Diet, but not food type, significantly affects micronutrient and toxic metal profiles in urine and/or plasma; a randomized, controlled intervention trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have linked Mediterranean Diets (MedDiets) and organic food consumption with positive health outcomes, which may be explained by higher mineral micronutrient and phenolic intake and lower dietary exposure to toxic compounds. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the effects of diet and food type (organic compared with conventional) on urinary excretion (UE) and/or plasma concentrations of mineral micronutrients, phenolics, and toxic metals. METHODS: Healthy adult participants were randomly allocated to a conventional (n = 14) or an intervention (n = 13) group. During a 2-wk period, the intervention group consumed a MedDiet made entirely from organic foods, whereas the conventional group consumed a MedDiet made from conventional foods. Before and after the intervention period, both groups consumed their habitual Western diets made from conventional foods. The primary outcome was UE and/or plasma concentrations of selected mineral micronutrients, toxic metals, and phenolic markers. In addition, we monitored diets using food diaries. The participants were aware of study group assignment, but the study assessors were not. RESULTS: Changing from a Western Diet to a MedDiet for 2 wk resulted in significant increases in UE of total phenolics and salicylic acid (by 46% and 45%, respectively), the mineral micronutrients Co, I, and Mn (by 211%, 70%, and 102%, respectively), and the toxic metal Ni (by 42%), and plasma Se concentrations (by 14%). However, no significant effects of food type (organic compared with conventional) were detected. Redundancy analysis identified vegetables, coffee, wine, and fruit as positive drivers for UE of phenolic markers and mineral micronutrients, and fish consumption as a positive driver for UE of Cd and Pb. CONCLUSIONS: Although small effects of food type cannot be ruled out, our study suggests that only changing to a MedDiet with higher fruit and vegetable, and lower meat, consumption results in a large increase in phenolic and mineral micronutrient intakes. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03254537.

Agreement between the GLIM criteria and PG-SGA in a mixed patient population at a nutrition outpatient clinic.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria is a step-wise process including a screening tool of choice for risk assessment of malnutrition before assessment of diagnosis and grading of malnutrition severity. The agreement between GLIM and the established malnutrition assessment method Patient Generated-Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) is uncertain. Also, several aspects of GLIM remain to be clearly defined. In this study, we compared diagnosis of malnutrition with the GLIM criteria to the PG-SGA, and explored the differences between the methods. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Nutrition Outpatient Clinic at Oslo University Hospital, Norway. Patients were included from September-December 2019. Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) was used as the screening tool in the GLIM process before diagnosing and grading the severity of malnutrition. Results are presented with and without the initial risk screening. The diagnostic results from the GLIM process were compared to the malnutrition diagnosis using the PG-SGA. RESULTS: In total, 144 patients, median age 58 years, participated in the study. The full GLIM process identified 36% of the patients as malnourished, while the PG-SGA identified 69% of the patients as malnourished. Comparison of GLIM and PG-SGA showed fair agreement, however the agreement was better when the NRS-2002 screening was excluded. Considering the PG-SGA a gold standard, GLIM had a sensitivity of 51% and a specificity of 98%. The introduction of new cut-off values for fat-free mass did not considerably alter the diagnosis of malnutrition within GLIM. CONCLUSIONS: The GLIM criteria showed only fair agreement with the PG-SGA, however the agreement was better when the initial NRS-2002 screening was excluded. A joint consensus on how to perform the GLIM process is needed for comparisons of future studies, and before routine use in clinical practice.