volume 32, pages 166–176 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Background:

With obesity rampant, methods to achieve sustained weight loss remain elusive.

Objective:

To compare the long-term weight-loss efficacy of 2 cal and fat-restricted diets, standard (omnivorous) versus lacto–ovo–vegetarian, and to determine the effect of a chosen diet versus an assigned diet.

Design, subjects:

A randomized clinical trial was conducted with 176 adults who were sedentary and overweight (mean body mass index, 34.0 kg/m2). Participants were first randomly assigned to either receive their preferred diet or be assigned to a diet group and second, were given their diet of preference or randomly assigned to a standard weight-loss diet or a lacto–ovo–vegetarian diet. Participants underwent a university-based weight-control program consisting of daily dietary and exercise goals plus 12 months of behavioral counseling followed by a 6-month maintenance phase.

Measurements:

Percentage change in body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, low- and high-density lipoprotein, glucose, insulin and macronutrient intake.

Results:

The program was completed by 132 (75%) of the participants. At 18 months, mean percentage weight loss was greater (P=0.01) in the two groups that were assigned a diet (standard, 8.0% (s.d., 7.8%); vegetarian, 7.9% (s.d., 8.1%)) than in those provided the diet of their choice (standard, 3.9% (s.d., 6.1%); vegetarian, 5.3% (s.d., 6.2%)). No difference was observed in weight loss between the two types of diet. Over the 18-month program, all groups showed significant weight loss.

Conclusions:

Participants assigned to their dietary preference did not have enhanced treatment outcomes. However, all groups lost weight with losses ranging from 4 to 8% at 18 months.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. Ogden C, Carroll M, Curtin L, McDowell M, Tabak C, Flegal K . Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999–2004. JAMA 2006; 295/13: 1549–1555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wing RR . Behavioral interventions for obesity: Recognizing our progress and future challenges. Obes Res 2003; 11 (Supp): 3S–5S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wadden TA, Butryn ML, Byrne KJ . Efficacy of lifestyle modification for long-term weight control. Obes Res 2004; 12 (Suppl): 151S–162S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wing RR . Behavioral approaches to the treatment of obesity. In: Bray GA, Bourchard C, James WPT (eds). Handbook of Obesity: Clinical Applications. Marcel Dekker: NY, USA, 2004; 147–167.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Janelle KC, Barr SI . Nutrient intakes and eating behavior scores of vegetarian and nonvegetarian women. J Am Diet Assoc 1995; 95/2: 180–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. White RF, Seymour J, Frank E . Vegetarianism among US women physicians. J Am Diet Assoc 1999; 99/5: 595–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Smith C, Burke LE, Wing R . Vegetarian and weight loss diets among young adults. Obes Res 2000; 8/2: 123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ornish D . Avoiding revascularization with lifestyle changes: The Multicenter Lifestyle Demonstration Project. Am J Cardio 1998; 82: 72T–76T.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ornish D, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH, Gould L, Merritt TA, Sparler S et al. Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease. JAMA 1998; 280: 2001–2007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Newby PK, Tucker KL, Wolk A . Risk of overweight and obesity among semivegitarian, lactovegitarian, and vegan women. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 81: 1267–1274.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Burke LE, Smith CF, Wing RR . Efficacy of a vegetarian diet for weight loss. Obes Res 1999; 7 (Suppl 1): 18S.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Phillips F, Hackett A, Stratton G, Billington D . Effect of changing to a self-selected vegetarian diet on antropometric measurements in UK adults. J Hum Nutr Diet 2004; 17: 249–255.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosell M, Appleby P, Spencer E, Key T . Weight gain over 5 years in 21 966 meat-eating, fish-eating, vegetarian, and vegan men and woman in EPIC-Oxford. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2006; 1–8.

