Clinical Case Studies For Medifast Diet Plan

Medifast uses both clinical research studies and retrospective analysis data from its Medifast clinics as the basis of its claim, “clinically proven.” An overview of Medifast clinical research is provided below. Also Make sure to try out Exclusive Medifast Coupons if your going to try the medifast diet plan.

The following abstracts include both peer-reviewed research (consisting of prospective controlled clinical trials and retrospective studies) and in-house clinical data (Studies 7 & 8).

 

STUDY 1

 

  • REFERENCE: Haddock CK, Poston WSC, Foreyt JP, DiBartolomeo JJ.  “Effectiveness of Medifast supplements combined with obesity pharmacotherapy: A clinical program evaluation.” Eating and Weight Disorders. 13:95-101; 2008.
  • PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term impact of Medifast meal-replacement supplements (MMRS) combined with appetite suppressant medication (ASM) among participants who received 52 weeks of treatment as part of a medically-supervised weight-control program.
  • RESULTS:Participants who completed 52 weeks of treatment experienced substantial weight losses at 12 (-9.4±5.7kg), 24 (-12.0±8.1kg), and 52 weeks (12.4±9.2kg), and all measures were significantly different from baseline weight (p<0.001 for all contrasts) for both true completers (n=324) and for ITT analysis (n=1351). Fifty percent of patients remained in the program at 24 weeks and nearly 25% were still participating at one year. Results were better than those typically reported for obesity pharmacotherapy in both short- and long-term studies, and also better than those reported for partial meal-replacement programs.

This study was published in the June 2008 issue of Eating and Weight Disorders journal. Results of this study were presented at the American Society of Bariatric Physicians annual meeting in May 2007.

 

STUDY 2

 

  • REFERENCE: Davis LM, Coleman CD, Andersen WS, Cheskin LJ. “The effect of metabolism-boosting beverages on 24-hr energy expenditure.” The Open Nutrition Journal. 2:37-41; 2008.
  • PURPOSE: To test the effect of thermogenic meal-replacement beverages (TMRB) containing 90 mg of EGCG and 100 mg of caffeine on resting energy expenditure (REE). Thirty adults (19 women, 11 men) were stratified into 3 groups: lean (n=10, BMI 21.5 ± 2.1); overweight/obese (OW) (n=10, BMI 29.8 ± 2.7); or weight maintainers (WM) (n=10, BMI 28.8 ± 4.0). Following an overnight fast, baseline measurements, including REE via indirect calorimetry, were performed. REE was repeated at 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after consuming a TMRB. Appetite was assessed via visual analogue scale at baseline, 30 minutes, and 120 minutes after consuming the TMRB.
  • RESULTS: Mean 24-hour REE was increased 5.9 ± 2.5% overall (p=0.000), 5.7 ± 3.1% among lean subjects (p=0.0002), 5.3 ± 1.4% among OW subjects (p=0.000), and 6.8 ± 2.7% among WM (p=0.0007). Appetite was significantly reduced 30 minutes after consuming the TMRB (p=0.0002). TMRBs appear to be a promising weight-control tool.

This study was presented as a poster session at Experimental Biology, 2008.

 

STUDY 3

 

  • REFERENCE: Cheskin LJ, et al.  “Efficacy of meal replacements versus a standard food-based diet for weight loss in type 2 diabetes.” The Diabetes Educator. 34(1):118-127; Jan/Feb 2008.
  • PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of a portion-controlled meal-replacement diet (PCD) to a standard diet (SD) (based on recommendations by the American Diabetes Association) in achieving and maintaining weight loss among 119 obese men and women with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
  • RESULTS: Using intention-to-treat analyses, weight loss at 34 weeks and weight maintenance at 86 weeks was significantly better on PCD versus SD. Approximately 40% of the PCD participants lost >5% of their initial weight compared with 12% of those on the SD. Significant improvements in biochemical and metabolic measures were observed at 34 weeks in both groups. The retention rate and self-reported ease of adherence in the PCD group were significantly higher throughout the study.This study was published in the January/February 2008 issue of The Diabetes Educator. The peer-reviewed journal is the official journal of the American Association of Diabetes Educators. The study was also presented at the American Diabetes Association’s 65th Annual Scientific Session (2005).

