Obesity

Injectable weight loss drugs like Wegovy, Saxenda, and Zepbound have been getting all the glory lately, but they’re not for everyone. If the inconvenience or cost of weight-loss drugs isn’t for you, another approach may be boosting your gut microbiome.

So how does one do that, and how does it work?

“There are a lot of different factors naturally in weight gain and weight loss, so the gut microbiome is certainly not the only thing,” said Chris Damman, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Washington. He studies how food and the microbiome affect your health. “With that caveat, it probably is playing an important role.”
 

Trillions of Microbes

The idea that your gut is home to an enormous range of tiny organisms — microbes — has existed for more than 100 years, but only in the 21st century have scientists had the ability to delve into specifics. 

We now know you want a robust assortment of microbes in your gut, especially in the lower gut, your colon. They feast on fiber from the food you eat and turn it into substances your body needs. Those substances send signals all over your body.

If you don’t have enough microbes or have too many of the wrong kinds, it influences those signals, which can lead to health problems. Over the last 20 years, research has linked problems in the gut microbiome to a wide variety of conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, metabolic ones like diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, asthma, and even autism.

Thanks to these efforts, we know a lot about the interactions between your gut and the rest of your body, but we don’t know exactly how many things happen — whether some teeny critters within your microbiome cause the issues or vice versa.

“That’s the problem with so much of the microbiome stuff,” said Elizabeth Hohmann, MD, a physician investigator at the Massachusetts General Research Institute. “Olympic athletes have a better gut microbiome than most people. Well, sure they do — because they’re paying attention to their diet, they’re getting enough rest. Correlation does not causation make.”
 

The American Diet Messes With Your Gut

If you’re a typical American, you eat a lot of ultra-processed foods — manufactured with a long ingredients list that includes additives or preservatives. According to one study, those foods make up 73% of our food supply. That can have a serious impact on gut health.

“When you process a food and mill it, it turns a whole food into tiny particles,” Dr. Damman said. “That makes the food highly digestible. But if you eat a stalk of broccoli, a large amount of that broccoli in the form of fiber and other things will make its way to your lower gut, where it will feed microbes.”

With heavily processed foods, on the other hand, most of it gets digested before it can reach your lower gut, which leaves your microbes without the energy they need to survive.

Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown, PhD, is director of the Biodesign Center for Health Through Microbiomes at Arizona State University. Her lab has done research into how microbes use the undigested food that reaches your gut. She describes the problem with processed foods this way:

“Think about a Coke. When you drink it, all the sugar goes to your bloodstream, and the microbes in your gut don’t even know you’ve had it. Instead of drinking a Coke, if you eat an apple or something with fiber, some will go to you and some to the microbes. You’re feeding them, giving them energy.”
 

Weight and Your Gut Microbiome

The link between gut health and body weight has received a lot of attention. Research has shown, for example, that people with obesity have less diversity in their gut microbiome, and certain specific bacteria have been linked to obesity. In animal studies, transplanting gut microbes from obese mice to “germ-free” mice led those GF mice to gain weight. This suggests excess weight is, in fact, caused by certain microbes, but to date there’s scant evidence that the same is true with humans.

Dr. Krajmalnik-Brown’s group did an experiment in which they had people follow two different diets for 23 days each, with a break in between. Both provided similar amounts of calories and macronutrients each day but via different foods. The study’s typical Western menu featured processed foods — think grape juice, sandwiches made with deli turkey and white bread, and spaghetti with jarred sauce and ground beef. The other menu, what researchers called a “microbiome enhancer diet,” included foods like whole fruit, veggie sandwiches on multigrain buns, and steak with a side of whole wheat spaghetti.

While the study wasn’t designed for weight loss, an interesting thing happened when researchers analyzed participants’ bowel movements.

“We found that when you feed subjects a diet designed to provide more energy to the microbes and not to the [body], our subjects lost a little weight,” Dr. Krajmalnik-Brown said. “It looks like by feeding your microbes, it seems to make people healthier and potentially even lose a little.”