  14. Barnard ND, Scialli AR, Turner-McGrievy G, Lanou AJ . Acceptability of a low-fat vegan diet compares favorably to a step II Diet in a randomized controlled trial. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 2004; 24: 229–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barnard N, Scialli A, Turner-McGrievy G, Lanou A, Glass J . The effect of low-fat, plant-based dietary intervention on body weight, metabolism, and insulin sensitivity. Am J Med 2005; 118: 991–997.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Murray DC . Preferred versus nonpreferred treatment, and self-control training versus determination raising as treatments of obesity: a pilot study. Psychol Rep 1976; 38: 191–198.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mendonca PJ, Brehm SS . Effects of choice on behavioral treatment of overweight children. J Soc Clin Psychol 1983; 1/4: 343–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Renjilian DA, Perri MG, Nezu AM, McKelvey WF, Shermer RL, Anton SD . Individual versus group therapy for obesity: Effects of matching participants to their treatment preferences. J Consult Clin Psychol 2001; 69/4: 717–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M et al. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review. JAMA 2005; 293/9: 1089–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Epstein LH . Role of behavior theory in behavioral medicine. J Consult Clin Psychol 1992; 60/4: 493–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Burke LE, Choo J, Music E, Warziski M, Styn MA, Kim Y et al. PREFER study: a randomized clinical trial testing treatment preference and two dietary options in behavioral weight management—rationale, design and baseline characteristics. Contemp Clin Trials 2006; 27/1: 34–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pocock SJ, Simon RM . Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trials. Biometrics 1975; 31: 103–115.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wing RR . Behavioral approaches to the treatment of obesity. In: Bray GA, Bourchard C, James WPT (eds). Handbook of Obesity. Marcel Dekker: NY, USA, 1998 pp 855–877.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredickson DA . Estimation of the concentration of low-density cholesterol in plasma without the use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem 1972; 18: 499–502.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jakicic J, Winters C, Lang W, Wing R . Effects of intermittent exercise and use of home exercise equipment on adherence, weight loss, and fitness in overweight women: a randomized trial. JAMA 1999; 282/16: 1554–1560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Daby R . Expressed preference for, and assignment to one of two weight loss programs: effects on weight loss and weight loss maintenance. Psychology 1988. Tennessee, Vanderbilt 113.

  27. Fuller TC . The role of patient preferences for treatment type in the modification of weight loss behavior. Unpublished Dissertation 1988; Michigan State University.

  28. Osterberg L, Blaschke TF . Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med 2005; 353/5: 487–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Golin CE, DiMatteo MR, Gelberg L . The role of patient participation in the doctor visit: implications for adherence to diabetes care. Diabetes Care 1996; 19/10: 1153–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Feldman R, Bacher M, Campbell N, Drover A, Chockalingam A . Adherence to pharmacologic management of hypertension. Can J Public Health 1998; 89/5: I16–I18.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Smith CF, Burke LE, Wing RR . Young adults remain on vegetarian diets longer than on weight loss diets. Ann Behav Med 1999; 21 (Supp): 90.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tate DF, Jackvony EH, Wing RR . Effects of internet behavioral counseling on weight loss in adults at risk for type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. JAMA 2003; 289/14: 1833–1836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bish CL, Blanck HM, Serdula MK, Marcus M, Kohl III HW, Khan LK . Diet and physical activity behaviors among Americans trying to lose weight: 2000 Behavioral risk factor surveillance system. Obes Res 2005; 13/3: 596–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Weiss EC, Galuska DA, Khan LK, Serdula MK . Weight-control practices among US adults, 2001–2002. Am J Prev Med 2006; 31/1: 18–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants NIH, NIDDK, no. RO1-DK58631. The conduct of the study was also supported by the Data Management Core of the Center for Research in Chronic Disorders NIH-NINR no. P30-NR03924, the Obesity and Nutrition Research Center NIH-NIDDK no. DK-046204, the Heinz Nutrition Laboratory and the General Clinical Research Center, NIH-NCRR-GCRC no. 5MO1-RR00056 at the University of Pittsburgh. We thank the study participants who graciously shared their time and information with us.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health and Community Systems and the Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    L E Burke

  2. Department of Health and Community Systems, University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    M Warziski, M A Styn & E Music

  3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    A G Hudson

  4. Department of Health and Community Systems and the Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics and Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    S M Sereika

Authors
  1. L E Burke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M Warziski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M A Styn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E Music
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A G Hudson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S M Sereika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L E Burke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burke, L., Warziski, M., Styn, M. et al. A randomized clinical trial of a standard versus vegetarian diet for weight loss: the impact of treatment preference. Int J Obes 32, 166–176 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803706

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803706

Keywords

  • treatment preference
  • lacto–ovo–vegetarian
  • behavioral weight-loss treatment
  • randomized clinical trial

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links