Samantha E Berger1, Gordon S Huggins2, Jeanne M McCaffery3, Alice H Lichtenstein4,5. 1. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy and. 2. Molecular Cardiology Research Institute Center for Translational Genomics, Tufts Medical Center and Tufts University, Boston, MA; and. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Miriam Hospital, Warren Alpert School of Medicine and Weight Control and Diabetes Research Center, Brown University, Providence, RI. 4. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy and alice.lichtenstein@tufts.edu. 5. Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, MA.
Abstract
Background: Given the low rates of successful weight maintenance after lifestyle-induced weight loss, it is critical to develop approaches that distinguish successful weight-loss maintainers from regainers.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare published categorization criteria that differentiate maintainers and regainers via quantitative agreement.Design: The study used publicly available data from Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes; n = 1791) and Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP; n = 613) participants with ≥3% initial weight loss after lifestyle interventions and 4-y follow-up data. Eight previously published criteria defining maintainers and regainers were compared with respect to number of participants and concordance via agreement statistics. Criteria were assessed separately among those with 3-9% and ≥10% initial weight loss. Results: Regainers had higher body weight at year 4 than did maintainers (mean difference range: 6.6-11.9 kg in Look AHEAD; 11.5-14.6 kg in DPP; P < 0.0001). Assessing concordance among criteria, agreement was dependent on initial weight loss. Among those with 3-9% initial weight loss in both cohorts, 9 of 28 comparisons were concordant (agreement ≥80%). Among those with ≥10% initial weight loss, 7 of 28 comparisons in Look AHEAD and 13 of 28 in the DPP were in high agreement. The definition of successful weight-loss maintenance "regaining ≤25% of initial weight loss during maintenance" showed high agreement with the most commonly used definition of "staying ≥10% below initial weight" among those with ≥10% initial weight loss (agreement: 85.0% in Look AHEAD; 87.4% in DPP). The same definition of ≤25% regain showed high agreement with the definition of staying ≥5% below initial weight among those with 3-9% initial weight loss (agreement: 91.6% in Look AHEAD; 90.5% in DPP).Conclusions: Although all of the criteria discriminated on the basis of weight loss, many showed low agreement, which limited cross-study comparisons. Among criteria with high agreement, the definition of successful weight maintenance "regaining ≤25% of initial weight loss during maintenance" is a preferred definition of success, given the realistic challenges of maintaining 100% weight loss and flexible application in populations with high initial weight-loss variations. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00017953 (Look AHEAD) and NCT00004992 (DPP).
Background: Given the low rates of successful weight maintenance after lifestyle-induced weight loss, it is critical to develop approaches that distinguish successful weight-loss maintainers from regainers.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare published categorization criteria that differentiate maintainers and regainers via quantitative agreement.Design: The study used publicly available data from Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes; n = 1791) and Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP; n = 613) participants with ≥3% initial weight loss after lifestyle interventions and 4-y follow-up data. Eight previously published criteria defining maintainers and regainers were compared with respect to number of participants and concordance via agreement statistics. Criteria were assessed separately among those with 3-9% and ≥10% initial weight loss. Results: Regainers had higher body weight at year 4 than did maintainers (mean difference range: 6.6-11.9 kg in Look AHEAD; 11.5-14.6 kg in DPP; P < 0.0001). Assessing concordance among criteria, agreement was dependent on initial weight loss. Among those with 3-9% initial weight loss in both cohorts, 9 of 28 comparisons were concordant (agreement ≥80%). Among those with ≥10% initial weight loss, 7 of 28 comparisons in Look AHEAD and 13 of 28 in the DPP were in high agreement. The definition of successful weight-loss maintenance "regaining ≤25% of initial weight loss during maintenance" showed high agreement with the most commonly used definition of "staying ≥10% below initial weight" among those with ≥10% initial weight loss (agreement: 85.0% in Look AHEAD; 87.4% in DPP). The same definition of ≤25% regain showed high agreement with the definition of staying ≥5% below initial weight among those with 3-9% initial weight loss (agreement: 91.6% in Look AHEAD; 90.5% in DPP).Conclusions: Although all of the criteria discriminated on the basis of weight loss, many showed low agreement, which limited cross-study comparisons. Among criteria with high agreement, the definition of successful weight maintenance "regaining ≤25% of initial weight loss during maintenance" is a preferred definition of success, given the realistic challenges of maintaining 100% weight loss and flexible application in populations with high initial weight-loss variations. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00017953 (Look AHEAD) and NCT00004992 (DPP).
Authors: Linda M Delahanty; Qing Pan; Kathleen A Jablonski; Vanita R Aroda; Karol E Watson; George A Bray; Steven E Kahn; Jose C Florez; Leigh Perreault; Paul W Franks Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Karl K Vanderwood; Taryn O Hall; Todd S Harwell; Diane Arave; Marcene K Butcher; Steven D Helgerson Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Rebecca H Neiberg; Rena R Wing; George A Bray; David M Reboussin; Amy D Rickman; Karen C Johnson; Abbas E Kitabchi; Lucy F Faulconbridge; Dalane W Kitzman; Mark A Espeland Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Laura P Svetkey; Jamy D Ard; Victor J Stevens; Catherine M Loria; Deb Y Young; Jack F Hollis; Lawrence J Appel; Phillip J Brantley; Betty M Kennedy; Shiriki K Kumanyika; Bryan C Batch; Leonor Corsino; Lillian F Lien; William M Vollmer Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Donna H Ryan; Mark A Espeland; Gary D Foster; Steven M Haffner; Van S Hubbard; Karen C Johnson; Steven E Kahn; William C Knowler; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2003-10
Authors: Xavier Pi-Sunyer; George Blackburn; Frederick L Brancati; George A Bray; Renee Bright; Jeanne M Clark; Jeffrey M Curtis; Mark A Espeland; John P Foreyt; Kathryn Graves; Steven M Haffner; Barbara Harrison; James O Hill; Edward S Horton; John Jakicic; Robert W Jeffery; Karen C Johnson; Steven Kahn; David E Kelley; Abbas E Kitabchi; William C Knowler; Cora E Lewis; Barbara J Maschak-Carey; Brenda Montgomery; David M Nathan; Jennifer Patricio; Anne Peters; J Bruce Redmon; Rebecca S Reeves; Donna H Ryan; Monika Safford; Brent Van Dorsten; Thomas A Wadden; Lynne Wagenknecht; Jacqueline Wesche-Thobaben; Rena R Wing; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-03-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Daniel P Beavers; Kristen M Beavers; Mary F Lyles; Barbara J Nicklas Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-11-26 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: John W Apolzan; Elizabeth M Venditti; Sharon L Edelstein; William C Knowler; Dana Dabelea; Edward J Boyko; Xavier Pi-Sunyer; Rita R Kalyani; Paul W Franks; Preethi Srikanthan; Kishore M Gadde Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: James L Dorling; Corby K Martin; Qingzhao Yu; Wentao Cao; Christoph Höchsmann; John W Apolzan; Robert L Newton; Kara D Denstel; Emily F Mire; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 8.472
Authors: Samantha E Berger; Gordon S Huggins; Jeanne M McCaffery; Paul F Jacques; Alice H Lichtenstein Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 5.501