Another possible mechanism involves the same hormone that powers those injectable weight loss drugs. The lower part of your gut makes hormones that tell the entire gut to slow down and also help orchestrate metabolism and appetite. Among them is GLP-1. The drugs use a synthetic version, semaglutide or tirzepatide, to trigger the same effect.

According to Dr. Damman, you can stimulate your gut to make those helpful hormones with the food you eat — by giving your microbes the right fuel.
 

Eat to Feed Your Microbes

The foods you eat can affect your gut microbiome and so your weight. But don’t go looking for that one perfect ingredient, experts warn.

“Oftentimes we get this micro-focus, is this a good food or a bad food?” warned Katie Chapmon, a registered dietitian whose practice focuses on gut health. “You just want to make sure your microbiome is robust and healthy, so it communicates that your body is running, you’ve got it.”

Instead, try to give your body more of the kinds of food research has shown can feed your microbiome, many of which are plant-based. “Those are the things that are largely taken out during processing,” Dr. Damman said. He calls them the “Four Fs”:

Fiber: When you eat fiber-rich foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and beans, your body can’t digest the fiber while it’s in the upper parts of your GI tract. It passes through to your lower gut, where healthy bacteria ferment it. That produces short-chain fatty acids, which send signals throughout your body, including ones related to appetite and feeling full.

Phenols: Phenolic compounds are antioxidants that give plant-based foods their color — when you talk about eating the rainbow, you’re talking about phenols. The microbes in your gut feed on them, too. “My goal for a meal is five distinct colors on the plate,” Ms. Chapmon said. “That rounds out the bases for the different polyphenols.”

Fermented foods: You can get a different kind of health benefit by eating food that’s already fermented — like sauerkraut, kimchi, kefir, yogurt, miso, tempeh, and kombucha. Fermentation can make the phenols in foods more accessible to your body. Plus, each mouthful introduces good bacteria into your body, some of which make it down to your gut. The bacteria that are already there feed on these new strains, which helps to increase the diversity of your microbiome.

Healthy fats: Here, it’s not so much about feeding the good bacteria in your microbiome. Dr. Damman says that omega-3 fatty acids, found in fatty fish, canola oil, some nuts, and other foods, decrease inflammation in the lining of your gut. Plus, healthy fat sources like extra-virgin olive oil and avocados are full of phenols.

Eating for gut health isn’t a magic bullet in terms of weight loss. But the benefits of a healthy gut go far beyond shedding a few pounds.

“I think we need to strive for health, not weight loss.” Dr. Krajmalnik-Brown said. “Keep your gut healthy and your microbes healthy, and that should eventually lead to a healthy weight. You’ll make your microbes happy, and your microbes do a lot for your health.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Injectable weight loss drugs like Wegovy, Saxenda, and Zepbound have been getting all the glory lately, but they’re not for everyone. If the inconvenience or cost of weight-loss drugs isn’t for you, another approach may be boosting your gut microbiome.

So how does one do that, and how does it work?

“There are a lot of different factors naturally in weight gain and weight loss, so the gut microbiome is certainly not the only thing,” said Chris Damman, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Washington. He studies how food and the microbiome affect your health. “With that caveat, it probably is playing an important role.”
 

Trillions of Microbes

The idea that your gut is home to an enormous range of tiny organisms — microbes — has existed for more than 100 years, but only in the 21st century have scientists had the ability to delve into specifics. 

We now know you want a robust assortment of microbes in your gut, especially in the lower gut, your colon. They feast on fiber from the food you eat and turn it into substances your body needs. Those substances send signals all over your body.

If you don’t have enough microbes or have too many of the wrong kinds, it influences those signals, which can lead to health problems. Over the last 20 years, research has linked problems in the gut microbiome to a wide variety of conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, metabolic ones like diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, asthma, and even autism.

Thanks to these efforts, we know a lot about the interactions between your gut and the rest of your body, but we don’t know exactly how many things happen — whether some teeny critters within your microbiome cause the issues or vice versa.

