Limits...
Comparative effectiveness of guided weight loss and physical activity monitoring for weight loss and metabolic risks: A pilot study

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Many consumer-based physical activity monitors (PAMs) are available but it is not clear how to use them to most effectively promote weight loss. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare the effectiveness of a personal PAM, a guided weight loss program (GWL), and the combination of these approaches on weight loss and metabolic risk. Participants completed the study in two cohorts: Fall 2010 and Spring 2011. A sample of 72 obese individuals in the Ames, IA area were randomized to one of 3 conditions: 1) (GWL, N = 31), 2) PAM, N = 29, or 3) a combination group (PAM + GWL, N = 29). Weight and metabolic syndrome score (MetS), computed from waist circumference (WC), BMI, blood pressure (BP), and lipids were assessed at baseline and following an 8-week intervention. Weight was also assessed four months later. Two-way (Group × Time) ANOVAs examined intervention effects and maintenance. Effect sizes were used to compare magnitude of improvements among groups. During the intervention, all groups demonstrated significant improvements in weight and MetS (mean weight loss = 4.16 kg, p < 0.001). Mean weight continued to decline modestly during follow-up, with average weight loss of 4.82 kg from baseline (p < 0.01). There were no group differences for weight loss but the PAM + GWL group had significantly larger changes in MetS score (d = 0.06–0.77). The use of PAM resulted in significant improvements in weight and MetS that were maintained across a four-month follow-up. Evidence suggests that the addition of GWL contributed to enhanced metabolic outcomes.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Changes in weight loss by treatment group and compliance. (2010–2011, Ames, IA).Mean change (%) from baseline to 8 weeks between treatment groups based on compliance. Compliant subjects (Com; GWLR z-score ≥ 0) are solid bars and noncompliant (Non; GWLR z-score < 0) are open bars). Sample sizes for each group and compliance levels were as follows: GWL-Compliant: n = 17; GWL-Noncompliant: n = 9; PAM-Compliant: n = 7; PAM-Noncompliant: n = 19; PAM + GWL-Compliant: n = 15; PAM + GWL-Noncompliant: n = 11.*Indicates interaction with compliance.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY-NC-ND
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5385579&req=5

f0015: Changes in weight loss by treatment group and compliance. (2010–2011, Ames, IA).Mean change (%) from baseline to 8 weeks between treatment groups based on compliance. Compliant subjects (Com; GWLR z-score ≥ 0) are solid bars and noncompliant (Non; GWLR z-score < 0) are open bars). Sample sizes for each group and compliance levels were as follows: GWL-Compliant: n = 17; GWL-Noncompliant: n = 9; PAM-Compliant: n = 7; PAM-Noncompliant: n = 19; PAM + GWL-Compliant: n = 15; PAM + GWL-Noncompliant: n = 11.*Indicates interaction with compliance.

Mentions: Weight change during the intervention ranged from a gain of 2.1 kg to a loss of 11.9 kg. Participants above the mean for Compliance Score (CS) exhibited greater amounts of weight loss (− 5.2 kg ± 3.3) than participants with poorer compliance (− 3.1 kg ± 2.7) (p = 0.003). The CS was a significant covariate in the relationship between treatment group and change in weight with larger influence of CS evident in the two groups that received the GWL component (Fig. 3). However, CS did not significantly affect the maintenance of changes over the follow-up period.


Comparative effectiveness of guided weight loss and physical activity monitoring for weight loss and metabolic risks: A pilot study
Changes in weight loss by treatment group and compliance. (2010–2011, Ames, IA).Mean change (%) from baseline to 8 weeks between treatment groups based on compliance. Compliant subjects (Com; GWLR z-score ≥ 0) are solid bars and noncompliant (Non; GWLR z-score < 0) are open bars). Sample sizes for each group and compliance levels were as follows: GWL-Compliant: n = 17; GWL-Noncompliant: n = 9; PAM-Compliant: n = 7; PAM-Noncompliant: n = 19; PAM + GWL-Compliant: n = 15; PAM + GWL-Noncompliant: n = 11.*Indicates interaction with compliance.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY-NC-ND
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5385579&req=5

f0015: Changes in weight loss by treatment group and compliance. (2010–2011, Ames, IA).Mean change (%) from baseline to 8 weeks between treatment groups based on compliance. Compliant subjects (Com; GWLR z-score ≥ 0) are solid bars and noncompliant (Non; GWLR z-score < 0) are open bars). Sample sizes for each group and compliance levels were as follows: GWL-Compliant: n = 17; GWL-Noncompliant: n = 9; PAM-Compliant: n = 7; PAM-Noncompliant: n = 19; PAM + GWL-Compliant: n = 15; PAM + GWL-Noncompliant: n = 11.*Indicates interaction with compliance.
Mentions: Weight change during the intervention ranged from a gain of 2.1 kg to a loss of 11.9 kg. Participants above the mean for Compliance Score (CS) exhibited greater amounts of weight loss (− 5.2 kg ± 3.3) than participants with poorer compliance (− 3.1 kg ± 2.7) (p = 0.003). The CS was a significant covariate in the relationship between treatment group and change in weight with larger influence of CS evident in the two groups that received the GWL component (Fig. 3). However, CS did not significantly affect the maintenance of changes over the follow-up period.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Many consumer-based physical activity monitors (PAMs) are available but it is not clear how to use them to most effectively promote weight loss. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare the effectiveness of a personal PAM, a guided weight loss program (GWL), and the combination of these approaches on weight loss and metabolic risk. Participants completed the study in two cohorts: Fall 2010 and Spring 2011. A sample of 72 obese individuals in the Ames, IA area were randomized to one of 3 conditions: 1) (GWL, N&nbsp;=&nbsp;31), 2) PAM, N&nbsp;=&nbsp;29, or 3) a combination group (PAM&nbsp;+&nbsp;GWL, N&nbsp;=&nbsp;29). Weight and metabolic syndrome score (MetS), computed from waist circumference (WC), BMI, blood pressure (BP), and lipids were assessed at baseline and following an 8-week intervention. Weight was also assessed four months later. Two-way (Group&nbsp;&times;&nbsp;Time) ANOVAs examined intervention effects and maintenance. Effect sizes were used to compare magnitude of improvements among groups. During the intervention, all groups demonstrated significant improvements in weight and MetS (mean weight loss&nbsp;=&nbsp;4.16&nbsp;kg, p&nbsp;&lt;&nbsp;0.001). Mean weight continued to decline modestly during follow-up, with average weight loss of 4.82&nbsp;kg from baseline (p&nbsp;&lt;&nbsp;0.01). There were no group differences for weight loss but the PAM&nbsp;+&nbsp;GWL group had significantly larger changes in MetS score (d&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.06&ndash;0.77). The use of PAM resulted in significant improvements in weight and MetS that were maintained across a four-month follow-up. Evidence suggests that the addition of GWL contributed to enhanced metabolic outcomes.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus