HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Heymsfield, S. B Articles by Pietrobelli, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Heymsfield, S. B Articles by Pietrobelli, A. Agricola Articles by Heymsfield, S. B Articles by Pietrobelli, A.

Why do obese patients not lose more weight when treated with low-calorie diets? A mechanistic perspective^1,2

¹ From Merck & Company, Rahway, NJ (SBH, JBH, MLR, JWB, and NE); the Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (DAS); and the Pediatric Unit, Verona University Medical School, Verona, Italy (AP)

Maximal weight loss observed in low-calorie diet (LCD) studies tends to be small, and the mechanisms leading to this low treatment efficacy have not been clarified. Less-than-expected weight loss with LCDs can arise from an increase in fractional energy absorption (FEA), adaptations in energy expenditure, or incomplete patient diet adherence. We systematically reviewed studies of FEA and total energy expenditure (TEE) in obese patients undergoing weight loss with LCDs and in patients with reduced obesity (RO), respectively. This information was used to support an energy balance model that was then applied to examine patient adherence to prescribed LCD treatment programs. In the limited available literature, FEA was unchanged from baseline in short-term (<12 wk) treatment studies with LCDs; no long-term (26 wk) studies were found. Review of doubly labeled water and respiratory chamber studies identified 10 reports of TEE in RO patients (n = 150) with long-term weight loss. These patients, who were weight stable, had a TEE almost identical to measured or predicted values in never-obese subjects (weighted mean difference: 1.3%; range: –1.7–8.5%). Modeling of energy balance, as supported by reviewed FEA and TEE studies, suggests that obese subjects participating in LCD programs have a weight loss less than half of that predicted. The small maximal weight loss observed with LCD treatments thus is likely not due to gastrointestinal adaptations but may be attributed, by deduction, to difficulties with patient adherence or, to a lesser degree, to metabolic adaptations induced by negative energy balance that are not captured by the current models.

Key Words: Obesity • diet • energy expenditure • doubly labeled water • adherence

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. T. Rhodes and D. S. Ludwig Childhood Obesity as a Chronic Disease: Keeping the Weight Off JAMA, October 10, 2007; 298(14): 1695 - 1696. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. B. Heymsfield and G. L. Blackburn Comparison of Weight-Loss Diets JAMA, July 11, 2007; 298(2): 173 - 174. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. B. Ebbeling, M. M. Leidig, H. A. Feldman, M. M. Lovesky, and D. S. Ludwig Effects of a Low-Glycemic Load vs Low-Fat Diet in Obese Young Adults: A Randomized Trial JAMA, May 16, 2007; 297(19): 2092 - 2102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]