4.7 Article

Dietary Adherence During Weight Loss Predicts Weight Regain

期刊

OBESITY
卷 19, 期 6, 页码 1177-1181

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2010.298

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01 DK 49779, R01 DK51684]
  2. General Clinical Research Center [M01-RR00032]
  3. Clinical Nutrition Research Unit [P30-DK56336]
  4. UAB University-Wide Clinical Nutrition Research Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the relationship between previous dietary adherence during a low-calorie diet weight loss intervention and subsequent weight change during a 2-year follow-up for weight maintenance. One hundred and sixteen healthy, recently weight reduced (lost similar to 12 kg, BMI 22-25 kg/m(2)) premenopausal women were studied. Dietary adherence was assessed by doubly labeled water (DLW) and body composition change. Comparisons were made between the upper and lower tertiles for previous dietary adherence and subsequent weight change at 1- and 2-year follow-up. Percent weight regained was significantly lower (30.9 +/- 6.7% vs. 66.7 +/- 9.4%; P < 0.05) in the upper compared to the lower adherence tertile for previous weight loss dietary adherence (49.9 +/- 8.8% vs. 96.8 +/- 12.8% P < 0.05) at 1- and 2-year follow-up, respectively. This difference was partly explained by increases in daily activity-related energy expenditure (AEE) (+ 95 +/- 45 kcal/day vs. -44 +/- 42 kcal/day, P < 0.05) and lower daily energy intake (2,066 +/- 71 kcal/day vs. 2,289 +/- 62 kcal/day, P < 0.05) in the higher tertile for previous dietary adherence, compared to the lower. These findings suggest that higher adherence (i.e., higher tertile) to the previous low-calorie diet predicts lower weight regain over 2-year follow-up for weight maintenance, which is explained by lower energy intake and higher physical activity. Finally, how well an individual adheres to a low-calorie diet intervention during weight loss may be a useful tool for identifying individuals who are particularly vulnerable to subsequent weight regain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据