“That’s the problem with so much of the microbiome stuff,” said Elizabeth Hohmann, MD, a physician investigator at the Massachusetts General Research Institute. “Olympic athletes have a better gut microbiome than most people. Well, sure they do — because they’re paying attention to their diet, they’re getting enough rest. Correlation does not causation make.”
 

The American Diet Messes With Your Gut

If you’re a typical American, you eat a lot of ultra-processed foods — manufactured with a long ingredients list that includes additives or preservatives. According to one study, those foods make up 73% of our food supply. That can have a serious impact on gut health.

“When you process a food and mill it, it turns a whole food into tiny particles,” Dr. Damman said. “That makes the food highly digestible. But if you eat a stalk of broccoli, a large amount of that broccoli in the form of fiber and other things will make its way to your lower gut, where it will feed microbes.”

With heavily processed foods, on the other hand, most of it gets digested before it can reach your lower gut, which leaves your microbes without the energy they need to survive.

Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown, PhD, is director of the Biodesign Center for Health Through Microbiomes at Arizona State University. Her lab has done research into how microbes use the undigested food that reaches your gut. She describes the problem with processed foods this way:

“Think about a Coke. When you drink it, all the sugar goes to your bloodstream, and the microbes in your gut don’t even know you’ve had it. Instead of drinking a Coke, if you eat an apple or something with fiber, some will go to you and some to the microbes. You’re feeding them, giving them energy.”
 

Weight and Your Gut Microbiome

The link between gut health and body weight has received a lot of attention. Research has shown, for example, that people with obesity have less diversity in their gut microbiome, and certain specific bacteria have been linked to obesity. In animal studies, transplanting gut microbes from obese mice to “germ-free” mice led those GF mice to gain weight. This suggests excess weight is, in fact, caused by certain microbes, but to date there’s scant evidence that the same is true with humans.

Dr. Krajmalnik-Brown’s group did an experiment in which they had people follow two different diets for 23 days each, with a break in between. Both provided similar amounts of calories and macronutrients each day but via different foods. The study’s typical Western menu featured processed foods — think grape juice, sandwiches made with deli turkey and white bread, and spaghetti with jarred sauce and ground beef. The other menu, what researchers called a “microbiome enhancer diet,” included foods like whole fruit, veggie sandwiches on multigrain buns, and steak with a side of whole wheat spaghetti.

While the study wasn’t designed for weight loss, an interesting thing happened when researchers analyzed participants’ bowel movements.

“We found that when you feed subjects a diet designed to provide more energy to the microbes and not to the [body], our subjects lost a little weight,” Dr. Krajmalnik-Brown said. “It looks like by feeding your microbes, it seems to make people healthier and potentially even lose a little.”

Another possible mechanism involves the same hormone that powers those injectable weight loss drugs. The lower part of your gut makes hormones that tell the entire gut to slow down and also help orchestrate metabolism and appetite. Among them is GLP-1. The drugs use a synthetic version, semaglutide or tirzepatide, to trigger the same effect.

According to Dr. Damman, you can stimulate your gut to make those helpful hormones with the food you eat — by giving your microbes the right fuel.
 

Eat to Feed Your Microbes

The foods you eat can affect your gut microbiome and so your weight. But don’t go looking for that one perfect ingredient, experts warn.

“Oftentimes we get this micro-focus, is this a good food or a bad food?” warned Katie Chapmon, a registered dietitian whose practice focuses on gut health. “You just want to make sure your microbiome is robust and healthy, so it communicates that your body is running, you’ve got it.”

Instead, try to give your body more of the kinds of food research has shown can feed your microbiome, many of which are plant-based. “Those are the things that are largely taken out during processing,” Dr. Damman said. He calls them the “Four Fs”:

Fiber: When you eat fiber-rich foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and beans, your body can’t digest the fiber while it’s in the upper parts of your GI tract. It passes through to your lower gut, where healthy bacteria ferment it. That produces short-chain fatty acids, which send signals throughout your body, including ones related to appetite and feeling full.

Phenols: Phenolic compounds are antioxidants that give plant-based foods their color — when you talk about eating the rainbow, you’re talking about phenols. The microbes in your gut feed on them, too. “My goal for a meal is five distinct colors on the plate,” Ms. Chapmon said. “That rounds out the bases for the different polyphenols.”

