An 8-week freeze-dried blueberry supplement impacts immune-related pathways: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Blueberries contain high levels of polyphenolic compounds with high in vitro antioxidant capacities. Their consumption has been associated with improved vascular and metabolic health. PURPOSE: The objective was to examine the effects of blueberry supplement consumption on metabolic syndrome (MetS) parameters and potential underlying mechanisms of action. METHODS: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled intervention trial was conducted in adults at risk of developing MetS. Participants consumed 50 g daily of either a freeze-dried highbush blueberry powder (BBP) or a placebo powder for 8 weeks (n = 49). MetS phenotypes were assessed at weeks 0, 4 and 8. Fasting blood gene expression profiles and plasma metabolomic profiles were examined at baseline and week 8 to assess metabolic changes occurring in response to the BBP. A per-protocol analysis was used. RESULTS: A significant treatment effect was observed for plasma triglyceride levels that was no longer significant after further adjustments for age, sex, BMI and baseline values. In addition, the treatment*time interactions were non-significant therefore suggesting that compared with the placebo, BBP had no statistically significant effect on body weight, blood pressure, fasting plasma lipid, insulin and glucose levels, insulin resistance (or sensitivity) or glycated hemoglobin concentrations. There were significant changes in the expression of 49 genes and in the abundance of 35 metabolites following BBP consumption. Differentially regulated genes were clustered in immune-related pathways. CONCLUSION: An 8-week BBP intervention did not significantly improve traditional markers of cardiometabolic health in adults at risk of developing MetS. However, changes in gene expression and metabolite abundance suggest that clinically significant cardiometabolic changes could take longer than 8 weeks to present and/or could result from whole blueberry consumption or a higher dosage. BBP may also have an effect on factors such as immunity even within a shorter 8-week timeframe. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03266055 , 2017.

Strengthening the Reporting of Nutritional Genomics Research to Inform Knowledge Translation in Personalized Nutrition.

The ultimate goal of researching nutrigenetic interactions is to be able to provide individuals with genetically-tailored nutrition advice (when evidence is sufficient) in an effort to optimize health outcomes. Accordingly, original research often discusses the potential for the results to inform genetically-tailored nutrition advice. Despite this, many studies do not report their methods, results, and discussion in a manner that is conducive to knowledge translation. With several consumer nutritional genomics companies now offering genetic testing for personalized nutrition, proper reporting of nutritional genomics research for knowledge translation is of vital importance. Common reporting errors relate to SNP and genotype reporting, results lacking detail, consideration of linkage disequilibrium, mechanisms of action/functional SNPs, details of dietary intake, and sample reporting. Because of this, knowledge translation professionals may be unable or challenged in their attempt to use the findings from such research to inform clinical practice in nutritional genomics and personalized nutrition. The present article provides an overview of the issues at hand. It further pre-sents a checklist as well as table and figure templates for researchers to use when reporting the results of original research in nutritional genomics to inform knowledge translation.

The Ontario Public Does Not Understand the Difference Between Registered Dietitians and Unregulated "Nutritionists": Results from a Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Current Ontario healthcare policy permits anyone to use the title "nutritionist" and practice as a clinician regardless of education and training. The title "dietitian," on the other hand, is protected under the Dietetics Act (1991) for use exclusively by individuals who undergo rigorous education and training in evidence-based nutrition. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to: identify whether the Ontario general public understands the difference between a registered dietitian (RD) and an unregulated "nutritionist;" understand experiences with RDs and "nutritionists;" and determine if the current nutrition landscape arising from gaps in healthcare policy has the potential to harm the public. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed methods survey study was carried out using inductive content analysis, descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 402) did not understand the difference between RDs and "nutritionists." Overall, public experiences have been significantly more positive when nutrition information/advice stemmed from an RD. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides justification for proposed legislative amendments to the Dietetics Act (1991) and the Regulated Health Professions Act (1991). These proposed amendments have been detailed in the full-text manuscript.

