Comparison of three worksite weight-loss competitions

Abstract

Competition is an effective means of promoting weight loss in worksite programs. This study was designed to determine the most effective structure of competition through a comparison of two kinds of competition within one worksite. Two competitions were between teams and one was among individuals. While all three competitions produced significant weight loss and lower attrition than previous worksite programs, the team competitions produced significantly lower attrition rates and significantly greater weight loss than the individual competition. Patterns of loss over time and the distribution of losses for groups also differed, with a smaller proportion of successful participants in the individual competition. The results suggest that team support as well as competition is a necessary component of effective worksite weight loss competitions.

Weight Loss During 12 Weeks' Ad Libitum Carbohydrate‐Rich Diet in Overweight and Normal‐Weight Subjects at a Danish Work Site

“…It is also possible that the subjects in the present study were more motivated than in other studies. Compared to other weight loss programs at worksites the average weight loss in the present study was smaller, however (5,8,26). This may be due to the fact that the focus in this study was on changes in macronutrient intake only and not on changes in overall lifestyle.…”

“…Thus, the other weight loss programs have focused on several factors, i.e. changed exercise habits and weight competition (5,8,26). This could have resulted in the greater weight losses observed in these studies.…”

Pilot survey of a novel incentive to promote healthy behavior among school children and their parents

“…Prior studies have evaluated various interventions to improve behaviors for obesity prevention such as school-based child obesity interventions (Wang et al, 2013, Waters et al, 2011, Oude Luttikhuis et al, 2009, Martin et al, 2014, Wyatt et al, 2013), family support (Epstein et al, 1990, Epstein et al, 1994, Kitzmann and Beech, 2006, Wrotniak et al, 2004, Drury et al, 2013, Epstein et al, 2014, Wilfley et al, 2007), peer support (McLean et al, 2003, Cohen et al, 1987, Jeffery et al, 1983, Osilla et al, 2012, Paul-Ebhohimhen and Avenell, 2009), competition/performance-based financial incentives (Martin et al, 2014, Wyatt et al, 2013, Drury et al, 2013, Jeffery et al, 1983, Volpp et al, 2008, Paul-Ebhohimhen and Avenell, 2008, You et al, 2012, Hersey et al, 2008, Hubbert et al, 2003, Sykes-Muskett et al, 2015, Mantzari et al, 2015, Purnell et al, 2014, Mayor, 2013, Mitchell et al, 2013, Burns et al, 2012, Kullgren et al, 2013, Crane et al, 2012, Finkelstein et al, 2013, Hunter et al, 2016, Ngo et al, 2014, Patel et al, 2016, Simpson et al, 2015, Finkelstein et al, 2016, Finkelstein et al, 2015, Hunter et al, 2015), donation to charity (Finkelstein et al, 2016, Finkelstein et al, 2015, Hunter et al, 2015), and a regulatory obesity policy in child care facilities (Wright et al, 2015). For instance, one study asked adults about their preferences for a hypothetical set of obesity prevention intervention incentives (You et al, 2012) which varied in the reward form, amount, and timing.…”

“…Under this incentive, a community member can enjoy the reward without participating. Traditional programs require each community member to participate to be rewarded (Cohen et al, 1987, Jeffery et al, 1983). …”

“…Thus, some successful members might impose uncomfortable peer pressure on others (who fail to lose weight) (Jochelson, 2007, Burton-Chellew et al, 2010). The exclusion of competition from the proposed intervention is expected to prevent negative peer pressure (Burton-Chellew et al, 2010) and promote positive peer support from group members (McLean et al, 2003, Cohen et al, 1987, Jochelson, 2007, Burton-Chellew et al, 2010). Another difference is the use of the financial reward.…”