Fermented foods: You can get a different kind of health benefit by eating food that’s already fermented — like sauerkraut, kimchi, kefir, yogurt, miso, tempeh, and kombucha. Fermentation can make the phenols in foods more accessible to your body. Plus, each mouthful introduces good bacteria into your body, some of which make it down to your gut. The bacteria that are already there feed on these new strains, which helps to increase the diversity of your microbiome.

Healthy fats: Here, it’s not so much about feeding the good bacteria in your microbiome. Dr. Damman says that omega-3 fatty acids, found in fatty fish, canola oil, some nuts, and other foods, decrease inflammation in the lining of your gut. Plus, healthy fat sources like extra-virgin olive oil and avocados are full of phenols.

Eating for gut health isn’t a magic bullet in terms of weight loss. But the benefits of a healthy gut go far beyond shedding a few pounds.

“I think we need to strive for health, not weight loss.” Dr. Krajmalnik-Brown said. “Keep your gut healthy and your microbes healthy, and that should eventually lead to a healthy weight. You’ll make your microbes happy, and your microbes do a lot for your health.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Injectable weight loss drugs like Wegovy, Saxenda, and Zepbound have been getting all the glory lately, but they’re not for everyone. If the inconvenience or cost of weight-loss drugs isn’t for you, another approach may be boosting your gut microbiome.

So how does one do that, and how does it work?

“There are a lot of different factors naturally in weight gain and weight loss, so the gut microbiome is certainly not the only thing,” said Chris Damman, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Washington. He studies how food and the microbiome affect your health. “With that caveat, it probably is playing an important role.”
 

Trillions of Microbes

The idea that your gut is home to an enormous range of tiny organisms — microbes — has existed for more than 100 years, but only in the 21st century have scientists had the ability to delve into specifics. 

We now know you want a robust assortment of microbes in your gut, especially in the lower gut, your colon. They feast on fiber from the food you eat and turn it into substances your body needs. Those substances send signals all over your body.

If you don’t have enough microbes or have too many of the wrong kinds, it influences those signals, which can lead to health problems. Over the last 20 years, research has linked problems in the gut microbiome to a wide variety of conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, metabolic ones like diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, asthma, and even autism.

Thanks to these efforts, we know a lot about the interactions between your gut and the rest of your body, but we don’t know exactly how many things happen — whether some teeny critters within your microbiome cause the issues or vice versa.

“That’s the problem with so much of the microbiome stuff,” said Elizabeth Hohmann, MD, a physician investigator at the Massachusetts General Research Institute. “Olympic athletes have a better gut microbiome than most people. Well, sure they do — because they’re paying attention to their diet, they’re getting enough rest. Correlation does not causation make.”
 

The American Diet Messes With Your Gut

If you’re a typical American, you eat a lot of ultra-processed foods — manufactured with a long ingredients list that includes additives or preservatives. According to one study, those foods make up 73% of our food supply. That can have a serious impact on gut health.

“When you process a food and mill it, it turns a whole food into tiny particles,” Dr. Damman said. “That makes the food highly digestible. But if you eat a stalk of broccoli, a large amount of that broccoli in the form of fiber and other things will make its way to your lower gut, where it will feed microbes.”

With heavily processed foods, on the other hand, most of it gets digested before it can reach your lower gut, which leaves your microbes without the energy they need to survive.

Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown, PhD, is director of the Biodesign Center for Health Through Microbiomes at Arizona State University. Her lab has done research into how microbes use the undigested food that reaches your gut. She describes the problem with processed foods this way:

“Think about a Coke. When you drink it, all the sugar goes to your bloodstream, and the microbes in your gut don’t even know you’ve had it. Instead of drinking a Coke, if you eat an apple or something with fiber, some will go to you and some to the microbes. You’re feeding them, giving them energy.”
 

