Genoni Angela, Lo Johnny, Lyons-Wall Philippa, Devine Amanda
School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth 6027, WA, Australia.
School of Science, Edith Cowan University, Perth 6027, WA, Australia.
Nutrients. 2016 Aug 6;8(8):481. doi: 10.3390/nu8080481.
(1) BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The Paleolithic diet has been receiving media coverage in Australia and claims to improve overall health. The diet removes grains and dairy, whilst encouraging consumption of fruits, vegetables, meat, eggs and nuts. Our aim was to compare the diet to the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGHE) in terms of compliance, palatability and feasibility; (2) SUBJECTS/METHODS: 39 healthy women (age 47 ± 13 years, BMI 27 ± 4 kg/m²) were randomised to an ad-libitum Paleolithic (n = 22) or AGHE diet (n = 17) for 4-weeks. A food checklist was completed daily, with mean discretionary consumption (serves/day) calculated to assess compliance. A 12-item questionnaire was administered post intervention to assess palatability and feasibility; (3) RESULTS: The AGHE group reported greater daily consumption of discretionary items (1.0 + 0.6 vs. 0.57 + 0.6 serves/day, p = 0.03). Compared to the AGHE group, the Paleolithic group reported a significantly greater number of events of diarrhoea (23%, 0%, p = 0.046), costs associated with grocery shopping (69%, 6% p < 0.01) and belief that the diet was not healthy (43%, 0% p < 0.01); (4) CONCLUSIONS: Compliance to both diets was high but the potential side effects and increased cost suggest that the Paleolithic diet may not be practical in clinical/public health settings. Further studies are required to assess longer term feasibility.
(1) 背景/目的:旧石器时代饮食法在澳大利亚受到媒体关注,并宣称可改善整体健康状况。该饮食法摒弃谷物和乳制品,同时鼓励食用水果、蔬菜、肉类、蛋类和坚果。我们的目的是在依从性、适口性和可行性方面,将这种饮食法与《澳大利亚健康饮食指南》(AGHE)进行比较;(2) 对象/方法:39名健康女性(年龄47±13岁,体重指数27±4kg/m²)被随机分为两组,一组自由采用旧石器时代饮食法(n = 22),另一组采用AGHE饮食法(n = 17),为期4周。每天完成一份食物清单,计算平均自由摄入量(份/天)以评估依从性。干预后进行一项包含12个条目的问卷调查,以评估适口性和可行性;(3) 结果:AGHE组报告的每日自由摄入量更高(1.0 + 0.6份/天对0.57 + 0.6份/天,p = 0.03)。与AGHE组相比,旧石器时代饮食法组报告的腹泻发生率显著更高(23%对0%,p = 0.046),杂货店购物成本更高(69%对6%,p < 0.01),且认为该饮食法不健康的比例更高(43%对0%,p < 0.01);(4) 结论:两种饮食法的依从性都很高,但潜在的副作用和成本增加表明,旧石器时代饮食法在临床/公共卫生环境中可能不实用。需要进一步研究来评估其长期可行性。