Weight Loss Success of Participants Residing in Rural and Urban Areas

Abstract

Purpose Rural residents are significantly more likely to be overweight and obese than are urban residents. However, few data have compared weight control program responses in these population groups. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the weight loss outcomes of participants in a multi-site, on-line behavioral intervention by residential location (rural vs. urban) and, secondly, assess any possible differences in adherence to treatment goals. Methods 492 adult participants (Mean BMI = 35.7 kg/m2; 90 % Female; 24% Minority) were categorized based on their home zip code and the 2010 US Census Urban and Rural Classification criteria (58.3% Rural; 41.7% Urban). Weight (kg) was measured in-person at baseline and 6 months after participating in a behavioral weight control intervention. Adherence to physical activity and calorie and fat intake goals was assessed based on weekly self-monitoring journals. Weekly online chat attendance and completion of weekly online self-monitoring journals were recorded. Presence of obesogenic foods in the home was self-reported at baseline and 6 months. Findings There were no statistically significant differences in weight loss between rural and urban participants (−6.1 kg vs. −5.3 kg, P = .16), nor were there differences in chat attendance, self-monitoring journals, self-reported physical activity, calorie intake or obesogenic foods reported in the household. Conclusions Overall, there was no difference in weight loss and adherence to treatment goals for rural and urban participants. Further research on rural and urban residents is necessary to explore the factors responsible for the disparity in obesity prevalence.

Impact of the built, social, and food environment on long‐term weight loss within a behavioral weight loss intervention

“…study participants 14 . Of note, there are important differences in the PA components of these interventions, with one providing no fitness center access, 13 another emphasizing built environment supports (e.g., use of local fitness centers and walking for transportation), 14 and the present study providing fitness center access over 12–18 months, with little emphasis on use of built environment to facilitate weight loss efforts. However, results only represent findings from three interventions.…”

“…Similarly, Mench et al. found that urbanicity did not moderate weight change during a 6‐month behavioral weight loss intervention 13 . In addition, Zenk et al.…”

“…Similarly, Mench et al found that urbanicity did not moderate weight change during a 6-month behavioral weight loss intervention. 13 In addition, Zenk et al found little to no association between walkability, park access, or fitness facility access and weight change at 6, 12, 18, or 24 months among 114,256 VA MOVE! study participants.…”

“…The Standard group received a supervised exercise program, progressing to 300 min/week of moderate intensity erobic activity during months 0-6, followed by unsupervized exercise during months 7-18. The Sequential group was asked to refrain from changing their exercise habits during months 0-6 and received an identical supervised exercise program during months 7-12, followed by unsupervized exercise during months [13][14][15][16][17][18]. On completion of the 6-month supervised exercise phase, participants in both groups were instructed to continue 300 min/ week of moderate intensity activity and were provided continued access to the exercise facility for the remainder of the study.…”

“…Mench et al. found that rural versus urban status did not moderate weight loss or changes in self‐reported physical activity (PA) among a sample of 492 adults who participated in a 6‐month weight loss intervention 13 . In another study of 114,256 participants from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) MOVE!…”