ObjectiveThe Plants for Joints (PFJ) intervention significantly improved pain, stiffness, and physical function, and metabolic outcomes, in people with metabolic syndrome-associated osteoarthritis (MSOA). This secondary analysis investigated its effects on body composition.MethodIn the randomized PFJ study, people with MSOA followed a 16-week intervention based on a whole-food plant-based diet, physical activity, and stress management, or usual care. For this secondary analysis, fat mass, muscle mass, and bone mineral density were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) for all participants. Additionally, in a subgroup (n = 32), hepatocellular lipid (HCL) content and composition of visceral adipose tissue (VAT) were measured using magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). An intention-to-treat analysis with a linear-mixed model adjusted for baseline values was used to analyse between-group differences.ResultsOf 66 people randomized, 64 (97%) completed the study. The PFJ group experienced significant weight loss (−5.2 kg; 95% CI –6.9, −3.6) compared to controls, primarily from fat mass reduction (−3.9 kg; 95% CI –5.3 to −2.5). No significant differences were found in lean mass, muscle strength, or bone mineral density between groups. In the subgroup who underwent MRI scans, the PFJ group had a greater reduction in HCL (−6.5%; 95% CI –9.9, 3.0) compared to controls, with no observed differences in VAT composition.ConclusionThe PFJ multidisciplinary intervention positively impacted clinical and metabolic outcomes, and appears to significantly reduce body fat, including liver fat, while preserving muscle mass and strength.
MULTIFILE
Background: The objective of this study was to derive evidence-based physical activity guidelines for the general Dutch population. Methods: Two systematic reviews were conducted of English language meta-analyses in PubMed summarizing separately randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies on the relation between physical activity and sedentary behaviour on the one hand and the risk of all-cause mortality and incidence of 15 major chronic diseases and conditions on the other hand. Other outcome measures were risk factors for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, physical functioning, and fitness. On the basis of these reviews, an expert committee derived physical activity guidelines. In deriving the guidelines, the committee first selected only experimental and observational prospective findings with a strong level of evidence and then integrated both lines of evidence. Results: The evidence found for beneficial effects on a large number of the outcome measures was sufficiently strong to draw up guidelines to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour, respectively. At the same time, the current evidence did not provide a sufficient basis for quantifying how much physical activity is minimally needed to achieve beneficial health effects, or at what amount sedentary behaviour becomes detrimental. A general tenet was that at every level of current activity, further increases in physical activity provide additional health benefits, with relatively larger effects among those who are currently not active or active only at light intensity. Three specific guidelines on (1) moderate- and vigorous-intensity physical activity, (2) bone- and musclestrengthening activities, and (3) sedentary behaviour were formulated separately for adults and children. Conclusions: There is an unabated need for evidence-based physical activity guidelines that can guide public health policies. Research in which physical activity is measured both objectively (quantity) and subjectively (type and quality) is needed to provide better estimates of the type and actual amount of physical activity required for health.
