RESUMEN
Background: Lifestyle interventions for weight loss are currently not individualised to underlying pathophysiology and behavioral traits in obesity. We aim to compare the outcome of a standard lifestyle intervention (SLI) to phenotype-tailored lifestyle interventions (PLI) on weight loss, cardiometabolic risk factors and physiologic variables contributing to obesity. Methods: This 12-week, single-centre non-randomised proof-of-concept clinical trial including men and women aged 18-65 years with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 without history of any bariatric procedure, and current use of any medication known to affect weight. Participants lived anywhere in the United States, and underwent in-person testing in Rochester, MN at a teaching hospital. All participants completed in-person phenotype testing at baseline and after 12 weeks. Participants were assigned to their intervention based on their period of enrollment. In the first phase, participants were assigned to SLI with a low-calorie diet (LCD), moderate physical activity, and weekly behavioral therapy sessions. In the second phase, other participants were assigned to PLI according to phenotype: abnormal satiation (time-restricted volumetric LCD); abnormal postprandial satiety (LCD with pre-meal protein supplementation); emotional eating (LCD with intensive behavioral therapy); and abnormal resting energy expenditure (LCD with post-workout protein supplementation and high-intensity interval training). The primary outcome was total body weight loss in kg at 12 weeks using multiple imputation for missing data. Linear models estimated the association of study group allocation and study endpoints adjusting for age, sex, and baseline weight. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04073394. Findings: Between July 2020 and August 2021, 211 participants were screened, and 165 were assigned to one of the two treatments in the two phases: 81 SLI (mean [SD] age 42.9 [12] years; 79% women; BMI 38.0 [6.0]) and 84 PLI (age 44.8 [12.2] years; 83% women; BMI 38.7 [6.9]); 146 completed the 12-week programs. The weight loss was -7.4 kg (95%CI, -8.8, -6.0) with PLI vs. -4.3 kg (95%CI, -5.8, -2.7) with SLI (difference, -3.1 kg [95%CI, -5.1 to -1.1]; P = 0.004). No adverse events were reported in any group. Interpretation: Phenotype-tailored lifestyle interventions may result in significant weight loss, but a randomised controlled trial is required to confirm causality. Funding: Mayo Clinic; NIH (K23-DK114460).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Culinary interventions (cooking classes) have been used to improve the quality of dietary intake and change behavior. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of culinary interventions on dietary intake and behavioral and cardiometabolic outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus for comparative studies that evaluated culinary interventions to a control group or baseline values. The intervention was defined as a cooking class regardless of its length or delivery approach. Studies included populations of children, healthy adults or adults with morbidities. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Outcomes were pooled using the random-effects model and descriptive statistics and depicted in an evidence map. Simple logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with intervention success. RESULTS: We included 30 studies (6 were randomized, 7381 patients, average follow up 25 weeks). Culinary interventions were not associated with a significant change in body mass index (- 0.07 kg/m2, 95% CI: -1.53, 1.40), systolic (- 5.31 mmHg, 95% CI: -34.2, 23.58) or diastolic blood pressure (- 3.1 mmHg, 95% CI: -23.82, 17.62) or LDL cholesterol (- 8.09 mg/dL, 95% CI: -84.43, 68.25). Culinary interventions were associated with improved attitudes, self-efficacy and healthy dietary intake in adults and children. We were unable to demonstrate whether the effect of a culinary intervention was modified by various characteristics of the intervention such as its delivery or intensity. Interventions with additional components such as education on nutrition, physical activity or gardening were particularly effective. CONCLUSIONS: Culinary interventions were not associated with a significant change in cardiometabolic risk factors, but were associated with improved attitudes, self-efficacy and a healthier dietary intake in adults and children.
