Efficacy of a Commercial Weight Management Program Compared With a Do-It-Yourself Approach

Tate, Deborah F.; Lutes, Lesley D.; Bryant, Maria; Truesdale, Kimberly P.; Hatley, Karen E.; Griffiths, Zoe; Tang, Tricia S.; Padgett, Louise; Pinto, Angela Marinilli; Stevens, June; Foster, Gary D.

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.26561

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study focused on the probability of weight loss in a health care–seeking population with overweight or obesity regardless of any individual’s intention to lose weight. Several studies suggest that persons who are trying to lose weight may experience greater reductions in weight . For example, results of a 1-year randomized clinical trial among adults aged 18 to 75 years with a BMI of 25 to 45 showed that 42.8% of the treatment group enrolled in the commercial weight management program lost 5% of body weight compared with 24.7% of the control group using a do-it-yourself approach .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probability of 5% or Greater Weight Loss or BMI Reduction to Healthy Weight Among Adults With Overweight or Obesity

Kompaniyets,

Freedman,

Belay

et al. 2023

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceInformation on the probability of weight loss among US adults with overweight or obesity is limited.ObjectiveTo assess the probability of 5% or greater weight loss, 10% or greater weight loss, body mass index (BMI) reduction to a lower BMI category, and BMI reduction to the healthy weight category among US adults with initial overweight or obesity overall and by sex and race.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study obtained data from the IQVIA ambulatory electronic medical records database. The sample consists of US ambulatory patients 17 years or older with at least 3 years of BMI information from January 1, 2009, to February 28, 2022. Minimum age was set at 17 years to allow for the change in BMI or weight starting at 18 years. Maximum age was censored at 70 years.ExposuresInitial BMI (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) category was the independent variable of interest, and the categories were as follows: lower than 18.5 (underweight), 18.5 to 24.9 (healthy weight), 25.0 to 29.9 (overweight), 30.0 to 34.9 (class 1 obesity), 35.0 to 39.9 (class 2 obesity), and 40.0 to 44.9 and 45.0 or higher (class 3 or severe obesity).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe 2 main outcomes were 5% or greater weight loss (ie, a ≥5% reduction in initial weight) and BMI reduction to the healthy weight category (ie, BMI of 18.5-24.9).ResultsThe 18 461 623 individuals in the sample had a median (IQR) age of 54 (40-66) years and included 10 464 598 females (56.7%) as well as 7.7% Black and 72.3% White patients. Overall, 72.5% of patients had overweight or obesity at the initial visit. Among adults with overweight and obesity, the annual probability of 5% or greater weight loss was low (1 in 10) but increased with higher initial BMI (from 1 in 12 individuals with initial overweight to 1 in 6 individuals with initial BMI of 45 or higher). Annual probability of BMI reduction to the healthy weight category ranged from 1 in 19 individuals with initial overweight to 1 in 1667 individuals with initial BMI of 45 or higher. Both outcomes were generally more likely among females than males and were highest among White females. Over the 3 to 14 years of follow-up, 33.4% of persons with overweight and 41.8% of persons with obesity lost 5% or greater of their initial weight. At the same time, 23.2% of persons with overweight and 2.0% of persons with obesity reduced BMI to the healthy weight category.Conclusions and RelevanceResults of this cohort study indicate that the annual probability of 5% or greater weight loss was low (1 in 10) despite the known benefits of clinically meaningful weight loss, but 5% or greater weight loss was more likely than BMI reduction to the healthy weight category, especially for patients with the highest initial BMIs. Clinicians and public health efforts can focus on messaging and referrals to interventions that are aimed at clinically meaningful weight loss (ie, ≥5%) for adults at any level of excess weight.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probability of 5% or Greater Weight Loss or BMI Reduction to Healthy Weight Among Adults With Overweight or Obesity

