Consumption of Tree Nuts as Snacks Reduces Metabolic Syndrome Risk in Young Adults: A Randomized Trial.

Metabolic syndrome (MetSx) and its chronic disease consequences are major public health concerns worldwide. Between-meal snacking may be a modifiable risk factor. We hypothesized that consuming tree nuts as snacks, versus typical carbohydrate snacks, would reduce risk for MetSx in young adults. A prospective, randomized, 16-week parallel-group diet intervention trial was conducted in 84 adults aged 22-36 with BMI 24.5 to 34.9 kg/m2 and ≥1 MetSx clinical risk factor. Tree nuts snacks (TNsnack) were matched to carbohydrate snacks (CHOsnack) for energy (kcal), protein, fiber, and sodium content as part of a 7-day eucaloric menu. Difference in change between groups was tested by analysis of covariance using general linear models. Multivariable linear regression modeling assessed main effects of TNsnack treatment and interactions between TNsnack and sex on MetSx score. Age, BMI, and year of study enrollment were included variables. There was a main effect of TNsnack on reducing waist circumference in females (mean difference: -2.20 ± 0.73 cm, p = 0.004) and a trend toward reduced visceral fat (-5.27 ± 13.05 cm2, p = 0.06). TNsnack decreased blood insulin levels in males (-1.14 ± 1.41 mIU/L, p = 0.05) and multivariable modeling showed a main effect of TNsnack on insulin. Main effects of TNsnack on triglycerides and TG/HDL ratio were observed (p = 0.04 for both) with TG/HDL ratio reduced ~11%. A main effect of TNsnack (p = 0.04) and an interaction effect between TNsnack and sex (p < 0.001) on total MetSx score yielded 67% reduced MetSx score in TNsnack females and 42% reduced MetSx score in TNsnack males. To our knowledge, this is the first randomized parallel-arm study to investigate cardiometabolic responses to TNsnacks versus typical CHOsnacks among young adults at risk of MetSx. Our study suggests daily tree nut consumption reduces MetSx risk by improving waist circumference, lipid biomarkers, and/or insulin sensitivity-without requiring caloric restriction.

Effect of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, compared to caloric restriction, on appetite, dietary intake, body fat distribution and cardiometabolic biomarkers: A randomized trial in adults with obesity and prediabetes.

AIMS: To investigate the hypothesis that weight loss with the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide alone would lead to a greater reduction in the proportion of fat to lean tissue mass when compared to caloric restriction (CR) alone, as well as when compared to treatment with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, that also enhances GLP-1 activity - to determine the independent effects of each treatment. METHODS: A total of 88 adults with obesity and prediabetes were randomized to 14 weeks of intervention with CR (-390 kcal/d), liraglutide (1.8 mg/d), or the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin (100 mg/d) as a weight-neutral comparator. Changes between groups in appetite and hunger ratings measured via visual analogue scales, dietary intakes, body weight, body composition via dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, and resting energy expenditure via indirect calorimetry were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test or Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: Weight loss ≥5% of baseline body weight occurred in 44% of participants in the CR group, 22% of the liraglutide group and 5% of the sitagliptin group (p = 0.02). The ratio of fat to lean mass decreased by 6.5% in the CR group, 2.2% in the liraglutide group, and 0% in the sitagliptin group (p = 0.02). Visceral fat reduced by 9.5% in the CR group, 4.8% in the liraglutide group, and 0% in the sitagliptin group (p = 0.04). A spontaneous reduction in dietary simple carbohydrates in the CR group was associated with improved homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance score (HOMA-IR). CONCLUSIONS: Although both liraglutide and CR are valuable strategies for cardiometabolic risk reduction, CR was associated with greater weight loss and more favourable improvements in body composition than treatment with liraglutide alone. Differences in the response to each of these interventions enables patients to be stratified to the most optimal intervention for their personal risk factors.