Exploring Attitudes, Subjective Norms and Perceived Behavioural Control in a Genetic-Based and a Population-Based Weight Management Intervention: A One-Year Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies demonstrate that the provision of personalized lifestyle advice, based on genetics, can help motivate individuals to engage in greater nutrition and physical activity changes compared to the provision of population-based advice. The theoretical mechanism behind this phenomenon is poorly understood. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of providing genetically tailored and population-based lifestyle advice on key constructs of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial (n = 140) took place at the East Elgin Family Health Team, in Aylmer, Ontario, Canada. Participants were primarily Caucasian females enrolled in a weight management program (BMI ≥ 25.0 kg/m2). Weight management program groups were randomized (1:1) to receive a population-based lifestyle intervention for weight management (Group Lifestyle Balance™ (GLB)) or a lifestyle genomics (LGx)-based lifestyle intervention for weight management (GLB+LGx). Attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control were measured at baseline, immediately after receiving a report of population-based or genetic-based recommendations and after 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Linear mixed models were conducted, controlling for measures of actual behavioural control. All analyses were intention-to-treat by originally assigned groups. RESULTS: Significant changes (p < 0.05) in attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control tended to be short-term in the GLB group and long-term for the GLB+LGx group. Short-term and long-term between-group differences in measures of subjective norms were discovered, favouring the GLB+LGx group. CONCLUSIONS: The TPB can help provide a theoretical explanation for studies demonstrating enhanced behaviour change with genetic-based lifestyle interventions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03015012.

Enhanced long-term dietary change and adherence in a nutrigenomics-guided lifestyle intervention compared to a population-based (GLB/DPP) lifestyle intervention for weight management: results from the NOW randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to nutritional guidelines for chronic disease prevention and management remains a challenge in clinical practice. Innovative strategies are needed to help optimise dietary behaviour change. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine if a nutrigenomics-guided lifestyle intervention programme could be used to motivate greater dietary adherence and change in dietary intake short-term, moderate-term and long-term compared to the gold-standard population-based weight management intervention (Group Lifestyle Balance (GLB)/Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP)). DESIGN: The Nutrigenomics, Overweight/Obesity, and Weight Management (NOW) randomised controlled trial is a pragmatic, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial (n=140), which was conducted at the East Elgin Family Health Team (EEFHT). GLB weight management groups were prerandomised 1:1 to receive either the standard GLB programme or a modified GLB+nutrigenomics (GLB+NGx) programme. Three 24-hour recalls were collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months using the validated multiple pass method. Research assistants collecting the three 24-hour recalls were blinded to the participants' group assignments. Statistical analyses included split plot analyses of variance (ANOVAs), two-way ANOVAs, binary logistic regression, χ2 and Fisher's exact tests. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour as guidance, key confounding factors of behaviour change were considered in the analyses. This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03015012). RESULTS: Only the GLB+NGx group significantly reduced their total fat intake from baseline to 12-month follow-up (from 36.0%±4.8% kcal to 30.2%±8.7% kcal, p=0.02). Long-term dietary adherence to total fat and saturated fat guidelines was also significantly (p<0.05) greater in the GLB+NGx group compared to the standard GLB group. CONCLUSIONS: Weight management interventions guided by nutrigenomics can motivate long-term improvements in dietary fat intake above and beyond gold-standard population-based interventions.

Can a Lifestyle Genomics Intervention Motivate Patients to Engage in Greater Physical Activity than a Population-Based Intervention? Results from the NOW Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle genomics (LGx) is a science that explores interactions between genetic variation, lifestyle components such as physical activity (PA), and subsequent health- and performance-related outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine whether an LGx intervention could motivate enhanced engagement in PA to a greater extent than a population-based intervention. METHODS: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, participants received either the standard, population-based Group Lifestyle BalanceTM (GLB) program intervention or the GLB program in addition to the provision of LGx information and advice (GLB + LGx). Participants (n = 140) completed a 7-day PA recall at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Data from the PA recalls were used to calculate metabolic equivalents (METs), a measure of energy expenditure. Statistical analyses included split plot analyses of covariance and binary logistic regression (generalized linear models). Differences in leisure time PA weekly METs, weekly minutes of moderate + high-intensity PA, and adherence to PA guidelines were compared between groups (GLB and GLB + LGx) across the 4 time points. RESULTS: Weekly METs were significantly higher in the GLB + LGx group (1,114.7 ± 141.9; 95% CI 831.5-1,397.8) compared to the standard GLB group (621.6 ± 141.9 MET/week; 95% CI 338.4-904.8) at the 6-month follow-up (p = 0.01). All other results were non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of an LGx intervention resulted in a greater weekly leisure time PA energy expenditure after the 6-month follow-up. Future research should determine how this could be sustained over the long-term. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03015012.

