https://www.mdu.se/

Background:Society faces multiple challenges, including lifestyle diseases and global climate change. Framing health education within sustainable development may enhance motivation for behavior change because proenvironmental behaviors, as well as healthy behaviors, often rely on the same behavior change principles. Combining these perspectives may therefore reinforce health behaviors and climate-friendly choices. Objective:This pilot study aims to explore changes in dietary intake, diet-related carbon footprint, and physical activity among office workers receiving sustainable plus healthy lifestyle (sustainable lifestyle arm) or healthy lifestyle education (healthy lifestyle arm) alone. It also aims to assess the feasibility of the intervention functions, including workshop attendance rate, participants' dietary goals, social support, and facilitators and barriers to behavior change. Methods:A 2-armed participant-blinded cluster randomized study, including an experimental intervention arm (sustainable lifestyle; n=19) and a control intervention arm (healthy lifestyle; n=14), was conducted in Sweden. The study lasted 8 weeks and included 6 workplace-based workshops and was framed by the behavioral change wheel and the socioecological model. Diet, carbon footprint, and physical activity were assessed using the web-based questionnaires Meal-Q and Active-Q. Attendance rate, individual goals, social support, and facilitators and barriers were assessed using printed questionnaires. Results:The reduction of total diet-related carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e) was 0.8 kg and 0.4 kg per day for the sustainable and healthy lifestyle arm, respectively. Also, there was a statistically significant interaction between time and lifestyle when the carbon footprint was expressed as a qualitative aspect of diet, that is, CO(2)e kg per 1000 kcal per day (P=.05). Moreover, the intake of vitamin C, a marker for fruits and vegetables, increased to 8.0 and 12.5 mg per 1000 kcal per day for the sustainable and healthy lifestyle arms, respectively. In addition, total sedentary time decreased by 0.4 hours per day in the sustainable lifestyle arm, but not in the healthy lifestyle arm. This indicates that the educational workshops in respective arms had different impacts on health behavior over time. Minor differences were found in dietary goals, with the sustainable lifestyle arm setting more goals related to ecological and vegetarian foods. No differences were seen between arms regarding barriers or facilitators. Conclusions:This study suggests that embedding healthy lifestyle recommendations within a sustainable development context may be an efficient way to reduce carbon footprint and increase healthy behavior among office workers. Given the ongoing global epidemic of metabolic diseases, climate change, and environmental degradation, promoting a sustainable lifestyle in a workplace context has the potential to counteract these trends. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06698094; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06698094