Metabolic effects of weight loss related to insulin sensitivity and dietary quality
Weight loss, weight loss
INSULIN SENSITIVITY
The effect of energy restriction on metabolic parameters and phenotypic flexibility was surprisingly small, despite the homogeneous study population and the successful weight loss. This may be due to the large difference in responses to weight loss among subjects in WLG, with weight loss ranging from 1.1% to 13.4%. In addition to this wide spectrum of responses to the weight loss intervention, some volunteers of the WLG experienced improved insulin sensitivity assessed with the MI, whereas others had no change in insulin sensitivity, despite considerable weight loss.We investigated this phenomenon using information derived from the metabolomics analysis. To ensure that all subjects complied with the energy restriction, only volunteers who had a minimum weight loss of 5% were selected (26/40 volunteers). In the volunteers, variations in the MI after weight loss ranged from −15% to 274% and served to rank the participants into 2 groups: one including subjects with an increase of ≥35% in MI, named improvement group (Weight loss–induced changes in anthropometric data, clinical chemistry, and the Matsuda Index in participants with or without improved insulin sensitivity during the OGTTOGTT, oral glucose tolerance test; MMTT, mixed-meal tolerance test. Data are presented as means ± SEM. A PLS-DA model was built on results from the metabolomics analyses of plasma sampled during the MMTT and OGTT and body composition data to identify metabolic differences between the improvement and no-improvement groups. The generated model had 3 components, Metabolites discriminating participants with or without improved insulin sensitivity after weight loss. Data derived from the OGTT (A, C, D, E, G, and L) or mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) (B, F, H–K) carried out before the weight-loss intervention. DCA, deoxycholic acid; GDCA, glycodeoxycholic acid; TUDCA, tauroursodeoxycholic acid. Data are presented as means ± SEM. Differences between the 2 groups were analyzed by multiple, unpaired t-tests. False discovery rate approach by the 2-stage step-up method of Benjamin, Krieger, and Yekutieli. ∗ = The food intake records indicate that when adjusted for total energy intake, volunteers with improved insulin sensitivity had a 20% lower intake of fiber compared with the noDietary changes induced by the weight loss intervention. (A) Energy intake. (B) Intake of saturated fat. (C) Intake of fiber. (D) Protein intake. The 