 

STUDY 4

 

  • REFERENCE: Cheskin LJ, et al. “A RCT comparing balanced energy deficit diets with or without meal replacements for weight loss and maintenance among children dieting alone or with a parent.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Human Nutrition, Department of International Health.
  • PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of supplemental Medifast portion-controlled meal replacements (MRs) to a USDA Food Guide Pyramid-based diet. Both weight-loss diets were 20% energy-restricted (~500 kcal deficit). Eighty children (8-15 y.o.), BMI>95th%ile, were screened and randomized to either a MR diet (3 MRs/d during active weight loss and 2 MRs/d during maintenance) or to the food-based diet. Subjects were further randomized to dieting alone or with a parent.
  • RESULTS: By ITT analysis, dieting with a parent or food vs. MR made no difference in weight outcome. However, following initial weight loss (6 mos) and 1 year of maintenance (18 mos), significant benefits were seen in the MR group in BMI%ile (0 mos=98.8 ± 1.0, 6 mos=96.6 ± 3.2, 18 mos=96.4 ± 3.4); body fat (?5.9% @ 6 mos, 5.3%@ 18 mos); total cholesterol (?6.7% @ 6 mos, 5.6% @18 mos); LDL (?19.8% @ 6 mos, 7.9% @ 18 mos); and triglycerides (?23.6% @ 6 mos, 22.3% @18 mos). No significant between-group differences, differences in growth rates, or adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Among overweight 8-15 y.o. children, dieting with or without a parent, meal replacements were as safe and effective as a food-based diet for weight loss and maintenance.This study was presented as a poster session at Experimental Biology, 2007.

 

STUDY 5

 

  • REFERENCE: Tchernof A, et al. “Impaired capacity to lose visceral adipose tissue during weight reduction in obese postmenopausal women with the Trp64Arg B3-adrenoceptor gene variant.” Diabetes. 49:1709-1713; 2000.
  • PURPOSE: To examine the effect of the Trp64Arg gene variant on total and visceral adipose tissue loss, and cardiovascular risk factors in response to weight reduction among 24 obese women (age 57±4 yrs) in a 13±3 months weight reduction program of 1,200 kcal with or without the inclusion of Medifast.
  • RESULTS: Whether women were carriers or noncarriers of the Trp64Arg allele, significant weight loss (-16.4±5.0kg vs. -14.1±6.2kg, NS) and reductions in body fat (-10.0±5.2 vs. -11.5±3.9kg, NS) were observed in response to a calorie-restricted program with or without Medifast. Loss of visceral adipose tissue was 43% lower in carriers of the Trp64Arg allele compared with noncarriers (-46±27 vs. -81± 51cm2, p=0.05). The study concluded that older women carrying the Trp64Arg B3-adrenoceptor gene variant have an impaired capacity to lose visceral adipose tissue in response to a calorie-restricted diet.

 

STUDY 6

 

  • REFERENCE: Matalon V. “An evaluation of weight loss following a carbohydrate and fat restricted diet with appetite suppressant and dietary supplementation.” The Bariatrician. 10-13; 2000.
  • PURPOSE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of a weight-loss regimen consisting of a carbohydrate- and fat-restricted diet supplemented with an appetite suppressant, a dietary supplement, and a liquid protein drink (Medifast) in an open label trial. Baseline and 6-mos evaluations included body weight (lbs), body fat (%), BMI (kg/m2), lean body mass, water weight, and blood pressure. At 6-mos, statistically significant differences were found for body weight (p<0.001), percent body fat (p<0.001), BMI (p<0.001), lean body mass (p<0.001), water weight (p=0.01), and body systolic (P=0.003) and diastolic (P<0.001) blood pressure.
  • RESULTS: Of 47 patients enrolled, 24 (51%) completed six months using the dietary regimen prescribed. Data was analyzed for all patients who were treated with the diet, as well as for the subset of patients who completed the entire study period. The dietary regimen showed that a carbohydrate- and fat-restricted program supplemented by a natural appetite suppressant can lead to progressive weight loss of comparable value to prescribed pharmacologic agents at the time of study. Patients in the study experienced statistically significant decreases in overall body weight, percent body fat, BMI, lean body mass, total body water, and both systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

