Differences in dietary acceptability, restraint, disinhibition, and hunger among African American participants randomized to either a vegan or omnivorous soul food diet.

The Nutritious Eating with Soul study was a 24-month, randomized behavioral nutrition intervention among African American adults. This present study, which is a secondary analysis of the NEW Soul study, examined changes in dietary acceptability, restraint, disinhibition, and hunger. Participants (n = 159; 79% female, 74% with ≥ college degree, mean age 48.4 y) were randomized to either a soul food vegan (n = 77) or soul food omnivorous (n = 82) diet and participated in a two-year behavioral nutrition intervention. Questionnaires assessing dietary acceptability (Food Acceptability Questionnaire; FAQ) and dietary restraint, disinhibition, and hunger (Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire; TFEQ) were completed at baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Mixed models were specified with main effects (group and time) and interaction effects (group by time) to estimate mean differences in FAQ and TFEQ scores using intent-to-treat analysis. After adjusting for employment, education, food security status, sex, and age, there were no differences in any of the FAQ items, total FAQ score, dietary restraint, disinhibition, and hunger at any timepoint except for one item of the FAQ at 12 months. Participants in the vegan group reported a greater increase in satisfaction after eating a meal than the omnivorous group (mean difference 0.80 ± 0.32, 95% CI 0.18, 1.42; P = 0.01). This is one of the first studies to examine differences in dietary acceptability, hunger, and other eating factors among African American adults randomized to either a vegan or omnivorous soul food diet. The findings highlight that plant-based eating styles are equally acceptable to omnivorous eating patterns and have similar changes in hunger, restraint, and disinhibition. These results suggest that plant-based eating styles can be an acceptable dietary pattern to recommend for cardiovascular disease prevention and may result in greater post-meal satisfaction.

The Fasting and Shifted Timing (FAST) of Eating Study: A pilot feasibility randomized crossover intervention assessing the acceptability of three different fasting diet approaches.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this study is to assess the acceptability of following three different fasting protocols [Early Time-restricted Feeding (eTRF; eating majority of kcals before 5pm), Time-restricted Feeding (TRF; restricting feeding window to 8 h/d), or Alternate Day Fasting (ADF; complete fasting every other day)]. METHODS: In this remotely delivered six-week crossover intervention, participants were randomly assigned to follow either an eTRF, TRF, or ADF diet for one week, followed by a one-week washout period. Participants followed all three diets and completed questionnaires assessing self-reported weight, energy intake, dietary acceptability (Food Acceptability Questionnaire), and facilitators and barriers to adhering to each diet. Differences in main outcomes (e.g., dietary acceptability and weight loss) were assessed via repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: A total of 32 of participants began the study (mean BMI of 32.6 ± 6.0 kg/m2). There were no differences in kcals or weight loss among the three diets. Dietary acceptability was higher on the TRF diet (54.1 ± 8.2) than the eTRF (50.2 ± 6.6, p = 0.02) or ADF (48.0 ± 7.9, p = 0.004) diets. The majority of participants (71%) indicated the TRF diet was the easiest to follow and 75% said that ADF was the most difficult. Participants cited having a mobile app to track their diet and being provided with menu plans would help facilitate adherence with their diets. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that acceptability was highest for an TRF diet and lowest for ADF, with no differences in weight loss or change in energy intake among the TRF, ADF, or eTRF groups. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04527952.