300,000+ clinical trials. Find the right one.

123 active trials for Overweight

Network Meta-analyses of Artificially Sweetened Beverages and Cardiometabolic Risk

Sugars especially in form or sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) have been singled out as one of the prime culprits in the dual epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs) provide a potentially important means for displacing excess calories from free sugars in the diet. There is, however, a concern that the use of ASBs may themselves contribute to an increased risk of obesity and diabetes. This concern led the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for American Committee (DGAC) to recommend that sugars in the diet not be replaced with ASBs but rather with "healthy options" such as water. Whether ASBs as a replacement strategy for SSBs have the intended benefits and whether these benefits are similar to those of the preferred replacement strategy water remains unclear. To address this important question and update of the European Association of the Study (EASD) clinical practice guidelines for nutrition therapy, the investigators propose to conduct a series of systematic reviews and network meta-analyses of the totality of the evidence from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effects of water and ASBs on incident overweight and obesity and cardiometabolic risk factors. The findings generated by this proposed knowledge synthesis will help improve the health of consumers through informing evidence/base guidelines and improving health outcomes by educating healthcare providers and patients, stimulating industry innovations, and guiding future research design.

Start: November 2015
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Differential Effects of DHA and EPA on Inflammation

According to the World Health Organization, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the number 1 cause of death globally. Systemic and local tissue inflammation is now recognized as a key etiological process leading to CVD. Hence, elevated blood levels of inflammation markers are classified among the well-established risk factors for the development of CVD. Among nutritional strategies to prevent and/or reduce chronic inflammation, long-chain omega 3 PUFA (LCn-3PUFA), notably eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), have raised tremendous interest for their purported anti-inflammatory effects. Previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) substantiated the anti-inflammatory effect of LCn-3PUFA supplementation as evidenced by significant reductions in plasma concentrations of specific inflammation markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha). However, it is stressed that almost all of the reported RCTs have used a mix of EPA and DHA in various ratios, as EPA and DHA occur concomitantly and naturally in food (fish oils) and in most dietary supplements. Yet, several recent RCTs have recently been undertaken to test the hypothesis that not all LCn-3PUFAs are equal, at least when it comes to their anti-inflammatory effects. Accordingly, there is increasing interest and evidence for potential distinctive effects of DHA compared to EPA on systemic inflammation, raising the question: Is DHA a more potent anti-inflammatory nutrient than EPA? To formally answer this question, we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to assess and compare the individual anti-inflammatory effects of DHA and of EPA. The present work will be a pairwise and network meta-analysis focusing on RCTs comparing the effects of EPA and DHA on surrogate markers of systemic inflammation. The findings generated by these analyses will provide invaluable and timely comparative information on the specific efficacy of DHA and EPA as one of the key nutritional modalities for the treatment of chronic inflammation in high-risk men and women. This is important considering that LCn-3PUFA supplements are increasingly being used by the population and an ever growing market in the dietary supplements' industry.

Start: April 2018
Meta-analyses of Nuts and Risk of Obesity

Peanuts and tree nuts (almonds, pistachios, walnuts, pecans, pine nuts, Brazil nuts, cashews, hazelnuts, macadamia nuts) (herein referred to as "nuts") are a good source of unsaturated fatty acids, vegetable protein, fibre, and polyphenolics. Nut intake has been associated with reduced cardiovascular disease risk and claims for this association have been permitted by the FDA; however, intake of tree nuts is low in Canada. One of the barriers to increasing the consumption of nuts is the perception that they may contribute to weight gain more than other "healthy foods" owing to their high energy density. The evidence supporting this concern, however, is lacking. In a series of earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses, we have shown that nuts improve glycemic control and metabolic syndrome criteria, findings which run contrary to any expected weight gain. However, it remains unclear whether nuts have an increasing, neutral, or even decreasing effect on body weight. To address the uncertainties, the investigators propose to conduct a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the totality of the evidence from randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies to investigate the effect of nut consumption on body weight and adiposity. The findings generated by this proposed knowledge synthesis will help improve the health of consumers through informing evidence-based guidelines and improving health outcomes by educating healthcare providers and patients, stimulating industry innovation, and guiding future research design

Start: October 2015
Functional Snack Foods With Safflower Oil and Soy in Postmenopausal Women Having Metabolic Syndrome

This research study is being done to help researchers develop new dietary options for menopausal women to maintain a healthy weight by developing more nutritious snacks that have health benefits. From this study, the researchers hope to gain understanding on how menopausal women with metabolic syndrome digest and absorb foods with safflower oil on its own and when combined with soy. The research team hypothesize that the two different types of pretzels may be processed by your body differently and that components in the pretzel snacks may be helpful for preventing diseases like obesity and cancer. Safflower oil and soybeans contain many natural chemicals that may benefit human health. However, this relationship is not well understood. This study will look at the impact of the pretzel snacks on your blood fat and glucose levels as well as a group of chemicals found in soy called "isoflavones". Isoflavones are natural chemicals found commonly in soybeans or foods made from them. Participants will be screened to determine if they qualify in meeting the study requirements. Participants cannot have a known allergy to dairy, soy, safflower oil, or wheat protein. Also, participants will be asked to stop eating legumes (beans, peas, soy protein, sprouts and peanuts) and to document the oils they eat for the entire 14 weeks of this study. The study will require five visits to the Ohio State University Clinical Research Center (CRC) which part of the Ohio State University's Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences. Once the investigators have determined that you qualify for this study and you decide to participate, you will be consuming three different pretzels each for one month, starting with a control pretzel. After the control pretzel treatment period, you will be randomly assigned (like the "flip of a coin") to start with one of the two pretzel groups (wheat or soy pretzel with safflower oil) for your first treatment period and then switch to the other safflower oil pretzel at your second treatment period.

Start: July 2014