Weight and Your Gut Microbiome

The link between gut health and body weight has received a lot of attention. Research has shown, for example, that people with obesity have less diversity in their gut microbiome, and certain specific bacteria have been linked to obesity. In animal studies, transplanting gut microbes from obese mice to “germ-free” mice led those GF mice to gain weight. This suggests excess weight is, in fact, caused by certain microbes, but to date there’s scant evidence that the same is true with humans.

Dr. Krajmalnik-Brown’s group did an experiment in which they had people follow two different diets for 23 days each, with a break in between. Both provided similar amounts of calories and macronutrients each day but via different foods. The study’s typical Western menu featured processed foods — think grape juice, sandwiches made with deli turkey and white bread, and spaghetti with jarred sauce and ground beef. The other menu, what researchers called a “microbiome enhancer diet,” included foods like whole fruit, veggie sandwiches on multigrain buns, and steak with a side of whole wheat spaghetti.

While the study wasn’t designed for weight loss, an interesting thing happened when researchers analyzed participants’ bowel movements.

“We found that when you feed subjects a diet designed to provide more energy to the microbes and not to the [body], our subjects lost a little weight,” Dr. Krajmalnik-Brown said. “It looks like by feeding your microbes, it seems to make people healthier and potentially even lose a little.”

Another possible mechanism involves the same hormone that powers those injectable weight loss drugs. The lower part of your gut makes hormones that tell the entire gut to slow down and also help orchestrate metabolism and appetite. Among them is GLP-1. The drugs use a synthetic version, semaglutide or tirzepatide, to trigger the same effect.

According to Dr. Damman, you can stimulate your gut to make those helpful hormones with the food you eat — by giving your microbes the right fuel.
 

Eat to Feed Your Microbes

The foods you eat can affect your gut microbiome and so your weight. But don’t go looking for that one perfect ingredient, experts warn.

“Oftentimes we get this micro-focus, is this a good food or a bad food?” warned Katie Chapmon, a registered dietitian whose practice focuses on gut health. “You just want to make sure your microbiome is robust and healthy, so it communicates that your body is running, you’ve got it.”

Instead, try to give your body more of the kinds of food research has shown can feed your microbiome, many of which are plant-based. “Those are the things that are largely taken out during processing,” Dr. Damman said. He calls them the “Four Fs”:

Fiber: When you eat fiber-rich foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and beans, your body can’t digest the fiber while it’s in the upper parts of your GI tract. It passes through to your lower gut, where healthy bacteria ferment it. That produces short-chain fatty acids, which send signals throughout your body, including ones related to appetite and feeling full.

Phenols: Phenolic compounds are antioxidants that give plant-based foods their color — when you talk about eating the rainbow, you’re talking about phenols. The microbes in your gut feed on them, too. “My goal for a meal is five distinct colors on the plate,” Ms. Chapmon said. “That rounds out the bases for the different polyphenols.”

Fermented foods: You can get a different kind of health benefit by eating food that’s already fermented — like sauerkraut, kimchi, kefir, yogurt, miso, tempeh, and kombucha. Fermentation can make the phenols in foods more accessible to your body. Plus, each mouthful introduces good bacteria into your body, some of which make it down to your gut. The bacteria that are already there feed on these new strains, which helps to increase the diversity of your microbiome.

Healthy fats: Here, it’s not so much about feeding the good bacteria in your microbiome. Dr. Damman says that omega-3 fatty acids, found in fatty fish, canola oil, some nuts, and other foods, decrease inflammation in the lining of your gut. Plus, healthy fat sources like extra-virgin olive oil and avocados are full of phenols.

Eating for gut health isn’t a magic bullet in terms of weight loss. But the benefits of a healthy gut go far beyond shedding a few pounds.

“I think we need to strive for health, not weight loss.” Dr. Krajmalnik-Brown said. “Keep your gut healthy and your microbes healthy, and that should eventually lead to a healthy weight. You’ll make your microbes happy, and your microbes do a lot for your health.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Many patients with obesity blame weight gain on their metabolism. The reality is that metabolism can be blamed for weight regain after people try to lose weight! As we age, our metabolism does slow down; sometimes we think it stops working.

