Evaluation of weight loss and adipocytokines levels after two hypocaloric diets with different macronutrient distribution in obese subjects with rs9939609 gene variant

Abstract

Metabolic improvement secondary to weight loss was better in A carriers with a low fat hypocaloric diet.

FTO genotype and weight loss in diet and lifestyle interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…For studies that reported results of weight change without exactable data (14,28,29), we contacted the first or corresponding authors to request detailed data; 2 authors replied with the requested data (14,28). We also contacted the authors of the studies that only reported data in dominant genetic models and requested data on additive genetic models (13,15,25,26), although none of them replied to our request. Thus, we did not include these 4 studies in our primary meta-analysis of studies reporting data in additive genetic models.…”

“…In this meta-analysis, each selected study was considered to be a single study unit, and mean weight loss by the FTO genotype groups in the overall study sample, regardless of intervention differences, was taken into account. For studies that reported weight loss for intervention groups separately (15,18,27), we combined the results of different groups with the use of the combining method recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (30). We used the same method to combine results of the FTO TA and AA genotype groups for studies that provided results of additive genetic models (16-21, 24, 31).…”

Reliable systematic review of low-carbohydrate diets shows similar weight-loss effects compared with balanced diets and no cardiovascular risk benefits: Response to methodo­logical criticisms

“…We used data from intention-to-treat analyses (and only if not reported, we used data from per-protocol analyses), and did not report values the wrong way around. Data in the De Luis trials [13,14] can be meta-analysed -there is no problem with combining change and end values in a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. [12] Harcombe and Noakes' [1] use of standardised mean difference (SMD) is inappropriate as all trials reported weight in the same unit (kilograms).…”

Naude et al. avoid answering the essential question: Mistake or mischief?

“…' In addition to this newly announced ITT methodology, which was not set out in their original protocol, the authors added another potential deflection, with an unsolicited reference to 'standard mean difference' , which neither of us used. We used mean weight loss and standard deviations (SDs), as the authors did (apart from the De Luis et al [7,8] studies, for which they used end weight). We converted standard error measurements to SDs where necessary, as the authors did, and we noted that we concurred with the authors' conversion on four occasions, but found them to have erred with this calculation on three other occasions.…”

“…They then used end weight, with no reference to start weight, in two studies, [7,8] which was in breach of their own protocol and absurd. These errors remain unaddressed by the authors.…”