Erratum published on 12 October 2016,
see
Healthcare 2016, 4(4), 76.
Healthcare 2016, 4(3), 71; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare4030071
Comparison of Very Low Energy Diet Products Available in Australia and How to Tailor Them to Optimise Protein Content for Younger and Older Adult Men and Women
Alice A. Gibson 1,2,*
, Janet Franklin 3, Andrea L. Pattinson 1,2, Zilvia G. Y. Cheng 1,2, Samir Samman 4,5, Tania P. Markovic 1,2,3 and Amanda Sainsbury 1,2
, Janet Franklin 3, Andrea L. Pattinson 1,2, Zilvia G. Y. Cheng 1,2, Samir Samman 4,5, Tania P. Markovic 1,2,3 and Amanda Sainsbury 1,2
1
The Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise & Eating Disorders, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia
2
Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia
3
Metabolism & Obesity Services, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown 2050, Australia
4
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
5
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia
1
Metabolism and Obesity Services, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Sampath Parthasarathy
Received: 24 June 2016 / Revised: 24 August 2016 / Accepted: 8 September 2016 / Published: 21 September 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diet Quality)
Abstract
Very low energy diets (VLED) are efficacious in inducing rapid weight loss but may not contain adequate macronutrients or micronutrients for individuals with varying nutritional requirements. Adequate protein intake during weight loss appears particularly important to help preserve fat free mass and control appetite, and low energy and carbohydrate content also contributes to appetite control. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the nutritional content (with a focus on protein), nutritional adequacy and cost of all commercially-available VLED brands in Australia. Nutritional content and cost were extracted and compared between brands and to the Recommended Dietary Intake (RDI) or adequate intake (AI) of macronutrients and micronutrients for men and women aged 19–70 years or >70 years. There was wide variability in the nutritional content, nutritional adequacy and cost of VLED brands. Most notably, even brands with the highest daily protein content, based on consuming three products/day (KicStart™ and Optislim®, ~60 g/day), only met estimated protein requirements of the smallest and youngest women for whom a VLED would be indicated. Considering multiple options to optimise protein content, we propose that adding pure powdered protein is the most suitable option because it minimizes additional energy, carbohydrate and cost of VLEDs. View Full-TextKeywords:
obesity; weight loss; diet reducing; nutritional requirements; dietary protein
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
Share & Cite This Article
MDPI and ACS Style
Gibson, A.A.; Franklin, J.; Pattinson, A.L.; Cheng, Z.G.Y.; Samman, S.; Markovic, T.P.; Sainsbury, A. Comparison of Very Low Energy Diet Products Available in Australia and How to Tailor Them to Optimise Protein Content for Younger and Older Adult Men and Women. Healthcare 2016, 4, 71.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
Related Articles
Article Metrics
Comments
[Return to top]
Healthcare
EISSN 2227-9032
Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland
RSS
E-Mail Table of Contents Alert