Search

Accurate weight predictions are essential for weight management program patients. The freely available National Institutes of Health Body Weight Planner (NIH-BWP) returns expected weights over time but overestimates weight when patients consume a low-calorie diet. This study sought to increase the accuracy of NIH-BWP predicted weights for people on low-calorie diets. People enrolled in a weight management program were included if they received meal replacements with defined caloric content for the 3 months of the weight loss phase of the program. The Ottawa Weight Loss Prediction Model (OWL-PM) modelled the relative difference between observed and NIH-BWP predicted weights using longitudinal analysis methods based on patient factors. OWL-PM was externally validated. 1761 people were included (mean age 46 years, 73.3% women) with a mean (SD) baseline weight in pounds and body mass index of 271.9 (55.6) and 43.9 (7.4), respectively. At the end of the program's weight loss phase, people lost a median (IQR) of 17.1% (14.8-19.5) of their baseline weight. Observed weight relative to NIH-BWP predicted weights had a median value of - 4.9% but ranged from - 32.1% to + 28.5%. After adjustment, weight overestimation by NIH-BWP was most pronounced in male patients, people without diabetes and with increased observation time. OWL-PM returned expected weights at 3 months that were significantly more accurate than those from NIH-BWP alone (mean difference observed vs. expected [95% CI] 6.7lbs [6.4-7.0] vs. 12.6lbs [12.1-13.0]). In the external validation cohort (n = 106), OWL-PM was significantly more accurate than NIH-BWP (mean squared error 24.3 vs. 40.0, p = 0.0018). OWL-PM incorporated patient-level covariates to significantly increase weight prediction accuracy of NIH-BWP in patients consuming a low-calorie diet., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) affects ~10% of the US population, a subset of whom have severe insulin resistance (SIR) (>200 units/d). Treatment of these patients with high-dose insulin presents logistical and compliance challenges. We hypothesized that mild caloric restriction would reduce insulin requirements in patients with T2D and SIR.This was a retrospective study at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. Inclusion criteria were as follows: T2D, and insulin dose >200 units/d or >2 units/kg/d. The intervention consisted of mild caloric restriction during a 3 to 6-day hospitalization. The major outcomes were change in insulin dose and blood glucose from admission to discharge.Ten patients met inclusion criteria. Baseline glycated hemoglobin A1c was 10.0 ± 1.6% and body mass index 38.8 ± 9.0 kg/m. Food intake was restricted from 2210 ± 371 kcal/d preadmission to 1810 ± 202 during the hospital stay (16.5% reduction). Insulin dose decreased from 486 ± 291 units/d preadmission to 223 ± 127 at discharge (44% reduction, P = 0.0025). Blood sugars decreased nonsignificantly in the fasting state (from 184 ± 85 to 141 ± 42, P = 0.20), before lunch (239 ± 68 to 180 ± 76, P = 0.057), and at bedtime (212 ± 95 to 176 ± 48, P = 0.19), and significantly decreased before dinner (222 ± 92 to 162 ± 70, P = 0.016).Mild caloric restriction, an accessible and affordable intervention, substantially reduced insulin doses in patients with T2D and SIR. Further studies are needed to determine if the intervention and results are sustainable outside of a hospital setting.

Background: African American (AA) women have been shown to lose less weight than Caucasian women in response to behavioral interventions. Our objective was to examine adherence to intervention and metabolic factors that may explain this difference., Design and Subjects: We examined longitudinal changes in body weight and energy expenditure (EE), and objective assessment of physical activity (PA) and energy intake (EI) during 6 months of a weight-loss intervention program, including prescribed calorie restriction and increased PA in 66 Caucasian and 39 AA severely obese women. Comparisons were also made in 25 Caucasian and 25 AA women matched for initial body weight., Results: The AA women lost 3.6 kg less weight than Caucasian women. Total daily EE (TDEE) and resting metabolic rate (RMR) adjusted for fat free mass (FFM) were significantly lower in the AA women, whereas the decrease in RMR in response to weight loss was greater in Caucasian women. Adherence to the prescribed PA and change in PA in response to intervention were similar in AA and Caucasian women. Prescribed EI (1794±153 and 1806±153 kcal per day) and measured EI during intervention (2591±371 vs 2630±442 kcal per day) were nearly identical in matched AA and Caucasian women. However, the AA women lost significantly less body weight due to lower energy requirements (2924±279 vs 3116±340 kcal per day; P<0.04), resulting in a lower energy deficit (333±210 vs 485±264 kcal per day)., Conclusion: Adherence to the behavioral intervention was similar in AA and Caucasian women. However, neglecting to account for the lower energy requirements in AA women when calculating the energy prescription resulted in a lower level of calorie restriction and, hence, less body weight loss. Therefore, to achieve similar weight loss in AA women, the prescribed caloric restriction cannot be based on weight alone, but must be lower than in Caucasians, to account for lower energy requirements.