Metabolism, or resting energy expenditure, is directly related to how much muscle mass we have. As we age, we lose muscle, which is called sarcopenia.

What happens to our metabolism when we try to lose weight? Let’s first discuss what metabolism is.
 

What Is Metabolism?

Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions in the body’s cells that convert food into energy for sustaining life, cellular processes, and as storage for a rainy day.

Total energy expenditure (TEE) is broken down into resting energy expenditure (REE), thermic effect of food (TEF), and nonresting expenditure (NREE) or physical activity, and is made up of: TEE = 60% REE + 10% TEF + 30% NREE.

An elegant study performed by Dr. Rudy Leibel explored the effects of weight loss or weight gain on metabolism in 23 lean and 18 patients with obesity who were placed in a metabolic chamber. Weight loss of 10% or 20% body weight led to a decrease in TEE roughly equal to about 300 kcal/d, and an increase in body weight of 10% caused an increase in TEE of about 500 kcal/d. These changes led to the patient reverting to the prior weight (before weight loss or gain). In other words, Dr. Leibel postulated a feedback mechanism for the effect of fat mass decrease or increase on energy metabolism. The feedback mechanism or signal from fat was subsequently found to be leptin.

In a later study, Dr. Leibel and colleagues investigated the effects of body fat mass change on TEE and found that a 10% reduction in weight caused a decrease of TEE by 21%, comprising a decrease in NREE of 37.5% and a decrease in REE of 11.6%.

Therefore, the biggest change in TEE comes from NREE or exercise energy expenditure. The 35% variance in NEE change was accounted for by a decrease in muscle work efficiency in generating 10 watts or low levels of work such as walking.

In other words, when persons with obesity or lean persons lose weight, the efficiency of muscle at low levels of work increases such that one burns less energy when walking than one normally would. This helps conserve energy and tends to cause the body to go back to the higher weight.
 

So, How Can One Change Metabolism?

Let’s say one did lose weight and wants to counteract this TEE loss and increased muscle efficiency at low levels of work.

To counteract this effect, one should increase muscle work beyond low level so that more energy is expended. Another way would be to increase muscle mass so that there is more muscle that can do work.

This is exactly how metabolism can be altered or increased. What can be changed most readily, and what we have the most power over in our bodies, is the NREE.

To do this, muscles need anabolic power — the power to heal and build muscle mass. Anabolic power comes from eating healthy protein sources such as lean chicken, fish, beef, and eggs as well as dry beans, tofu, and dairy products.. It seems that older adults (> 60 years) need more protein than younger adults to build muscle mass, due to the body’s natural aging process which leads to sarcopenia. How much more? Studies show between 1.2 and 1.5 g/kg of body weight per day, whereas younger persons need 0.80 g/kg.

Developing sarcopenia with age involves muscle losing the ability to use protein and amino acids to rebuild injured tissue.

Let’s put this in perspective for treating obesity.

Obesity is brought on by the body’s defense of a higher body weight by interaction with the environment of highly processed foods that work on the reward pathway, leading to weight gain and resistance to satiety. Weight loss via diet, exercise, and medications works, but this weight loss is also accompanied by a decrease in TEE.

Weight loss is primarily fat mass loss, but depending on the degree of protein intake and muscle resistance training, 20%-50% of the total weight loss is muscle mass loss. Therefore, higher-protein diets and resistance exercise can be useful in preserving muscle mass and counteracting the decrease in TEE, maintaining energy expenditure. In older patients, an additional factor is the muscle’s lack of ability to use protein as an anabolic agent to protect muscle mass and thus the need for higher protein loads to do this.

All in all, can doctors help patients boost their metabolism, especially as they lose weight and maintain that loss? Yes — through protein intake and resistance exercise training.

Here are some tips to help your patients get cardio and resistance exercise into their routine.

First find out whether your patient prefers a social exercise interaction or solo training. If social, then the gym or classes such as cycling or boot camps at those gyms may work for them, especially if they can go with a friend. If solo is better, than a gym in the home might work. Peloton bikes are expensive but the interaction is all on the website!

