Associations between change in sedentary behavior and outcome in standard behavioral weight loss treatment

The role of physical activity in the regulation of body weight: The overlooked contribution of light physical activity and sedentary behaviors

The role of physical activity (PA) in the regulation of body weight is still a major topic of debate. This may be because studies have essentially focused on the effects of moderate/vigorous PA (MVPA) on body weight while overlooking the other components of PA, namely, light-intensity PA (LPA, daily life activities) and sedentary behaviors (SB, too much sitting). In this review, we will (i) describe the history of changes in PA behaviors that occurred with modernization; (ii) review data from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that examined the associations between PA, SB, and measures of obesity; (iii) review interventional studies that investigated the effects of changes in PA and SB on body weight and adiposity; and (iv) discuss experimental studies that addressed potential biological mechanisms underlying the effects of PA and SB on weight regulation. Overall recent findings support the importance of considering all components of PA to better understand the regulation of energy balance and suggest an important role for LPA and SB in addition to MVPA on body weight regulation. Longitudinal large-scale rigorous studies are needed to advance our knowledge of the role of PA/SB in combating the obesity epidemic.

Changes in pedometer-measured physical activity are associated with weight loss and changes in body composition and fat distribution in response to reduced-energy diet interventions: The POUNDS Lost trial

AIMS

To examine whether changes in objectively measured physical activity (PA) are associated with weight loss and changes in body composition and fat distribution in response to weight-loss diet interventions.

METHODS

This study included 535 participants with overweight/ obesity, who were randomly assigned to four weight-loss diets varying in macronutrients. PA was measured objectively with pedometers, and body composition and fat distribution were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and computed tomography scans at baseline, 6 months and 24 months.

RESULTS

From baseline to 6 months, when the maximum weight loss was achieved, each 1000-steps/d increment in PA was associated with a greater reduction in body weight (β[SE] = -0.48[0.11]) and waist circumference (β[SE] = -0.49[0.12]). Similar inverse associations were found in changes in body composition and fat distribution (P < 0.05 and false discovery rate qvalue < 0.1 for all). The trajectory of the above adiposity measures across the 24-month intervention period differed between the patterns of PA change. Participants with the largest increase in PA maintained their weight loss from 6 months to 24 months, while those with a smaller increase in PA regained their weight. In addition, dietary fat or protein intake significantly modified the associations between changes in PA and changes in body weight and waist circumference over 24 months (P_∆PA*diet  < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in objectively measured PA were inversely related to changes in body weight, body composition and fat distribution in response to weight-loss diets, and such associations were more evident in people on a high-fat or average-protein diet compared with a low-fat or high-protein diet.

Physical Activity, Sleep, and Sedentary Behavior among Successful Long-Term Weight Loss Maintainers: Findings from a U.S. National Study

Despite adults’ desire to reduce body mass (weight) for numerous health benefits, few are able to successfully lose at least 5% of their starting weight. There is evidence on the independent associations of physical activity, sedentary behaviors, and sleep with weight loss; however, this study provided insight on the combined effects of these behaviors on long-term body weight loss success. Hence, the purpose of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the joint relations of sleep, physical activity, and sedentary behaviors with successful long-term weight loss. Data are from the 2005–2006 wave of the National Health and Examination Survey (NHANES). Physical activity and sedentary behavior were measured with an accelerometer, whereas sleep time was self-reported. Physical activity and sleep were dichotomized into meeting guidelines (active/not active, ideal sleep/short sleep), and sedentary time was categorized into prolonged sedentary time (4th quartile) compared to low sedentary time (1st–3rd quartiles). The dichotomized behaviors were combined to form 12 unique behavioral combinations. Two-step multivariable regression models were used to determine the associations between the behavioral combinations with (1) long-term weight loss success (≥5% body mass reduction for ≥12-months) and (2) the amount of body mass reduction among those who were successful. After adjustment for relevant factors, there were no significant associations between any of the independent body weight loss behaviors (physical activity, sedentary time, and sleep) and successful long-term weight loss. However, after combining the behaviors, those who were active (≥150 min MVPA weekly), regardless of their sedentary time, were significantly (p < 0.05) more likely to have long-term weight loss success compared to the inactive and sedentary referent group. These results should be confirmed in longitudinal analyses, including investigation of characteristics of waking (type, domain, and context) and sleep (quality metrics) behaviors for their association with long-term weight loss success.