Change in Weight, BMI, and Body Composition in a Population-Based Intervention Versus Genetic-Based Intervention: The NOW Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare changes in body fat percentage (BFP), weight, and BMI between a standard intervention and a nutrigenomics intervention. METHODS: The Nutrigenomics, Overweight/Obesity and Weight Management (NOW) trial is a parallel-group, pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial incorporated into the Group Lifestyle BalanceTM (GLB) Program. Statistical analyses included two-way ANOVA and split-plot ANOVA. Inclusion criteria consisted of: BMI ≥ 25.0 kg/m2 , ≥18 years of age, English speaking, willing to undergo genetic testing, having internet access, and not seeing another health care provider for weight-loss advice outside of the study. Pregnancy and lactation were exclusion criteria. GLB groups were randomly assigned 1 to 1 (N = 140) so that participants received either the standard 12-month GLB program or a modified 12-month program (GLB plus nutrigenomics), which included the provision of nutrigenomics information and advice for weight management. The primary outcome was percent change in BFP. Secondary outcomes were change in weight and BMI. RESULTS: The GLB plus nutrigenomics group experienced significantly (P < 0.05) greater reductions in percent and absolute BFP at the 3-month follow-up and percent BFP at the 6-month follow-up compared with the standard GLB group. CONCLUSIONS: The nutrigenomics intervention used in the NOW trial can optimize change in body composition up to 6 months.

Assessing the effectiveness of actionable nutrigenomics and lifestyle genomics interventions for weight management in clinical practice: A critical, scoping review with directions for future research.

BACKGROUND: The use of nutrigenomics and lifestyle genomics in clinical practice has the potential to optimize weight-related outcomes for patients. AIM: A scoping review was conducted to summarize and evaluate the current body of knowledge related to the effectiveness of providing DNA-based lifestyle advice on weight-related outcomes, with the aim of providing direction for future research. METHOD: Primary studies were included if they were written in English, evaluated weight-related and/or body mass index and/or body composition outcomes, and provided participants with an actionable genetic-based lifestyle intervention; interventions that only provided information on genetic risk for diseases/conditions were excluded. Data was extracted from each article meeting inclusion criteria (N=3) and the studies were critically appraised for methodological limitations. RESULTS: Research in this area is promising, but limited. Specific limitations relate to study designs, the nature of the recommendations provided to participants, small (underpowered) sample sizes, the use of self-reported weight/BMI data and lack of consideration of important confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, the effectiveness of nutrigenomics and lifestyle genomics interventions for weight management in clinical practice cannot yet be conclusively determined. Recommendations for future research are detailed in the present manuscript.

Assessing the Validity of the Past-Month, Online Canadian Diet History Questionnaire II Pre and Post Nutrition Intervention.

Dietary intake tools are used in epidemiological and interventional studies to estimate nutritional intake. The past-month Canadian Diet History Questionnaire II (CDHQII) has not yet been validated. This study aimed to assess the validity of the CDHQII in adults by comparing dietary results from the CDHQII to the same participants' 24-h recalls consisting of two weekdays and one weekend day. The recalls were collected using the validated multiple-pass method. Participants were asked to complete both tools at baseline, and again at 3-month follow-up. The study further aimed to determine which dietary intake tool was preferred by study participants by comparing completion rates. Data collection occurred at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-month follow-up (post-intervention). Paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare means for the following nutrients (grams and %kcal): calories, protein, carbohydrates, total fat, saturated fat, unsaturated fat and sodium. Intraclass correlation coefficients of agreement and coefficients of variation were further calculated. Chi-square tests were used to determine the dietary assessment method with the greatest participant completion rate. At baseline (n = 104), there were no significant differences between the results of the CDHQII and three 24-h recalls (averaged), with overall moderate correlation coefficients. At 3-months (n = 53), there were significant differences (p < 0.05) between dietary intake collection methods for all nutrients assessed in this study, except for saturated fat (%kcal), unsaturated fat (%kcal), protein (%kcal) and sodium (mg). Correlation coefficients were moderate. A significantly greater proportion of participants completed the three 24-h recalls compared to the CDHQII after 3 months (completion rates of 67.2% vs. 50.8% of the sample, respectively). The CDHQII provided estimates of mean nutritional intake (calories, macronutrients and sodium) that were comparable to mean intake established from three 24-h recalls, at baseline and was validated in a sample of primarily middle-aged, college-educated, Caucasian female adults with overweight and obesity for mean baseline or cross-sectional measurement only but not for assessing individual/patient dietary intake in clinical practice (r = 0.30-0.68). This tool was not validated at 3-month follow-up. Additionally, participants preferred the three 24-h recalls to the online, past-month CDHQII.

