Initial Weight Change and Long-Term Changes in Weight and Compensation during Supervised Exercise Training.

INTRODUCTION: Our primary aim was to investigate the association between initial weight change and longer-term changes in weight and compensation (predicted weight loss-observed weight loss) during exercise. As secondary aims, we investigated if initial weight change was related to change in cardiometabolic risk markers and energy balance modulators. METHODS: Two 6-month randomized controlled exercise trials conducted in individuals with overweight or obesity were analyzed (study 1, n = 312; study 2, n = 102). In both studies, participants in an exercise condition (4 kcal·kg-1·wk-1 [KKW], 8 KKW, 12 KKW, or 20 KKW) were split into tertiles based on percent weight change from baseline to week 4. Tertiles 1 and 3 exhibited the least and most initial weight loss, respectively. Changes in end points were compared between tertiles. RESULTS: At month 6, weight loss was lower in tertile 1 than tertile 3 (study 1: -3.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -4.6 to -2.6; study 2: -1.8%, 95% CI = -3.1 to -0.4; P ≤ 0.034). Tertile 1 also showed greater compensation than tertile 3 in study 1 (3.0 kg, 95% CI = 2.2 to 3.9) and study 2 (1.5 kg, 95% CI = 0.3 to 2.6; P ≤ 0.048). Changes in triglycerides and, in study 1, HDL cholesterol were less favorable in tertile 1 versus tertile 3 (P ≤ 0.043); however, changes in other cardiometabolic markers were similar (P ≥ 0.209). In study 2, tertile 1 increased energy intake and exhibited maladaptive changes in eating behaviors relative to tertile 3 (P < 0.050). No between-tertile differences in cumulative exercise energy expenditure and physical activity were evident (P ≥ 0.321). CONCLUSIONS: Less initial weight loss was associated with longer-term attenuated weight loss and greater compensation during aerobic exercise training. Individuals who display less initial weight loss during exercise may require early interventions to decrease compensation and facilitate weight loss.

What Should I Eat and Why? The Environmental, Genetic, and Behavioral Determinants of Food Choice: Summary from a Pennington Scientific Symposium.

This review details the proceedings of a Pennington Biomedical scientific symposium titled, "What Should I Eat and Why? The Environmental, Genetic, and Behavioral Determinants of Food Choice." The symposium was designed to review the literature about energy homeostasis, particularly related to food choice and feeding behaviors, from psychology to physiology. This review discusses the intrinsic determinants of food choice, including biological mechanisms (genetics), peripheral and central signals, brain correlates, and the potential role of the microbiome. This review also address the extrinsic determinants (environment) of food choice within our physical and social environments. Finally, this review reports the current treatment practices for the clinical management of eating-induced overweight and obesity. An improved understanding of these determinants will inform best practices for the clinical treatment and prevention of obesity. Strategies paired with systemic shifts in our public health policies and changes in our "obesogenic" environment will be most effective at attenuating the obesity epidemic.

Effect of Statin Use on Mobility Disability and its Prevention in At-risk Older Adults: The LIFE Study.

BACKGROUND: HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are among the most commonly prescribed classes of medications. Although their cardiovascular benefits and myalgia risks are well documented, their effects on older adults initiating an exercise training program are less understood. METHODS: 1,635 sedentary men and women aged 70-89 years with Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score of 9 or below and were able to walk 400 m were randomized to a structured, moderate-intensity physical activity (PA) program consisting of both center-based (twice/wk) and home-based (3-4 times/wk) aerobic, resistance, and flexibility training or to a health education (HE) program combined with upper extremity stretching. RESULTS: Overall, the PA intervention was associated with lower risk of major mobility disability (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69-0.98). The effect was similar (p value for interaction = .62) in both statin users (PA n = 415, HE n = 412; HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.67-1.1) and nonusers (PA n = 402, HE n = 404; HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.61-1.01). Attendance was similar for statin users (65%) and nonusers (63%). SPPB at 12 months was slightly greater for PA (8.35±0.10) than for HE (7.94±0.10) in statin users but not in nonusers (PA 8.25±0.10, HE 8.16±0.10), though the interaction effect was not statistically significant. Self-reported PA levels were not different between statin users and nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: Although statins have been associated with adverse effects on muscle, data from the LIFE Study show that statin users and nonusers both benefit from PA interventions. Older adults who require statin medications to manage chronic medical conditions and are sedentary will be able to benefit from interventions to increase PA.