Kompaniyets,

Freedman,

Belay

et al. 2023

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Individual motivations for losing weight commonly include improving short‐ and long‐term health and comfort; aesthetic preferences; and reducing experiences of bias, stigma and challenges with systems maladapted to people of greater size 3,4 . Losing even 5%–10% of body weight can result in improved health outcomes, 5 and participating in organised weight‐loss programmes can increase losses 6–8 . Long‐term adherence is a key predictor of effects and is generally low across the range of weight‐loss diets 9,10 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,4 Losing even 5%-10% of body weight can result in improved health outcomes, 5 and participating in organised weight-loss programmes can increase losses. [6][7][8] Long-term adherence is a key predictor of effects and is generally low across the range of weight-loss diets. 9,10 Studies show that maintaining weight loss after 1 year is relatively rare, 11 although a recent study identified significant weight differences 5 years after a 1-year Weight Watchers intervention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commercial weight‐loss diets, greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater consumption

Neff,

Ramsing,

Kim

2023

J Human Nutrition Diet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWeight‐loss attempts are widespread in the United States, with many using commercial weight‐loss diet plans for guidance and support. Accordingly, dietary suggestions within these plans influence the nation's food‐related environmental footprint.MethodsWe modelled United States (US) per capita greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) and water footprints associated with seven commercial weight‐loss diets, the US baseline, and selected other dietary patterns. We characterised consumption in commercial weight‐loss diets both via modelling from provided guidelines and based on specific foods in 1‐week meal plans. Cradle‐to‐farmgate GHGe and water footprints were assessed using a previously developed model. GHGe results were compared to the EAT‐Lancet 2050 target. Water footprints were compared to the US baseline.ResultsWeight‐loss diets had GHGe footprints on average 4.4 times the EAT‐Lancet target recommended for planetary health (range: 2.4–8.5 times). Bovine meat was by far the largest contributor of GHGe in most diets that included it. Three commercial diets had water footprints above the US baseline. Low caloric intake in some diets compensated for the relative increases in GHGe‐ and water‐intensive foods.ConclusionsDietary patterns suggested by marketing materials and guidelines from commercial weight‐loss diets can have high GHGe and water footprints, particularly if caloric limits are exceeded. Commercial diet plan guidance can be altered to support planetary and individual health, including describing what dietary patterns can jointly support environmental sustainability and weight loss.

show abstract

“…In the Original Investigation titled “Efficacy of a Commercial Weight Management Program Compared With a Do-It-Yourself Approach: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” 1 published August 16, 2022, there was an error in the second paragraph of the Secondary Outcomes subsection of the Results section. The name of the measure (ie, quality of life) was inadvertently deleted.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The name of the measure (ie, quality of life) was inadvertently deleted. It should read as follows: “At 3 months, participants in the commercial program group had significantly greater improvements than those in the DIY group in quality of life (total score, 2.49 [97.5% CI, 0.03-4.95]; P = .02; and physical function subscale, 4.10 [97.5% CI, 1.08-7.13]; P = .02).” This article has been corrected …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Error in Results

2022

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Original Investigation titled "Efficacy of a Commercial Weight Management Program Compared With a Do-It-Yourself Approach: A Randomized Clinical Trial," 1 published August 16, 2022, there was an error in the second paragraph of the Secondary Outcomes subsection of the Results section. The name of the measure (ie, quality of life) was inadvertently deleted. It should read as follows: "At 3 months, participants in the commercial program group had significantly greater improvements than those in the DIY group in quality of life (total score, 2.49 [97.5% CI, 0.03-4.95]; P = .02; and physical function subscale, 4.10 [97.5% CI, 1.08-7.13]; P = .02)." This article has been corrected. 1

show abstract

Efficacy of a Commercial Weight Management Program Compared With a Do-It-Yourself Approach

Cited by 9 publications

References 51 publications

Probability of 5% or Greater Weight Loss or BMI Reduction to Healthy Weight Among Adults With Overweight or Obesity

Probability of 5% or Greater Weight Loss or BMI Reduction to Healthy Weight Among Adults With Overweight or Obesity

Commercial weight‐loss diets, greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater consumption

Error in Results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About