Biological plausibility for interactions between dietary fat, resveratrol, ACE2, and SARS-CoV illness severity.

The angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) cellular receptor is responsible for the pathogenesis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), thus impacting the entrance and clearance of the virus. Studies demonstrate that upregulation of ACE2 has a protective effect on SARS-CoV-2 illness severity. Moreover, animal studies demonstrate that dietary intake can modulate ACE2 gene expression and function. A high intake of resveratrol may have a protective role, upregulating ACE2, whereas a high intake of dietary fat may have a detrimental role, downregulating ACE2. As such, we postulate on the biological plausibility of interactions between dietary fat and/or resveratrol and ACE2 gene variations in the modulation of SARS-CoV-2 illness severity. We call to action the research community to test this plausible interaction in a sample of human subjects.

Sport Nutrigenomics: Personalized Nutrition for Athletic Performance.

An individual's dietary and supplement strategies can influence markedly their physical performance. Personalized nutrition in athletic populations aims to optimize health, body composition, and exercise performance by targeting dietary recommendations to an individual's genetic profile. Sport dietitians and nutritionists have long been adept at placing additional scrutiny on the one-size-fits-all general population dietary guidelines to accommodate various sporting populations. However, generic "one-size-fits-all" recommendations still remain. Genetic differences are known to impact absorption, metabolism, uptake, utilization and excretion of nutrients and food bioactives, which ultimately affects a number of metabolic pathways. Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics are experimental approaches that use genomic information and genetic testing technologies to examine the role of individual genetic differences in modifying an athlete's response to nutrients and other food components. Although there have been few randomized, controlled trials examining the effects of genetic variation on performance in response to an ergogenic aid, there is a growing foundation of research linking gene-diet interactions on biomarkers of nutritional status, which impact exercise and sport performance. This foundation forms the basis from which the field of sport nutrigenomics continues to develop. We review the science of genetic modifiers of various dietary factors that impact an athlete's nutritional status, body composition and, ultimately athletic performance.

Study protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial incorporated into the Group Lifestyle Balance™ program: the nutrigenomics, overweight/obesity and weight management trial (the NOW trial).

BACKGROUND: The nutrigenomics, overweight/obesity and weight management trial (NOW Trial) is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of community-dwelling adults recruited from the Group Lifestyle Balance™ (GLB™) Program. The GLB™ Program (formerly referred to as the Diabetes Prevention Program) is an evidence-based, intensive weight management program, which was offered to overweight/obese patients (BMI ≥ 25.0 kg/m2) in a rural Ontario community. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the GLB™ Program were invited to participate in this study. GLB™ groups were randomized 1:1 to receive either the standard GLB™ program + population-based lifestyle advice for weight management, or a modified GLB™ program + personalized, genetic-based lifestyle advice for weight management. The purpose of this study is to determine if the provision of genetic-based lifestyle guidelines is superior to the provision of population-based guidelines in a pragmatic clinical setting to promote changes in: body composition, weight, body mass index, dietary and physical activity habits, as well as attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioural control. The 12-month intervention protocol consists of 23 group-based sessions and 4 one-on-one sessions. Data collection time points include baseline in addition to 3, 6, and 12-month follow up. The comprehensive study design is described in the present manuscript, using both the extended CONSORT checklist for reporting pragmatic trials and the SPIRIT checklist as guidance during manuscript development. DISCUSSION: Overall, this study seeks to pragmatically determine if the provision of DNA-based lifestyle advice leads to improved health and lifestyle outcomes compared to the provision of standard, population-based lifestyle advice. The results of this trial can be used to inform clinical and community nutrition practice guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov : NCT03015012 on January 9, 2017.

