4.7 Article

Successful Weight-loss Maintenance in Relation to Method of Weight Loss

Journal

OBESITY
Volume 16, Issue 11, Pages 2456-2461

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2008.364

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01DK057413, K23DK075645]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the relation between method of weight loss and long-term maintenance among successful weight losers enrolled in a weight-loss maintenance trial. Participants were 186 adults (mean age = 51.6 +/- 10.7 years, mean BMI = 28.6 +/- 4.7 kg/m(2)) enrolled in the STOP Regain trial who had lost at least 10% of their body weight in the past 2 years using a very low-calorie diet (VLCD; n = 24), commercial program (n = 95), or self-guided approach (n = 67). Participants were randomized to a weight-maintenance intervention delivered face to face or over the internet or to a newsletter control condition, and followed for 18 months. At study entry, individuals who had used a VLCD had achieved a weight loss of 24% of their maximum weight within the past 2 years compared to 17% achieved by those who had used a commercial program or self-guided approach (P < 0.001). However, individuals who had used a VLCD regained significantly more weight than the other two groups and by 6 months, there were no significant differences in overall percent weight loss (i.e., initial weight loss and maintenance) between VLCD, commercial, and self-guided methods. In contrast, individuals who had used a self-guided approach maintained their weight losses from baseline through 18 months. The large initial weight losses achieved by individuals who had used a VLCD were not maintained over time, whereas individuals who had used a self-guided approach maintained their initial weight losses with the greatest success. The generalizability of these findings is limited by the sizeable weight losses achieved by study participants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available