There is limited information regarding the nutrition profile and diet quality of meal plans from currently popular weight loss diets in Australia. This includes the energy content (kilojoules), the macronutrient distribution, and the micronutrient composition. Further, these diets have not been compared with current government guidelines and healthy eating principles for nutritional adequacy. Popular diets were identified through grey literature, trending searches and relative popularity in Australia. Meal plans for each diet were analysed using Foodworks Dietary Software to determine food group intake, micronutrient, and macronutrient distribution. Results indicated that all popular diets assessed deviated from government recommended healthy eating principles such as the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating and the Mediterranean Diet. In most cases both popular diets, and the healthy eating principles had low intakes of multiple food groups, low intakes of essential micronutrients, and a distorted macronutrient distribution. Popular diets may not provide adequate nutrition to meet needs, particularly in the long-term and potentially resulting in micronutrient deficiency. When energy restricting for weight loss, meal plans should be highly individualized in conjunction with a qualified nutrition professional to ensure adequate dietary intake.

Background Weight loss diets continue to rise in popularity; however, the associated costs are seldom reported. Certain weight loss diets may be unaffordable and differ from their traditional nutrition composition to include non-conventional premium products. In contrast, healthy eating principles such as the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGHE) and the Mediterranean Diet (MedDiet) place an emphasis on fresh produce and staple foods but are sometimes thought to be unaffordable. A new methodology was piloted to assess the cost of weight loss diets using seven meal plans. Methods Seven meal plans were analysed to quantify the absolute grams required of all ingredients across seven days and multiplied by the cost of the ingredient per gram to determine the total cost of each ingredient based on unit size and price. The weekly grocery shopping cost was determined through summation of all ingredients and their entire unit size to compare weekly costs. Results Weekly meal plans (absolute grams) cost between $93-193AUD. The AGHE meal plan was the least expensive and 8 Weeks to Wow was the most expensive. Weekly grocery shopping of entire units cost between $345-$625AUD, over $100AUD greater than the spending of an average Australian ($237AUD/week). Conclusions The financial feasibility for long-term sustainment of weight loss diets may be questionable for groups including low-income earners and low socioeconomic status. Further, when dietary patterns are adapted for weight loss, or followed by consumers, deviations from foundational principles tend to occur which may influence overall cost.

Mediterranean populations enjoy the health benefits of a Mediterranean diet (MedDiet), but is it feasible to implement such a pattern beyond the Mediterranean region? The MedLey trial, a 6-month MedDiet intervention vs habitual diet in older Australians, demonstrated that the participants could maintain high adherence to a MedDiet for 6 months. The MedDiet resulted in improved systolic blood pressure (BP), endothelial dilatation, oxidative stress, and plasma triglycerides in comparison with the habitual diet. We sought to determine if 12 months after finishing the MedLey study, the participants maintained their adherence to the MedDiet principles and whether the reduction in the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors that were seen in the trial were sustained. Participants completed a food frequency questionnaire, and a 15-point MedDiet adherence score (MDAS; greater score = greater adherence) was calculated. Home BP was measured over 6 days, BMI was assessed, and fasting plasma triglycerides were measured. The data were analysed using intention-to-treat linear mixed effects models with a group × time interaction term, comparing data at baseline, 2, 4, and 18 months (12 months post-trial). At 18 months (12 months after finishing the MedLey study), the MedDiet group had a MDAS of 7.9 ± 0.3, compared to 9.6 ± 0.2 at 4 months (p < 0.0001), and 6.7 ± 0.2 (p < 0.0001), at baseline. The MDAS in the HabDiet group remained unchanged over the 18-month period (18 months 6.9 ± 0.3, 4 months 6.9 ± 0.2, baseline 6.7 ± 0.2). In the MedDiet group, the consumption of olive oil, legumes, fish, and vegetables remained higher (p < 0.01, compared with baseline) and discretionary food consumption remained lower (p = 0.02) at 18 months. These data show that some MedDiet principles could be adhered to for 12 months after finishing the MedLey trial. However, improvements in cardiometabolic health markers, including BP and plasma triglycerides, were not sustained. The results indicate that further dietary support for behaviour change may be beneficial to maintaining high adherence and metabolic benefits of the MedDiet.

A multitude of weight loss diets exist. However, no one diet has been proven to be superior, despite their claims. Resultingly, this creates confusion amongst consumers and conflicting nutrition messages. The aim of the ranking system was to evaluate a range of dietary pattern’s nutrition profile and financial costs, as well as their potential long-term sustainability and associated adverse effects. Nutrition profile is typically the focal point of weight loss diets with less attention focused towards other factors that may affect their suitability. Five popular diets (Keto, Paleo, Intermittent Fasting, Optifast, and 8 Weeks to Wow) and two energy restricted healthy eating principles (Australian Guide to Healthy Eating and the Mediterranean Diet) were compared for diet quality, cost, adverse effects, and support for behaviour change. In general, healthy eating principles scored more favourably compared to popular weight loss diets in all categories. Lower carbohydrate diets tended to score lower for diet quality due to restricting multiple food groups, had more associated adverse effects and did not encourage behaviour change compared to the other weight loss diets. Optifast was the only weight loss diet to receive a negative score for cost. There should be considerations when undertaking a change to dietary patterns beyond nutrition profile. Diets indeed vary in terms of diet quality, and in addition can be costly, incur adverse effects, and disregard behaviour change which is important for sustainable weight loss and maintenance. This ranking system could create a reference point for future comparisons of diets.

IntroductionThe Early Detection of Deterioration in Elderly residents (EDDIE+) programme is a theory-informed, multi-component intervention aimed at upskilling and empowering nursing and personal care staff to identify and manage early signs of deterioration in residents of aged care facilities. The intervention aims to reduce unnecessary hospital admissions from residential aged care (RAC) homes. Alongside a stepped wedge randomised controlled trial, an embedded process evaluation will be conducted to assess the fidelity, acceptability, mechanisms of action and contextual barriers and enablers of the EDDIE+ intervention.Methods and analysisTwelve RAC homes in Queensland, Australia are participating in the study. A comprehensive mixed-methods process evaluation, informed by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, will assess intervention fidelity, contextual barriers and enablers, mechanisms of action, and the acceptability of the programme from various stakeholder perspectives. Quantitative data will be collected prospectively from project documentation, including baseline context mapping of participating sites, activity tracking and regular check-in communication sheets. Qualitative data will be collected postintervention via semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholder groups. The i-PARIHS constructs of innovation, recipients, context and facilitation will be applied to frame the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this study has been granted by the Bolton Clarke Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number: 170031) with administrative ethical approval granted by the Queensland University of Technology University Human Research Ethics Committee (2000000618). Full ethical approval includes a waiver of consent for access to residents’ demographic, clinical and health services de-identified data. A separate health services data linkage based on RAC home addresses will be sought through a Public Health Act application. Study findings will be disseminated through multiple channels, including journal publications, conference presentations and interactive webinars with a stakeholder network.Trial registration numberAustralia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12620000507987).