METHODS: This study examined self-monitoring data from 61 Chinese adults who participated in a 5-week online group intervention for weight loss. Participants reported their baseline Body Mass Index (BMI), weight loss motivation, and engaged in both daily quantitative self-monitoring (e.g., caloric intake, mood, sedentary behavior, etc.) and qualitative self-monitoring (e.g., daily log that summarizes the progress of weight loss). The timeliness of participants' daily self-monitoring data filling was assessed using a scoring rule. One-way repeated measurement ANOVA was employed to analyze the dynamics of each self-monitoring indicator. Correlation and regression analyses were used to reveal the relationship between baseline data, self-monitoring indicators, and weight change. Content analysis was utilized to analyze participants' qualitative self-monitoring data. Participants were categorized into three groups based on their weight loss outcomes, and a chi-square test was used to compare the frequency distribution between these groups.
RESULTS: After the intervention, participants achieved an average weight loss of 2.52 kg (SD = 1.36) and 3.99% (SD = 1.96%) of their initial weight. Daily caloric intake, weight loss satisfaction, frequency of daily log, and the speed of weight loss showed a downward trend, but daily sedentary time gradually increased. Moreover, regression analysis showed that baseline BMI, weight loss motivation, and timeliness of daily filling predicted final weight loss. Qualitative self-monitoring data analysis revealed four categories and nineteen subcategories. A significant difference in the frequency of qualitative data was observed, with the excellent group reporting a greater number of daily logs than expected in all categories and most subcategories, and the moderate and poor groups reporting less than expected in all categories and most subcategories.
CONCLUSION: The self-monitoring data in short-term online group intervention exhibited fluctuations. Participants with higher baseline BMI, higher levels of weight loss motivation, and timely self-monitoring achieved more weight loss. Participants who achieved greater weight loss reported a higher quantity of qualitative self-monitoring data. Practitioners should focus on enhancing dieters' weight loss motivation and promote adherence to self-monitoring practices.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing the weight loss outcomes following LVSG and LRYGB in adult population between January 2000 and November 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The review was prepared in accordance with Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
RESULTS: Nine unique RCTs described over 10 publications involving a total of 865 patients (LVSG, n=437; LRYGB, n=428) were analyzed. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Twelve-month excess weight loss (EWL) for LVSG ranged from 69.7% to 83%, and for LRYGB, ranged from 60.5% to 86.4%. A number of studies reported slow weight gain between the second and third years of postoperative follow-up ranging from 1.4% to 4.2%EWL. This trend was seen to continue to 5 years postoperatively (8% to 10%EWL) for both procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, LRYGB and LVSG are comparable with regards to the weight loss outcomes in the short term, with LRYGB achieving slightly greater weight loss. Slow weight recidivism is observed after the first postoperative year following both procedures. Long-term reporting of outcomes obtained from well-designed studies using intention-to-treat analyses are identified as a major gap in the literature at present.
Methods: Analyses were performed on 243 women (mean body mass index 31.27 ± 4.14 kg/m2) who completed a 12-month lifestyle intervention in low socioeconomic communities in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare changes of cardiometabolic risk factors across weight change categories (2% gain, ±2% maintain, >2 to <5% loss, and 5 to 20% loss) within intervention and control group.
Results: A graded association for changes in waist circumference, fasting insulin, and total cholesterol (p=0.002, for all variables) across the weight change categories were observed within the intervention group at six months postintervention. Participants who lost 5 to 20% of weight had the greatest improvements in those risk markers (-5.67 cm CI: -7.98 to -3.36, -4.27 μU/mL CI: -7.35, -1.19, and -0.59 mmol/L CI: -.99, -0.19, respectively) compared to those who did not. Those who lost >2% to <5% weight reduced more waist circumference (-4.24 cm CI: -5.44 to -3.04) and fasting insulin (-0.36 μU/mL CI: -1.95 to 1.24) than those who maintained or gained weight. No significant association was detected in changes of risk markers across the weight change categories within the control group except for waist circumference and adiponectin.
Conclusion: Weight loss of >2 to <5% obtained through lifestyle intervention may represent a reasonable initial weight loss target for women in the low socioeconomic community as it led to improvements in selected risk markers, particularly of diabetes risk.
Methods: Thirteen focus group discussions involving 129 participants from a weight-loss intervention program were conducted within the first 1 month of recruitment. These discussions were moderated by two trained researchers in the Malay language and assisted by an interview guide. They were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was performed, and codes and themes from each discussion were constructed.
Results: The participants understood dieting with various meanings, including skipping meals and removing rice from daily diets. They applied numerous methods to lose weight and achieved various outcomes. Health and appearance, social support, and compliance with current trends were the factors motivating these participants to lose weight. Their determination to lose weight was limited by lack of self-control and motivation, experiences of unpleasant effects, influence on weight, and environmental and health factors.
Conclusion: Real-life weight loss experiences and perceptions provided relevant insights into current weight loss management strategies. Some of these issues and misunderstandings should be emphasized in weight loss strategies during health promotion.
Objective: To assess whether sleep timing and napping behavior are associated with increased obesity, independent of nocturnal sleep length.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This large, multinational, population-based cross-sectional study used data of participants from 60 study centers in 26 countries with varying income levels as part of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study. Participants were aged 35 to 70 years and were mainly recruited during 2005 and 2009. Data analysis occurred from October 2020 through March 2021.
Exposures: Sleep timing (ie, bedtime and wake-up time), nocturnal sleep duration, daytime napping.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were prevalence of obesity, specified as general obesity, defined as body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 30 or greater, and abdominal obesity, defined as waist circumference greater than 102 cm for men or greater than 88 cm for women. Multilevel logistic regression models with random effects for study centers were performed to calculate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs.
Results: Overall, 136 652 participants (81 652 [59.8%] women; mean [SD] age, 51.0 [9.8] years) were included in analysis. A total of 27 195 participants (19.9%) had general obesity, and 37 024 participants (27.1%) had abdominal obesity. The mean (SD) nocturnal sleep duration was 7.8 (1.4) hours, and the median (interquartile range) midsleep time was 2:15 am (1:30 am-3:00 am). A total of 19 660 participants (14.4%) had late bedtime behavior (ie, midnight or later). Compared with bedtime between 8 pm and 10 pm, late bedtime was associated with general obesity (AOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.12-1.29) and abdominal obesity (AOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.12-1.28), particularly among participants who went to bed between 2 am and 6 am (general obesity: AOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.18-1.54; abdominal obesity: AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.21-1.58). Short nocturnal sleep of less than 6 hours was associated with general obesity (eg, <5 hours: AOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.13-1.43), but longer napping was associated with higher abdominal obesity prevalence (eg, ≥1 hours: AOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.31-1.47). Neither going to bed during the day (ie, before 8pm) nor wake-up time was associated with obesity.
Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that late nocturnal bedtime and short nocturnal sleep were associated with increased risk of obesity prevalence, while longer daytime napping did not reduce the risk but was associated with higher risk of abdominal obesity. Strategic weight control programs should also encourage earlier bedtime and avoid short nocturnal sleep to mitigate obesity epidemic.