| Literature DB >> 30358151 |
Daniel L Smith1,2,3,4, Yongbin Yang1,2, Tim R Nagy1,2,3,4, Amit Patki5, Joseph R Vasselli6, Yiying Zhang7, Stephanie L Dickinson8, David B Allison1,2,3,4,5,9.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the known health benefits of weight loss among persons with obesity, observational studies have reported that cycles of weight loss and regain, or weight cycling, are associated with increased mortality. To study whether weight loss must be sustained to achieve health and longevity benefits, we performed a randomized controlled feeding study of weight cycling in mice.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30358151 PMCID: PMC6221135 DOI: 10.1002/oby.22290
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) ISSN: 1930-7381 Impact factor: 5.002
Figure 1Body weight and body composition. Weekly body weight after randomization (mean ± SE) by group, including (A) wave 1 female, (B) wave 1 male, and (C) wave 2 male (all waves and sexes P < 0.01 [OWL, OWLM, and WC] vs. EO in postrandomization weeks 12‐50). A small sample (n = 15/sex) of low‐fat‐fed mice were used as a “benchmark” for the OWL body weight target (see Supporting Information Table S10. Body fat mass as measured by quantitative magnetic resonance (mean ± SD) following initial weight loss (T1, ~week 13; P < 0.01 all groups vs. EO) and regain by the WC group (T2, ~week 29; EO vs. WC, P not significant). (D) wave 1 female; (E) wave 1 male; (F) wave 2 male. EO, Ever Obese (black); OWLM, Obese Weight Loss Moderate (red); OWL, Obese Weight Loss (blue); QMR, Quantitive Magnetic Resonance; WC, Weight Cyclers (yellow).
Figure 2Kaplan Meier Survival Plot. Survival distribution by days alive in the study by treatment. (A) Wave and sex combined, (B) female only, and (C) male only survival. EO, Ever Obese (black; n = 25 female, 66 male); OWLM, Obese Weight Loss Moderate (red; n = 48 female, 132 male); OWL, Obese Weight Loss (blue; n = 26 female, 66 male); WC, Weight Cyclers (yellow; n = 51 female, 138 male).
Survival analyses: general linear model and Cox proportional hazard
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
| 13.02 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
|
| 6.07 | <0.001 | 0.38 | <0.001 | |||
|
| 4.68 | <0.001 | 0.51 | <0.001 | |||
|
| 3.85 | <0.001 | 0.57 | <0.001 | |||
|
| 1.07 | 0.868 | 0.89 | 0.253 | |||
Using all animals without censoring.
t statistic.
Corrected for multiple comparison using Sidak.
Mediation analyses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||||
|
| Week 57‐73 | OWL | 143.97 | 135.23 | −0.07 | 0.08 | 42.86 | 12.62 | 2.51 |
|
| OWLM | 96.63 | 72.58 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 42.86 | 12.62 | 8.00 |
| ||
| WC | 78.80 | 11.47 | 1.01 | 0.07 | 42.86 | 12.62 | 5.15 |
| ||
| Week 73‐85 | OWL | 143.97 | 70.55 | 0.56 | 0.18 | 39.63 | 5.54 | 9.31 |
| |
| OWLM | 96.63 | 43.60 | 0.37 | 0.17 | 39.63 | 5.54 | 7.67 |
| ||
| WC | 78.80 | 119.22 | −1.74 | 0.17 | 39.63 | 5.54 | −3.46 |
| ||
|
| Week 57‐ 73 | OWL | 143.97 | 159.12 | −8.74 | 0.78 | 3.07 | 1.28 | −1.32 | 0.186 |
| OWLM | 96.63 | 78.61 | −1.40 | 0.69 | 3.07 | 1.28 | 6.52 |
| ||
| WC | 78.80 | 64.91 | −3.30 | 0.68 | 3.07 | 1.28 | 2.95 |
| ||
| Week 73‐ 85 | OWL | 143.97 | 134.64 | −8.94 | 0.98 | 4.70 | 1.07 | 0.88 | 0.380 | |
| OWLM | 96.63 | 63.17 | −1.04 | 0.89 | 4.70 | 1.07 | 7.72 |
| ||
| WC | 78.80 | 67.63 | −3.69 | 0.89 | 4.70 | 1.07 | 1.94 | 0.053 | ||
|
| Week 57‐ 73 | OWL | 143.97 | 155.30 | −0.28 | 0.02 | 82.42 | 41.86 | −0.96 | 0.339 |
| OWLM | 96.63 | 78.79 | −0.05 | 0.02 | 82.42 | 41.86 | 6.23 |
| ||
| WC | 78.80 | 64.78 | −0.12 | 0.02 | 82.42 | 41.86 | 2.62 |
| ||
| Week 73‐ 85 | OWL | 143.97 | 135.38 | −0.29 | 0.03 | 149.34 | 35.50 | 0.77 | 0.439 | |
| OWLM | 96.63 | 64.75 | −0.04 | 0.03 | 149.34 | 35.50 | 7.40 |
| ||
| WC | 78.80 | 71.13 | −0.14 | 0.03 | 149.34 | 35.50 | 1.20 | 0.231 | ||
| Sobel test (2‐sided) | ||||||||||
Using all animals without censoring; wave 1 and 2 combined.