None listed
Conditions
Brief summary
A quasi-experimental study will investigate whether provision of pork, a rich source of dietary thiamin, as the main protein source in meals four times a week for 12 weeks will result in improved muscle mass, body strength and cognitive function in healthy community-living older adults.
Interventions
Residents aged 60+ years from lifestyle aged care facilities will receive a dietary pork intervention for 12 weeks. Facilities rather than individuals are randomised (quasi-experimental design). Meals are prepared by a commercial kitchen that supplies the aged care facilities, before being frozen and delivered to participants at their homes once a week. Participants are instructed to continue with their usual diets but to substitute four meals per week with the provided meals. The four meals ca
Residents aged 60+ years from lifestyle aged care facilities will receive a dietary pork intervention for 12 weeks. Facilities rather than individuals are randomised (quasi-experimental design). Meals are prepared by a commercial kitchen that supplies the aged care facilities, before being frozen and delivered to participants at their homes once a week. Participants are instructed to continue with their usual diets but to substitute four meals per week with the provided meals. The four meals can be consumed at any meal time on any four days within a week. Recipes for all provided meals were collected from the commercial caterer (Flagstaff Fine Foods). All recipes were analysed using FoodWorks dietary analysis software (Xyris Software 2009). Average nutritional content of meals provided was compared between pork and chicken groups. Nutritional content of provided meals (mean (SD)), by diet group is as follows: Pork meals: Energy 1528 (530) kJ; Protein 28.1 (6.3)g; Fat 8.8 (6.1)g; Saturated fat 3.6 (3.3)g; Carbohydrate 40.3 (19.4)g; Sugars 8.5 (2.9)g; Sodium 739 (393)mg. Chicken meals: Energy 1661 (346) kJ; Protein 25.2 (6.2) g; Fat 14.3 (2.9)g; Saturated fat 4.6 (1.8)g; Carbohydrate 38.2 (17.5)g; Sugars 8.2 (5.9)g; Sodium 752 (318)mg. Actual meal choices that were provided are shown below: Pork meals: Pork in BBQ sauce Roast pork & gravy Ham & cheese omelette Pork and apple cranberry Ham steak with pineapple glaze Chicken meals: Honey soy chicken Roast chicken & gravy Chicken Schnitzel Curry chicken Chicken & asparagus mornay Adherence with the intervention was assessed using a self-completed food diary for 3 consecutive days (one weekend, 2 weekdays) at baseline, week 6 and week 12. Food intake data was analysed using FoodWorks using the NUTTAB 2010, Ausfoods 2012 and Ausbrands 2012 database (Xyris Software, Highgate Hill, GLD, Australia, Version 6, 2009). Participants also completed a weekly checklist of number of provided meals that were consumed.
Sponsors
University of Wollongong
Study design
Allocation
Non-randomised trial
Intervention model
Parallel
Primary purpose
Prevention
Masking
Open (masking not used)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
60 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Relatively healthy older people aged 60 years and older with no serious cognitive impairment that lived in independent-living (lifestyle) facilities of one Retirement Trust in regional New South Wales (NSW). Participants were recruited via mail-drops with an invitation
Exclusion criteria
Uncontrolled hypertension, unstable Type 1 diabetes, food allergies, vegetarianism, physical disability that limited walking ability, severe dementia and/or dysphasia. These criteria were selected as they would either impact on ability and willingness to consume the provided meat-containing meals (food allergies, vegetarianism, dysphasia), or affect ability to perform the outcome indicator tests (severe dementia, physical disability that limited walking ability).
Outcome results
None listed