Objective: Liraglutide, a once-daily human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog, induced clinically meaningful weight loss in a phase 2 study in obese individuals without diabetes. The present randomized phase 3 trial assessed the efficacy of liraglutide in maintaining weight loss achieved with a low-calorie diet (LCD)., Methods: Obese/overweight participants (≥18 years, body mass index ≥30 kg m(-2) or ≥27 kg m(-2) with comorbidities) who lost ≥5% of initial weight during a LCD run-in were randomly assigned to liraglutide 3.0 mg per day or placebo (subcutaneous administration) for 56 weeks. Diet and exercise counseling were provided throughout the trial. Co-primary end points were percentage weight change from randomization, the proportion of participants that maintained the initial ≥5% weight loss, and the proportion that lost ≥5% of randomization weight (intention-to-treat analysis). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00781937., Results: Participants (n=422) lost a mean 6.0% (s.d. 0.9) of screening weight during run-in. From randomization to week 56, weight decreased an additional mean 6.2% (s.d. 7.3) with liraglutide and 0.2% (s.d. 7.0) with placebo (estimated difference -6.1% (95% class intervals -7.5 to -4.6), P<0.0001). More participants receiving liraglutide (81.4%) maintained the ≥5% run-in weight loss, compared with those receiving placebo (48.9%) (estimated odds ratio 4.8 (3.0; 7.7), P<0.0001), and 50.5% versus 21.8% of participants lost ≥5% of randomization weight (estimated odds ratio 3.9 (2.4; 6.1), P<0.0001). Liraglutide produced small but statistically significant improvements in several cardiometabolic risk factors compared with placebo. Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders were reported more frequently with liraglutide than placebo, but most events were transient, and mild or moderate in severity., Conclusion: Liraglutide, with diet and exercise, maintained weight loss achieved by caloric restriction and induced further weight loss over 56 weeks. Improvements in some cardiovascular disease-risk factors were also observed. Liraglutide, prescribed as 3.0 mg per day, holds promise for improving the maintenance of lost weight.

Objectives: To compare the effects of 4 years of intensive lifestyle intervention on weight, fitness, and cardiovascular disease risk factors in older and younger individuals., Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial., Setting: Sixteen U.S. clinical sites., Participants: Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: 1,053 aged 65 to 76 and 4,092 aged 45 to 64., Interventions: An intensive behavioral intervention designed to promote and maintain weight loss through caloric restriction and increased physical activity was compared with diabetes mellitus support and education., Measurements: Standardized assessments of weight, fitness (based on graded exercise testing), and cardiovascular disease risk factors., Results: Over 4 years, older individuals had greater intervention-related mean weight losses (6.2%) than younger participants (5.1%; interaction P = .006) and comparable relative mean increases in fitness (0.56 vs 0.53 metabolic equivalents; interaction P = .72). These benefits were seen consistently across subgroups of older adults formed according to many demographic and health factors. Of a panel of age-related health conditions, only self-reported worsening vision was associated with poorer intervention-related weight loss in older individuals. The intensive lifestyle intervention produced mean increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (2.03 mg/dL; P < .001) and decreases in glycated hemoglobin (0.21%; P < .001) and waist circumference (3.52 cm; P < .001) over 4 years that were at least as large in older as in younger individuals., Conclusion: Intensive lifestyle intervention targeting weight loss and increased physical activity is effective in overweight and obese older individuals to produce sustained weight loss and improvements in fitness and cardiovascular risk factors., (© 2013, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2013, The American Geriatrics Society.)

The objective of this study was to determine if a formula diet of 520 kilocalorie (kcal, 2177 kilojoules [kJ]) compared to 850 kcal (3558 kJ) produces significantly greater weight loss and improved weight maintenance in a clinical outpatient setting. The investigation was a retrospective analysis of data from 1887 participants who underwent weight loss between December 1994 and January 2003. Participants were between the ages of 18 and 70 and completed a minimum of 12 weeks of a very-low-energy diet (VLED; 520 kcal) or a low-energy diet (LED; 850 kcal). Participants attended weekly meetings, were weighed, and received instruction in behavioral skills. Following active weight loss, participants transitioned to weight maintenance and were prescribed an individual structured meal plan aimed at maintaining body weight. Both levels of energy intake produced significant weight loss over 12 weeks (P < 0.05). Weight loss was 15.2 +/- 4.1% and 14.3 +/- 3.7% of initial body weight for participants in the VLED (n = 1231) and LED (n = 656), respectively. After controlling for baseline body weight, there was no significant difference between diets. Similarly, there was no significant difference in weight regain between VLED and LED after 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks of weight maintenance. VLED did not produce a greater weight loss than the LED. LED provides similar weight loss with a lower incidence of adverse events and diminished need for medical monitoring. We conclude LED is an efficacious, safe, and less burdensome diet compared to VLED.