4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Differential functional magnetic resonance imaging response to food pictures in successful weight-loss maintainers relative to normal-weight and obese controls

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 90, Issue 4, Pages 928-934

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27924

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK066787-02S2, R01 DK066787] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Prior research indicates that successful weight-loss maintainers (SWLs) work harder than people of normal weight to maintain their weight loss, including greater dietary restriction of fat and higher physical activity levels. However, little work to date has examined how SWLs differ biologically from normal-weight (NW) and obese controls. Objective: The objective was to compare the brain responses of SWLs to food pictures with those of NW and obese controls. Design: Blood oxygen level-dependent responses to high-and low-energy food pictures were measured in 18 NW controls, 16 obese controls, and 17 SWLs. Results: Group differences were identified in 4 regions, which indicated significant change in activation in response to the food pictures. SWLs showed greater activation in the left superior frontal region and right middle temporal region than did NW and obese controls-a pattern of results confirmed in exploratory voxel-wise analyses. Obese controls also showed greater activation in a bilateral precentral region. Conclusions: These results suggest that SWLs show greater activation in frontal regions and primary and secondary visual corticesa pattern consistent with greater inhibitory control in response to food cues and greater visual attention to the food cues. A greater engagement of inhibitory control regions in response to food cues as well as a greater monitoring of foods may promote control of food intake and successful weight-loss maintenance. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;90: 928-34.

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