Background: Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), are chronic, immune-mediated inflammatory conditions of the gastrointestinal tract, which have increasingly been linked to dysbiosis, or an imbalance in the gut microbiome. Standard of care for IBD involves an often-evolving combination of anti-inflammatory, antibiotic, and immunomodulatory medications; however, the pharmacological approach is never curative, and medications routinely become ineffective for individual patients. Partially fueled by the increasing inadequacy of pharmacologic treatment regimens, there is emerging interest from patients regarding diet and its role in the pathogenesis and treatment of inflammatory diseases, demanding more in-depth and substantiating research from the medical community. The Anti-Inflammatory Diet for IBD (IBD-AID), which is derived and augmented from The Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD), is a nutritional regimen that restricts the intake of pro-inflammatory carbohydrates such as refined sugar, lactose, and most grains, while maximizing anti-inflammatory foods including those with prebiotic and probiotic properties. We have previous results from a case series of 11 patients with IBD showing symptomatic improvement (by Harvey Bradshaw Index scores) and downscaling of medication regimens in all 11 patients after 4 weeks on the IBD-AID. Objectives: The purpose of this small prospective study was to further assess the efficacy and feasibility of the IBD-AID intervention for the treatment of CD, and to provide pilot data for a larger application. Methods: The sample included 17 patients with biopsy-confirmed Crohn’s disease. Participants were offered the treatment diet (IBD-AID) (n=12) or standard medical care alone (control) (n=5). Patients in the IBD-AID group were required to attend one individual nutrition counseling session and three IBD-AID-specific cooking classes at the University of Massachusetts Medical School’s Shaw Building teaching kitchen. The control group continued with usual care. For all participants, demographic, clinical, and symptom data were obtained from baseline and follow-up questionnaires; dietary composition was monitored by weekly dietary recalls and food journals. All participants continued to follow with their gastroenterologists throughout the study duration. Study duration was 2 months after 70% adherence to the diet for IBD-AID participants, and 2 months after baseline for control participants. Consistent with the goals for any treatment used for CD, efficacy measures included: 1) reduction in symptomology, as measured by the validated Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI); 2) reduction in the need of immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory medications; and 3) normalizing trend in circulating inflammatory markers (i.e., CRP and ESR), albumin, and hematocrit. Feasibility measures included participant retention, dietary compliance, and participants’ self-assessments of difficulty in maintaining the diet. Results: A total of 15 enrolled patients with confirmed diagnosis of Crohn’s Disease, 5 in observation arm, 10 in intervention arm. Significant trends in dietary composition included significant increases in prebiotic and favorable dietary components, and decrease in adverse foods for the group as a whole (paired t-test values 0.0016, 0.0344, 0.0085, and 0.0014, respectively). For those patients on medication at baseline and with complete follow-up (n=9), one-third were able to decrease doses of or discontinue these medications. In addition, lab values reflected symptomatic improvements in two of our intervention patients, with changes in CRP, ESR, and hematocrit levels of -55.9 and -1.4, -30.0 and -15.0, and +5.4 and +0.3, respectively, with corresponding symptomatic improvements (HBI scores 1à7 and 8à0, respectively). No significance can be assigned, however, due to low sample size and loss to follow-up. Feasibility measures include a significant loss to follow-up rate of 33.3%, as well as an average “difficulty score” of 3.1, reflecting participants’ views on the difficult nature of “sticking with” the IBD-AID (scored on scale of 1-5, very easy to very difficult). Conclusion: Despite the study’s limitations, as well as because of them, several conclusions can be drawn. The trends noticed in the participants’ dietary component reports, and supported by participants’ self-evaluation, reveal that it is relatively easy to eliminate problem foods from the diet, but adding unfamiliar foods, particularly from the probiotic category such as plain yogurt, kimchi, miso, sauerkraut, etc., is a huge barrier to maintaining compliance. This trend may be a partial reflection of the Western food and dieting culture in which our daily meals are relatively homogenous. We are also brought up from a young age learning that “dieting” and “healthy eating” means cutting out the bad, but not necessarily bringing in the good and/or new. Despite lack of statistical significance, the two patients who exhibited normalizing lab values, in combination with their improved HBI scores, suggest the possibility of a real and meaningful benefit from IBD-AID for those able to comply with the dietary and lifestyle changes. In terms of the diet’s feasibility, the considerable loss to follow-up in this study may reflect a variety of issues, one of which may be the well-established medical and psychosocial complexity of IBD patients. This element is important for clinicians to keep in mind, and reflects the need for additional support and close follow-up when it comes to facilitating lifestyle change in this population. It also has implications for the diet itself, which should be re-examined to simplify or reframe in order to maximize generalizability and access for a greater percentage of IBD patients. Overall, this small study highlights the need for larger-scale research to draft clinical nutrition guidelines and further legitimize the utility of preventive clinical nutrition in Western medicine.