"Detoxify or Die": Qualitative Assessments of Ontario Nutritionists' and Dietitians' Blog Posts Related to Detoxification Diets.

While the title Registered Dietitian (RD) is regulated under provincial legislation in Ontario and other Canadian provinces, the title "nutritionist" is not regulated in Ontario, which poses potential risks to consumers who place misguided trust in those proclaiming to be nutrition experts. This is concerning as nutrition is a complex health care discipline and RDs, the recognized providers of credible nutrition information, must be registered with an accredited regulatory college that requires them to have undergone rigorous training, practicum placements, entrance examinations, and continuous professional development. The purpose of this study was to determine if Ontario-based unregulated nutritionists and RDs are providing safe, evidence-based, information regarding detoxification diets. Content from 10 blog posts were qualitatively analyzed using deductive content analysis with predetermined categorization matrices. The results revealed that Ontario nutritionists promoted detox diets and provided unproven, misleading, and potentially harmful information, whereas Ontario RDs did not promote detox diets and provided evidence-based, harm-reducing information. Additionally, conflicts of interest arose only in nutritionists' blog posts. RDs provided credible references for their information while nutritionists did not. Protecting the term "nutritionist" for use exclusively by RDs under provincial legislation would be a positive step towards ensuring Ontarians are receiving the highest quality evidence-based nutrition information.

A Systematic Review of Genetic Testing and Lifestyle Behaviour Change: Are We Using High-Quality Genetic Interventions and Considering Behaviour Change Theory?

BACKGROUND: Studying the impact of genetic testing interventions on lifestyle behaviour change has been a priority area of research in recent years. Substantial heterogeneity exists in the results and conclusions of this literature, which has yet to be explained using validated behaviour change theory and an assessment of the quality of genetic interventions. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) helps to explain key contributors to behaviour change. It has been hypothesized that personalization could be added to this theory to help predict changes in health behaviours. PURPOSE: This systematic review provides a detailed, comprehensive identification, assessment, and summary of primary research articles pertaining to lifestyle behaviour change (nutrition, physical activity, sleep, and smoking) resulting from genetic testing interventions. The present review further aims to provide in-depth analyses of studies conducted to date within the context of the TPB and the quality of genetic interventions provided to participants while aiming to determine whether or not genetic testing facilitates changes in lifestyle habits. This review is timely in light of a recently published "call-to-action" paper, highlighting the need to incorporate the TPB into personalized healthcare behaviour change research. METHODS: Three bibliographic databases, one key website, and article reference lists were searched for relevant primary research articles. The PRISMA Flow Diagram and PRISMA Checklist were used to guide the search strategy and manuscript preparation. Out of 32,783 titles retrieved, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. Three quality assessments were conducted and included: (1) risk of bias, (2) quality of genetic interventions, and (3) consideration of theoretical underpinnings - primarily the TPB. RESULTS: Risk of bias in studies was overall rated to be "fair." Consideration of the TPB was "poor," with no study making reference to this validated theory. While some studies (n = 11; 42%) made reference to other behaviour change theories, these theories were generally mentioned briefly, and were not thoroughly incorporated into the study design or analyses. The genetic interventions provided to participants were overall of "poor" quality. However, a separate analysis of studies using controlled intervention research methods demonstrated the use of higher-quality genetic interventions (overall rated to be "fair"). The provision of actionable recommendations informed by genetic testing was more likely to facilitate behaviour change than the provision of genetic information without actionable lifestyle recommendations. Several studies of good quality demonstrated changes in lifestyle habits arising from the provision of genetic interventions. The most promising lifestyle changes were changes in nutrition. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to facilitate behaviour change using genetic testing as the catalyst. Future research should ensure that high-quality genetic interventions are provided to participants, and should consider validated theories such as the TPB in their study design and analyses. Further recommendations for future research are provided.