Predictors of successful weight loss outcomes amongst individuals with obesity undergoing lifestyle interventions: A systematic review

Understanding the predictors of weight loss with lifestyle interventions can help to ascertain the probable outcomes of individuals with obesity who undergo such interventions. This systematic review assessed the evidence of predictors of successful weight loss among individuals who are overweight or with obesity undergoing lifestyle interventions. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, PsychInfo and Wiley) were searched to find relevant literature published in the past 20 years. A total of 1351 titles were identified in the initial search, of which 23 studies were finally included. Predictors were synthesized in the domains of socio-demographic factors, anthropometric parameters, psychological and behavioural factors and intervention-based factors. The overall quality of evidence on predictors was then appraised using an adapted GRADE approach. Patient-specific factors such as being male, older in age, having existing cardiometabolic comorbidities and limited fat intake were significantly associated with weight loss success. Amongst intervention specific predictors, greater initial weight loss and higher adherence to lifestyle advice were associated with greater weight loss success. In this review, initial weight loss came out to be as the most important predictor of successful weight loss outcome.

Leisure Sedentary Behavior Levels and Meeting Program Goals in a Community Lifestyle Intervention for Diabetes Prevention

BACKGROUND

The importance of leisure sedentary behavior (LSB) change in diabetes prevention efforts is not well known. This study examines the relationships between changes in self-reported LSB and the primary intervention goals (weight and moderate-intensity to vigorous-intensity physical activity [MVPA]) during a community-based translation of the Diabetes Prevention Program (the Group Lifestyle Balance Program).

METHODS

A total of 322 adults at risk for type 2 diabetes were recruited from 3 community centers, a worksite, and military site. Community and worksite participants were randomized to immediate or delayed-delivery (control) intervention. All military site participants (n = 99) received immediate intervention. Logistic and linear generalized estimating equations were used to determine associations between LSB changes and weight-related outcomes and MVPA.

RESULTS

Results were obtained for 259 (80.4%) participants. The LSB decreased after 6 and 12 months (mean [95% confidence interval]: -25.7 [-38.6 to -12.8] and -16.1 [-28.2 to -3.9] min/d; both P < .05). Each 20-minute reduction in LSB was associated with a 5% increase in odds of meeting the weight-loss goal (6 mo: odds ratio = 1.05 [1.002 to 1.102]; P = .042; adjusted model including MVPA), but LSB was not related to changes in reported MVPA minutes or MVPA goal achievement.

CONCLUSION

Within the context of existing lifestyle intervention programs, reducing sedentary behavior has the potential to contribute to weight loss separately from reported MVPA improvement.

Feasibility and applicability of Evenson sedentary behavior cut points applied to children with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities

AIM

Sedentary behavior (SB) is widely studied as it is associated with cardiometabolic health and obesity issues. However, children with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD) have been understudied. Accelerometers are commonly used to measure SB in typically developing populations but may be inappropriate for IDD populations due to differences in body movement and physiologic responses to the activity. The use of Evenson sedentary cut-points, created based on typically developing children, has yet to be applied and/or examined in children with IDD.

PURPOSE

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted to (1) Assess the feasibility of applying Evenson sedentary cut-points in children with IDD (2) Describe SB over a two-week period between diagnosis groups.

METHODS

The SB of 22 participants (8 children with Down syndrome, 6 children with spina bifida, 8 children with no chronic illness) was assessed on two separate occasions: (1) during a 7-minute sedentary protocol, and (2) over a two-week period.

RESULTS

The study supports the preliminary efficacy of using Evenson cut-points for this population, with 100% of participants being within the Evenson counts per minute (0-100 cpm) during the 7-minute sedentary protocol. The total volume of SB over a two-week period was not significantly different between diagnosis groups (8.8 h, 8.6 h, and 7.1 h of SB for children with Down syndrome, spina bifida, or those with no chronic illness, respectively; p = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Evenson sedentary cut-points can be used for children with IDD. Preliminary data suggest that children with IDD do not engage in significantly different SB than children without a chronic illness. Further study is warranted.Implications for rehabilitationObjective measures of physical activity and sedentary behavior for children with Down syndrome or spina bifida are rarely used due to potential differences in body movement (e.g., gait) during ambulation compared to typically developing peers that may influence the accuracy of cut-points.This study supports that Evenson sedentary cut-points can be used in children with Down syndrome or spina bifida to assess sedentary activity.Preliminary findings from this study demonstrate similarities in patterns of sedentary behaviors exhibited by our sample of children with Down syndrome, spina bifida, or no chronic illness.