 

STUDY 7

 

  • REFERENCE: Crowell MD, Cheskin LJ. “Multicenter evaluation of health Benefits and weight loss on the Medifast weight management program.” The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
  • PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the efficacy of a medically supervised, protein-supplemented, modified program (Medifast) for weight reduction and to evaluate the impact of weight reduction on coexisting health problems.
  • RESULTS: The results of the study concluded that medically supervised, protein-sparing meal-replacement programs offer a safe and effective means of weight reduction and are accompanied by significant improvements in coexisting health problems. Of samples taken, males lost an average of 67 lbs and females lost an average of 47 lbs. The study found significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglycerides, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and normalized blood pressure in hypertensive patients.

 

STUDY 8

 

  • REFERENCE: Davis LM, Cheskin, LJ. “Dietary intervention using Medifast meal replacements in pre-bariatric surgery patients.” Johns Hopkins Weight Management Center; 2006.
  • PURPOSE: N=14 severely obese patients 13 females (11 African Americans, 2 Caucasians) and 1 male (Caucasian) with a mean BMI of 64.14 kg/m2 (range 40.2kg/m2 to 91.7kg/m2) entered a 6-month weight-control program at the Johns Hopkins Weight Management Center. All patients were Medicaid (Priority Partners) recipients. The program provided a comprehensive approach to weight control focused on diet, behavior, and physical activity. Portion-controlled meal replacements (MRs) supplied by Medifast were utilized as part of the dietary-behavioral intervention. All subjects met with a licensed dietitian and were prescribed a 1,000-1,200 kcal/day diet plan incorporating up to 6 MRs/day. Only 1 subject chose not incorporate meal replacements as part of a low-calorie diet plan.  The average intake of meal replacements was 2.5-3 per day through the duration of the study.
  • RESULTS: After 6 months on the program, patients lost an average of 26.73 lbs. (-2.86 kg/m2) and 6.96% body weight, and reported a high level of satisfaction with their diet plan. Program completers at 1 month were N=13, at 3 months N=12, and 6 months N=10.

 

STUDY 9

 

  • REFERENCE: Coleman CD, Davis LM, Rampolla J, Kiel J, Hutchisen T, Ford L, Andersen WS. “Efficacy of Medifast’s 5 & 1 meal replacement program compared to a food-based diet for weight loss and weight maintenance: 4-month weight loss results.”
  • PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of Medifast’s 5 & 1 Plan on body weight and body composition compared to an isocaloric food-cased diet plan for a 4-month period of weight loss.
  • METHODS: Ninety obese adults were randomly assigned to 2 groups: Medifast (MD) (n=45; 30 women, 15 men; BMI 38.5 ± 6.8) and Food-based (FB) (n=45; 34 women, 11 men; BMI 37.8 ± 4.5). Subjects met biweekly with Registered Dietitians to have anthropometrics measured and for dietary and behavioral counseling. Weight and BP were measured biweekly. Waist circumference (WC), % body fat, lean muscle mass (LMM), visceral fat, and pulse were measured every 4 weeks.
  • RESULTS:Subjects lost 2 times more body weight on Medifast [MD -29.8lbs, FB -14.4lbs (p=0.000); % wt loss: MD -12.3, FB -6.7 (p=0.002)]; 5 times more body fat [% Δ in body fat: MD -13.6, FB -2.7 (p=0.001)]; improved WC [WC Δ: MD -13cm, FB -8.2cm (p=0.047); % Δ WC: MD -11.2, FB -7.2 (p=0.069)]; and had 7 times greater % reduction in visceral fat: MD -25.4, FB -3.7 (p=0.001), while maintaining LMM [% wt loss as LMM: MD 18.1, FB 42.3 (p=0.01)]. No significant between groups differences were found for BP or pulse. Retention rates (64% vs. 44%) and program adherence was higher in the MD group.

The following case studies were conducted by Medifast and more information can be found at http://www.medifastmd.com/plan_studies.asp

Comments are closed.