A personal trainer may help motivate the patient if they know someone is waiting for them.

Let’s hit the gym!

Another note: There are agents in the obesity treatment pipeline that purport to change body composition while helping patients lose weight. Some of these agents are myostatin antagonists and antibodies that inhibit the activity of myostatin to break down muscle. These agents have been found to build muscle mass, but whether the quality of the muscle mass leads to an increase in muscle strength or functionality remains controversial. The next frontier in obesity treatment will be about decreasing fat mass and increasing muscle mass while making sure that increased muscle mass leads to improved functionality.

In the meantime, aside from new agents on the horizon, the best and healthiest way to keep metabolism on the up and up is to eat healthy lean proteins and exercise. How much exercise? The recommendation is 30-60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity at least 5 days per week; plus 20 minutes of resistance exercise training 2-3 days per week for upper- and lower-extremity and core strength.

Again, let’s hit the gym!
 

Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis, Srl, L-Nutra, and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and GI Dynamics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients with obesity blame weight gain on their metabolism. The reality is that metabolism can be blamed for weight regain after people try to lose weight! As we age, our metabolism does slow down; sometimes we think it stops working.

Metabolism, or resting energy expenditure, is directly related to how much muscle mass we have. As we age, we lose muscle, which is called sarcopenia.

What happens to our metabolism when we try to lose weight? Let’s first discuss what metabolism is.
 

What Is Metabolism?

Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions in the body’s cells that convert food into energy for sustaining life, cellular processes, and as storage for a rainy day.

Total energy expenditure (TEE) is broken down into resting energy expenditure (REE), thermic effect of food (TEF), and nonresting expenditure (NREE) or physical activity, and is made up of: TEE = 60% REE + 10% TEF + 30% NREE.

An elegant study performed by Dr. Rudy Leibel explored the effects of weight loss or weight gain on metabolism in 23 lean and 18 patients with obesity who were placed in a metabolic chamber. Weight loss of 10% or 20% body weight led to a decrease in TEE roughly equal to about 300 kcal/d, and an increase in body weight of 10% caused an increase in TEE of about 500 kcal/d. These changes led to the patient reverting to the prior weight (before weight loss or gain). In other words, Dr. Leibel postulated a feedback mechanism for the effect of fat mass decrease or increase on energy metabolism. The feedback mechanism or signal from fat was subsequently found to be leptin.

In a later study, Dr. Leibel and colleagues investigated the effects of body fat mass change on TEE and found that a 10% reduction in weight caused a decrease of TEE by 21%, comprising a decrease in NREE of 37.5% and a decrease in REE of 11.6%.

Therefore, the biggest change in TEE comes from NREE or exercise energy expenditure. The 35% variance in NEE change was accounted for by a decrease in muscle work efficiency in generating 10 watts or low levels of work such as walking.

In other words, when persons with obesity or lean persons lose weight, the efficiency of muscle at low levels of work increases such that one burns less energy when walking than one normally would. This helps conserve energy and tends to cause the body to go back to the higher weight.
 

So, How Can One Change Metabolism?

Let’s say one did lose weight and wants to counteract this TEE loss and increased muscle efficiency at low levels of work.

To counteract this effect, one should increase muscle work beyond low level so that more energy is expended. Another way would be to increase muscle mass so that there is more muscle that can do work.

This is exactly how metabolism can be altered or increased. What can be changed most readily, and what we have the most power over in our bodies, is the NREE.

To do this, muscles need anabolic power — the power to heal and build muscle mass. Anabolic power comes from eating healthy protein sources such as lean chicken, fish, beef, and eggs as well as dry beans, tofu, and dairy products.. It seems that older adults (> 60 years) need more protein than younger adults to build muscle mass, due to the body’s natural aging process which leads to sarcopenia. How much more? Studies show between 1.2 and 1.5 g/kg of body weight per day, whereas younger persons need 0.80 g/kg.

Developing sarcopenia with age involves muscle losing the ability to use protein and amino acids to rebuild injured tissue.

Let’s put this in perspective for treating obesity.

