Is self-weighing an effective tool for weight loss: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThere is a need to identify effective behavioural strategies for weight loss. Self-weighing may be one such strategy.PurposeTo examine the effectiveness of self-weighing for weight loss.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that included self-weighing as an isolated intervention or as a component within an intervention. We used sub groups to analyse differences in frequency of weighing instruction (daily and weekly) and also whether including accountability affected weight loss.ResultsOnly one study examined self-weighing as a single strategy and there was no evidence it was effective (-0.5 kg 95 % CI -1.3 to 0.3). Four trials added self-weighing/self-regulation techniques to multi-component programmes and resulted in a significant difference of -1.7 kg (95 % CI -2.6 to -0.8). Fifteen trials comparing multi-component interventions including self-weighing compared with no intervention or minimal control resulted in a significant mean difference of -3.4 kg (95 % CI -4.2 to -2.6). There was no significant difference in the interventions with weekly or daily weighing. In trials which included accountability there was significantly greater weight loss (p = 0.03).ConclusionsThere is a lack of evidence of whether advising self-weighing without other intervention components is effective. Adding self-weighing to a behavioural weight loss programme may improve weight loss. Behavioural weight loss programmes that include self-weighing are more effective than minimal interventions. Accountability may improve the effectiveness of interventions that include self-weighing.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0267-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Acceptability of a very‐low‐energy diet in Type 2 diabetes: patient experiences and behaviour regulation

“…Recruiting participants with friends increases the availability of social support, and results in higher rates of weight loss treatment completion as well as better weight loss maintenance . Finally, the regular monitoring and individual feedback on weight and diabetes outcomes from the study staff were substantial facilitators of adherence to the VLED in the present study and a well‐documented phenomenon in a number of systematic reviews . Individuals who self‐weigh regularly lose more weight and also consume fewer calories than people who do not monitor their weigh regularly .…”

Environmental risk factors and nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for obesity: An umbrella review of meta‐analyses of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials

“…As shown in Table , we identified 34 unique meta‐analyses of RCTs investigating nonpharmacological interventions for weight loss in obese adults, which were derived from 26 unique references …”

“…Moreover, among 20 meta‐analyses comparing two “active” interventions, 12 experimental interventions were found to be superior to comparison groups across examined outcomes per random‐effects calculations. These outcomes included an overall reduction in weight (motivational interviewing in addition to active intervention vs mixed interventions without motivational interviewing, self‐weighing in addition to diet and exercise vs mixed interventions without self‐weighing, low‐carbohydrate non‐energy‐restricted diets vs low‐fat energy‐restricted diets, hypocaloric low‐carbohydrate diets vs low‐fat diets, diet and exercise vs diet alone, low‐carbohydrate vs normal or high‐carbohydrate diets and vegetarian vs nonvegetarian diet); a decrease in BMI (motivational interviewing in addition to active interventions vs mixed interventions without motivational interviewing and nutritional interventions in metabolically healthy obese subjects vs other types of interventions); a decrease in body fat (low‐carbohydrate diets vs low‐fat diets and low‐carbohydrate vs normal or high‐carbohydrate diets); and a decrease in waist circumference (Internet‐delivered lifestyle interventions vs minimal interventions). Of these 12, 10 also were statistically significant at P < 0.005.…”

“…More in detail, all except one meta‐analysis had serious risk of bias in the imprecision domain of the GRADE framework due to small sample sizes of included studies or the small number of included trials, and no eligible meta‐analyses included blinded studies. The magnitude of point estimates of the statistically significant summary ESs was generally very modest, with the largest weight reduction (5.1 kg) seen in a meta‐analysis of diet plus exercise vs diet without exercise and in only two other meta‐analyses having a weight reduction exceeding 3 kg (3.7 kg) with diet and exercise and self‐weighing vs mixed interventions without self‐weighing, and 3.5 kg with diet and exercise vs standard care . All these three meta‐analyses were appraised as having very low quality of evidence.…”

Predictors of weight reduction and maintenance in a large cohort of overweight and obese adults in a community setting

“…However, self‐weighing resulted in inconsistent results, where in some studies daily self‐weighing and visual feedback facilitated minimal weight loss and its maintenance, while in other studies weighing every day led to greater adoption of weight control behaviours and generated greater weight loss . In fact, it was suggested that there is insufficient evidence as to whether self‐weighing without other intervention components is effective . Two systematic reviews specifically examined self‐weighing for weight management, and both concluded that regular self‐weighing appeared to be a good predictor of moderate weight loss, less weight regain or avoidance of initial weight gain in adults …”