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared diets to determine whether a program focused on 1 dietary change results in collateral effects on other untargeted healthy diet components. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a diet focused on increased fiber consumption versus the multicomponent American Heart Association (AHA) dietary guidelines. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial from June 2009 to January 2014. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00911885). SETTING: Worcester, Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: 240 adults with the metabolic syndrome. INTERVENTION: Participants engaged in individual and group sessions. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was weight change at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, mean change in weight was -2.1 kg (95% CI, -2.9 to -1.3 kg) in the high-fiber diet group versus -2.7 kg (CI, -3.5 to -2.0 kg) in the AHA diet group. The mean between-group difference was 0.6 kg (CI, -0.5 to 1.7 kg). During the trial, 12 (9.9%) and 15 (12.6%) participants dropped out of the high-fiber and AHA diet groups, respectively (P = 0.55). Eight participants developed diabetes (hemoglobin A1c level > /=6.5%) during the trial: 7 in the high-fiber diet group and 1 in the AHA diet group (P = 0.066). LIMITATIONS: Generalizability is unknown. Maintenance of weight loss after cessation of group sessions at 12 months was not assessed. Definitive conclusions cannot be made about dietary equivalence because the study was powered for superiority. CONCLUSION: The more complex AHA diet may result in up to 1.7 kg more weight loss; however, a simplified approach to weight reduction emphasizing only increased fiber intake may be a reasonable alternative for persons with difficulty adhering to more complicated diet regimens. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

BACKGROUND: Dietary guidelines suggest limiting daily sodium intake to METHODS: Two hundred forty participants with metabolic syndrome enrolled in a dietary intervention trial to lose weight and improve dietary quality. Three 24-hour dietary recalls were collected at each visit which provided meal patterns and nutrient data, including sodium intake. A secondary data analysis was conducted to examine sodium consumption patterns at baseline and at one-year study visits. Sodium consumption patterns over time were examined using linear mixed models. RESULTS: The percentage of meals reported eaten in the home at both baseline and one-year follow-up was approximately 69%. Follow-up for the one-year dietary intervention revealed that the participants who consumed sodium greater than 2,300 mg/d declined from 75% (at baseline) to 59%, and those that consumed higher than 1,500 mg/d declined from 96% (at baseline) to 85%. Average sodium intake decreased from 2,994 mg at baseline to 2,558 mg at one-year (P < 0.001), and the sodium potassium ratio also decreased from 1.211 to 1.047 (P < 0.001). Sodium intake per meal varied significantly by meal type, location, and weekday, with higher intake at dinner, in restaurants, and on weekends. At-home lunch and dinner sodium intake decreased (P < 0.05), while dinner sodium intake at restaurant/fast food chains increased from baseline to one-year (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Sodium intake for the majority of participants exceeded the recommended dietary guidelines. Findings support actions that encourage low-sodium food preparation at home and encourage public health policies that decrease sodium in restaurants and prepared foods.

Many cross-sectional studies show an inverse association between dietary magnesium and insulin resistance, but few longitudinal studies examine the ability to meet the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for magnesium intake through food and its effect on insulin resistance among participants with metabolic syndrome (MetS). The dietary intervention study examined this question in 234 individuals with MetS. Magnesium intake was assessed using 24-h dietary recalls at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Fasting glucose and insulin levels were collected at each time point; and insulin resistance was estimated by the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA-IR). The relation between magnesium intake and HOMA-IR was assessed using linear mixed models adjusted for covariates. Baseline magnesium intake was 287 +/- 93 mg/day (mean +/- standard deviation), and HOMA-IR, fasting glucose and fasting insulin were 3.7 +/- 3.5, 99 +/- 13 mg/dL, and 15 +/- 13 muU/mL, respectively. At baseline, 6-, and 12-months, 23.5%, 30.4%, and 27.7% met the RDA for magnesium. After multivariate adjustment, magnesium intake was inversely associated with metabolic biomarkers of insulin resistance (P < 0.01). Further, the likelihood of elevated HOMA-IR (>3.6) over time was 71% lower [odds ratio (OR): 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12, 0.72] in participants in the highest quartile of magnesium intake than those in the lowest quartile. For individuals meeting the RDA for magnesium, the multivariate-adjusted OR for high HOMA-IR over time was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.18, 0.77). These findings indicate that dietary magnesium intake is inadequate among non-diabetic individuals with MetS and suggest that increasing dietary magnesium to meet the RDA has a protective effect on insulin resistance.