OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in weight regain one year after an 18-month obesity treatment with standard behavior therapy (SBT) or maintenance-tailored therapy for obesity (MTT). METHOD:213 obese adult volunteers were treated for 18 months using SBT with fixed behavioral prescriptions or MTT that employed varied behavioral prescriptions with treatment breaks. Follow-up analysis focused on weight maintenance after a year of no contact. The trial was conducted at the University of Minnesota between 2005 and 2009. RESULTS:Mean (SD) weight change between 18 and 30 months for participants in the SBT group was +4.1 kg (4.4) compared to +2.8 kg (4.5) in the MTT group. This is a 31% reduction in weight regain in MTT relative to SBT (p=0.078). This trend toward better maintenance in MTT versus SBT was due primarily to superior differential maintenance in MTT participants in the highest tertile of total weight loss at 18 months, i.e. MTT participants in this tertile regained 4 kg less than SBT participants between 18 and 30 months. CONCLUSIONS: The MTT approach with varied content and timing produced more desirable patterns of weight loss maintenance than the traditional SBT approach, especially among individuals who had achieved greater initial weight loss.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in weight regain one year after an 18-month obesity treatment with standard behavior therapy (SBT) or maintenance-tailored therapy for obesity (MTT). METHOD: 213 obese adult volunteers were treated for 18 months using SBT with fixed behavioral prescriptions or MTT that employed varied behavioral prescriptions with treatment breaks. Follow-up analysis focused on weight maintenance after a year of no contact. The trial was conducted at the University of Minnesota between 2005 and 2009. RESULTS: Mean (SD) weight change between 18 and 30 months for participants in the SBT group was +4.1 kg (4.4) compared to +2.8 kg (4.5) in the MTT group. This is a 31% reduction in weight regain in MTT relative to SBT (p=0.078). This trend toward better maintenance in MTT versus SBT was due primarily to superior differential maintenance in MTTparticipants in the highest tertile of total weight loss at 18 months, i.e. MTTparticipants in this tertile regained 4 kg less than SBT participants between 18 and 30 months. CONCLUSIONS: The MTT approach with varied content and timing produced more desirable patterns of weight loss maintenance than the traditional SBT approach, especially among individuals who had achieved greater initial weight loss.
Authors: R W Jeffery; A Drewnowski; L H Epstein; A J Stunkard; G T Wilson; R R Wing; D R Hill Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Thomas A Wadden; Delia Smith West; Linda Delahanty; John Jakicic; Jack Rejeski; Don Williamson; Robert I Berkowitz; David E Kelley; Christine Tomchee; James O Hill; Shiriki Kumanyika Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Richard R Rubin; Wilfred Y Fujimoto; David G Marrero; Tina Brenneman; Jeanne B Charleston; Sharon L Edelstein; Edwin B Fisher; Ruth Jordan; William C Knowler; Lynne C Lichterman; Melvin Prince; Patricia M Rowe Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2002-04
Authors: Robert W Jeffery; Rona L Levy; Shelby L Langer; Ericka M Welsh; Andrew P Flood; Melanie A Jaeb; Patricia S Laqua; Annie M Hotop; Emily A Finch Journal: Prev Med Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Nancy E Sherwood; A Lauren Crain; Brian C Martinson; Christopher P Anderson; Marcia G Hayes; Julie D Anderson; Meghan M Senso; Robert W Jeffery Journal: Prev Med Date: 2012-12-28 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Jacqueline F Hayes; Deborah F Tate; Mark A Espeland; Jessica Gokee LaRose; Amy A Gorin; Cora E Lewis; Elissa Jelalian; Judy Bahnson; Rena R Wing Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Richard A Washburn; Amanda N Szabo-Reed; Anna M Gorczyca; Debra K Sullivan; Jeffery J Honas; Matthew S Mayo; Ronald Krebill; Jeannine Goetz; Lauren T Ptomey; Jaehoon Lee; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 9.298
Authors: Nancy E Sherwood; Meghan L Butryn; Evan M Forman; Daniel Almirall; Elisabeth M Seburg; A Lauren Crain; Alicia S Kunin-Batson; Marcia G Hayes; Rona L Levy; Robert W Jeffery Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Gareth R Dutton; Marissa A Gowey; Fei Tan; Dali Zhou; Jamy Ard; Michael G Perri; Cora E Lewis Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 6.457