The aim of this study was to examine the validity of the English version of the PREvencion con DIetaMEDiterranea (PREDIMED) 14-item Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS), a brief questionnaire assessing adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet), which was used in the PREDIMED trial for assessment and immediate feedback. This instrument (MEDAS) was administered to 96 adults with a high cardiovascular risk (66% women, mean age 68.3 ± 6.0 years), recruited from general practices in Bristol, UK. Participants then completed a 3-day estimated food record, and the MEDAS was administered again one month later. A MedDiet score (range = 0–14) was calculated from the MEDAS’ administrations and food record to assess concurrent validity and test-retest reliability. Predictive validity was assessed by examining the association of the MEDAS-derived score with cardiometabolic risk factors and dietary intakes derived from the food records. The MEDAS-derived MedDiet score was higher by 1.47 points compared to food records (5.47 vs.4.00, p < 0.001), correlated moderately with the record-derived score (r = 0.50, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.53, p < 0.001) and there was borderline fair agreement between the two methods (κ = 0.19, 95% CI 0.07–0.31, p = 0.002; 95% limits of agreement −2.2, 5.1). Exact agreement within score categories and gross misclassificationwere 45.8% and 21.9%, respectively. The distribution of dietary intakes, reported on the food records by the MEDAS-derived total MedDiet score, was in the expected direction, but no association was observed with cardiometabolic risk factors. The two administrations of the MEDAS produced similar mean total MedDiet scores (5.5 vs. 5.4, p = 0.706), which were correlated (r and ICC = 0.69, p < 0.001) and agreed fairly (κ = 0.38, 95% CI 0.24–0.52, p < 0.001; 95% limits of agreement −3.1, 3.2). The English version of the MEDAS has acceptable accuracy and reliability for assessing MedDiet adherence among individuals with a high cardiovascular risk, in the UK, and can be used to rank individuals according to MedDiet adherence in research and practice.

Electrically assisted bicycles (e-bikes) have been highlighted as a method of active travel that could overcome some of the commonly reported barriers to cycle commuting. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the health benefits associated with e-cycling. A systematic literature review of studies examining physical activity, cardiorespiratory, metabolic and psychological outcomes associated with e-cycling. Where possible these outcomes were compared to those from conventional cycling and walking. Seven electronic databases, clinical trial registers, grey literature and reference lists were searched up to November 2017. Hand searching occurred until June 2018. Experimental or observational studies examining the impact of e-cycling on physical activity and/or health outcomes of interest were included. E-bikes used must have pedals and require pedalling for electric assistance to be provided. Seventeen studies (11 acute experiments, 6 longitudinal interventions) were identified involving a total of 300 participants. There was moderate evidence that e-cycling provided physical activity of at least moderate intensity, which was lower than the intensity elicited during conventional cycling, but higher than that during walking. There was also moderate evidence that e-cycling can improve cardiorespiratory fitness in physically inactive individuals. Evidence of the impact of e-cycling on metabolic and psychological health outcomes was inconclusive. Longitudinal evidence was compromised by weak study design and quality. E-cycling can contribute to meeting physical activity recommendations and increasing physical fitness. As such, e-bikes offer a potential alternative to conventional cycling. Future research should examine the long-term health impacts of e-cycling using rigorous research designs.

Objective: Dietary advice is fundamental in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Advice is improved by individual assessment but existing methods are time-consuming and require expertise. We developed a twenty-five-item questionnaire, the UK Diabetes and Diet Questionnaire (UKDDQ), for quick assessment of an individual’s diet. The present study examined the UKDDQ’s repeatability and relative validity compared with 4 d food diaries.Design: The UKDDQ was completed twice with a median 3 d gap (interquartile range=1–7 d) between tests. A 4 d food diary was completed after the second UKDDQ. Diaries were analysed and food groups were mapped on to the UKDDQ. Absolute agreement between total scores was examined using intra-class correlation (ICC). Agreement for individual items was tested with Cohen’s weighted kappa (κ_w).Setting: South West of England.Subjects: Adults (n 177, 50·3 % women) with, or at high risk for, T2DM; mean age 55·8 (sd 8·6) years, mean BMI 34·4 (sd 7·3) kg/m²; participants were 91 % White British.Results: The UKDDQ showed excellent repeatability (ICC=0·90 (0·82, 0·94)). For individual items, κ_w ranged from 0·43 (‘savoury pastries’) to 0·87 (‘vegetables’). Total scores from the UKDDQ and food diaries compared well (ICC=0·54 (0·27, 0·70)). Agreement for individual items varied and was good for ‘alcohol’ (κ_w=0·71) and ‘breakfast cereals’ (κ_w=0·70), with no agreement for ‘vegetables’ (κ_w=0·08) or ‘savoury pastries’ (κ_w=0·09).Conclusions: The UKDDQ is a new British dietary questionnaire with excellent repeatability. Comparisons with food diaries found agreements similar to those for international dietary questionnaires currently in use. It targets foods and habits important in diabetes prevention and management.

Weight loss is crucial for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). It remains unclear which dietary intervention is best for optimising glycaemic control, or whether weight loss itself is the main reason behind observed improvements. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of various dietary interventions on glycaemic control in overweight and obese adults with T2DM when controlling for weight loss between dietary interventions. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) was conducted. Electronic searches of Medline, Embase, Cinahl and Web of Science databases were conducted. Inclusion criteria included RCT with minimum 6 months duration, with participants having BMI≥25·0 kg/m², a diagnosis of T2DM using HbA1c, and no statistically significant difference in mean weight loss at the end point of intervention between dietary arms. Results showed that eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Only four RCT indicated the benefit of a particular dietary intervention over another in improving HbA1c levels, including the Mediterranean, vegan and low glycaemic index (GI) diets. However the findings from one of the four studies showing a significant benefit are questionable because of failure to control for diabetes medications and poor adherence to the prescribed diets. In conclusion there is currently insufficient evidence to suggest that any particular diet is superior in treating overweight and obese patients with T2DM. Although the Mediterranean, vegan and low-GI diets appear to be promising, further research that controls for weight loss and the effects of diabetes medications in larger samples is needed.