Jessica D Smith1, Tao Hou2, Frank B Hu3, Eric B Rimm3, Donna Spiegelman2, Walter C Willett3, Dariush Mozaffarian4. 1. Departments of Nutrition and Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA; and jess.smith@tufts.edu. 2. Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA; 3. Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA; Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 4. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA; and.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The insidious pace of long-term weight gain (∼ 1 lb/y or 0.45 kg/y) makes it difficult to study in trials; long-term prospective cohorts provide crucial evidence on its key contributors. Most previous studies have evaluated how prevalent lifestyle habits relate to future weight gain rather than to lifestyle changes, which may be more temporally and physiologically relevant. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate and compare different methodological approaches for investigating diet, physical activity (PA), and long-term weight gain. METHODS: In 3 prospective cohorts (total n = 117,992), we assessed how lifestyle relates to long-term weight change (up to 24 y of follow-up) in 4-y periods by comparing 3 analytic approaches: 1) prevalent diet and PA and 4-y weight change (prevalent analysis); 2) 4-y changes in diet and PA with a 4-y weight change (change analysis); and 3) 4-y change in diet and PA with weight change in the subsequent 4 y (lagged-change analysis). We compared these approaches and evaluated the consistency across cohorts, magnitudes of associations, and biological plausibility of findings. RESULTS: Across the 3 methods, consistent, robust, and biologically plausible associations were seen only for the change analysis. Results for prevalent or lagged-change analyses were less consistent across cohorts, smaller in magnitude, and biologically implausible. For example, for each serving of a sugar-sweetened beverage, the observed weight gain was 0.01 lb (95% CI: -0.08, 0.10) [0.005 kg (95% CI: -0.04, 0.05)] based on prevalent analysis; 0.99 lb (95% CI: 0.83, 1.16) [0.45 kg (95% CI: 0.38, 0.53)] based on change analysis; and 0.05 lb (95% CI: -0.10, 0.21) [0.02 kg (95% CI: -0.05, 0.10)] based on lagged-change analysis. Findings were similar for other foods and PA. CONCLUSIONS: Robust, consistent, and biologically plausible relations between lifestyle and long-term weight gain are seen when evaluating lifestyle changes and weight changes in discrete periods rather than in prevalent lifestyle or lagged changes. These findings inform the optimal methods for evaluating lifestyle and long-term weight gain and the potential for bias when other methods are used.
BACKGROUND: The insidious pace of long-term weight gain (∼ 1 lb/y or 0.45 kg/y) makes it difficult to study in trials; long-term prospective cohorts provide crucial evidence on its key contributors. Most previous studies have evaluated how prevalent lifestyle habits relate to future weight gain rather than to lifestyle changes, which may be more temporally and physiologically relevant. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate and compare different methodological approaches for investigating diet, physical activity (PA), and long-term weight gain. METHODS: In 3 prospective cohorts (total n = 117,992), we assessed how lifestyle relates to long-term weight change (up to 24 y of follow-up) in 4-y periods by comparing 3 analytic approaches: 1) prevalent diet and PA and 4-y weight change (prevalent analysis); 2) 4-y changes in diet and PA with a 4-y weight change (change analysis); and 3) 4-y change in diet and PA with weight change in the subsequent 4 y (lagged-change analysis). We compared these approaches and evaluated the consistency across cohorts, magnitudes of associations, and biological plausibility of findings. RESULTS: Across the 3 methods, consistent, robust, and biologically plausible associations were seen only for the change analysis. Results for prevalent or lagged-change analyses were less consistent across cohorts, smaller in magnitude, and biologically implausible. For example, for each serving of a sugar-sweetened beverage, the observed weight gain was 0.01 lb (95% CI: -0.08, 0.10) [0.005 kg (95% CI: -0.04, 0.05)] based on prevalent analysis; 0.99 lb (95% CI: 0.83, 1.16) [0.45 kg (95% CI: 0.38, 0.53)] based on change analysis; and 0.05 lb (95% CI: -0.10, 0.21) [0.02 kg (95% CI: -0.05, 0.10)] based on lagged-change analysis. Findings were similar for other foods and PA. CONCLUSIONS: Robust, consistent, and biologically plausible relations between lifestyle and long-term weight gain are seen when evaluating lifestyle changes and weight changes in discrete periods rather than in prevalent lifestyle or lagged changes. These findings inform the optimal methods for evaluating lifestyle and long-term weight gain and the potential for bias when other methods are used.
Authors: Cara B Ebbeling; Janis F Swain; Henry A Feldman; William W Wong; David L Hachey; Erica Garcia-Lago; David S Ludwig Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeffrey D Browning; Jonathan A Baker; Thomas Rogers; Jeannie Davis; Santhosh Satapati; Shawn C Burgess Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Simin Liu; Walter C Willett; JoAnn E Manson; Frank B Hu; Bernard Rosner; Graham Colditz Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: W C Willett; L Sampson; M J Stampfer; B Rosner; C Bain; J Witschi; C H Hennekens; F E Speizer Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1985-07 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Penny Gordon-Larsen; Ningqi Hou; Steve Sidney; Barbara Sternfeld; Cora E Lewis; David R Jacobs; Barry M Popkin Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-12-03 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: S Salvini; D J Hunter; L Sampson; M J Stampfer; G A Colditz; B Rosner; W C Willett Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 1989-12 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Wenjie Ma; Tao Huang; Yan Zheng; Molin Wang; George A Bray; Frank M Sacks; Lu Qi Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Tiange Wang; Tao Huang; Yoriko Heianza; Dianjianyi Sun; Yan Zheng; Wenjie Ma; Majken K Jensen; Jae H Kang; Janey L Wiggs; Louis R Pasquale; Eric B Rimm; JoAnn E Manson; Frank B Hu; Walter C Willett; Lu Qi Journal: Diabetes Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Meghan B Azad; Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Bhupendrasinh F Chauhan; Rasheda Rabbani; Justin Lys; Leslie Copstein; Amrinder Mann; Maya M Jeyaraman; Ashleigh E Reid; Michelle Fiander; Dylan S MacKay; Jon McGavock; Brandy Wicklow; Ryan Zarychanski Journal: CMAJ Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Brandon J Auerbach; Fred M Wolf; Abigail Hikida; Petra Vallila-Buchman; Alyson Littman; Douglas Thompson; Diana Louden; Daniel R Taber; James Krieger Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Dalia Stern; Nicole Middaugh; Megan S Rice; Francine Laden; Ruy López-Ridaura; Bernard Rosner; Walter Willett; Martin Lajous Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: W Ma; T Huang; M Wang; Y Zheng; T Wang; Y Heianza; D Sun; S R Smith; G A Bray; F M Sacks; L Qi Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Yan Zheng; Uta Ceglarek; Tao Huang; Lerong Li; Jennifer Rood; Donna H Ryan; George A Bray; Frank M Sacks; Dan Schwarzfuchs; Joachim Thiery; Iris Shai; Lu Qi Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 7.045