Obesity is brought on by the body’s defense of a higher body weight by interaction with the environment of highly processed foods that work on the reward pathway, leading to weight gain and resistance to satiety. Weight loss via diet, exercise, and medications works, but this weight loss is also accompanied by a decrease in TEE.

Weight loss is primarily fat mass loss, but depending on the degree of protein intake and muscle resistance training, 20%-50% of the total weight loss is muscle mass loss. Therefore, higher-protein diets and resistance exercise can be useful in preserving muscle mass and counteracting the decrease in TEE, maintaining energy expenditure. In older patients, an additional factor is the muscle’s lack of ability to use protein as an anabolic agent to protect muscle mass and thus the need for higher protein loads to do this.

All in all, can doctors help patients boost their metabolism, especially as they lose weight and maintain that loss? Yes — through protein intake and resistance exercise training.

Here are some tips to help your patients get cardio and resistance exercise into their routine.

First find out whether your patient prefers a social exercise interaction or solo training. If social, then the gym or classes such as cycling or boot camps at those gyms may work for them, especially if they can go with a friend. If solo is better, than a gym in the home might work. Peloton bikes are expensive but the interaction is all on the website!

A personal trainer may help motivate the patient if they know someone is waiting for them.

Let’s hit the gym!

Another note: There are agents in the obesity treatment pipeline that purport to change body composition while helping patients lose weight. Some of these agents are myostatin antagonists and antibodies that inhibit the activity of myostatin to break down muscle. These agents have been found to build muscle mass, but whether the quality of the muscle mass leads to an increase in muscle strength or functionality remains controversial. The next frontier in obesity treatment will be about decreasing fat mass and increasing muscle mass while making sure that increased muscle mass leads to improved functionality.

In the meantime, aside from new agents on the horizon, the best and healthiest way to keep metabolism on the up and up is to eat healthy lean proteins and exercise. How much exercise? The recommendation is 30-60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity at least 5 days per week; plus 20 minutes of resistance exercise training 2-3 days per week for upper- and lower-extremity and core strength.

Again, let’s hit the gym!
 

Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis, Srl, L-Nutra, and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and GI Dynamics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients with obesity blame weight gain on their metabolism. The reality is that metabolism can be blamed for weight regain after people try to lose weight! As we age, our metabolism does slow down; sometimes we think it stops working.

Metabolism, or resting energy expenditure, is directly related to how much muscle mass we have. As we age, we lose muscle, which is called sarcopenia.

What happens to our metabolism when we try to lose weight? Let’s first discuss what metabolism is.
 

What Is Metabolism?

Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions in the body’s cells that convert food into energy for sustaining life, cellular processes, and as storage for a rainy day.

Total energy expenditure (TEE) is broken down into resting energy expenditure (REE), thermic effect of food (TEF), and nonresting expenditure (NREE) or physical activity, and is made up of: TEE = 60% REE + 10% TEF + 30% NREE.

An elegant study performed by Dr. Rudy Leibel explored the effects of weight loss or weight gain on metabolism in 23 lean and 18 patients with obesity who were placed in a metabolic chamber. Weight loss of 10% or 20% body weight led to a decrease in TEE roughly equal to about 300 kcal/d, and an increase in body weight of 10% caused an increase in TEE of about 500 kcal/d. These changes led to the patient reverting to the prior weight (before weight loss or gain). In other words, Dr. Leibel postulated a feedback mechanism for the effect of fat mass decrease or increase on energy metabolism. The feedback mechanism or signal from fat was subsequently found to be leptin.

In a later study, Dr. Leibel and colleagues investigated the effects of body fat mass change on TEE and found that a 10% reduction in weight caused a decrease of TEE by 21%, comprising a decrease in NREE of 37.5% and a decrease in REE of 11.6%.

Therefore, the biggest change in TEE comes from NREE or exercise energy expenditure. The 35% variance in NEE change was accounted for by a decrease in muscle work efficiency in generating 10 watts or low levels of work such as walking.

In other words, when persons with obesity or lean persons lose weight, the efficiency of muscle at low levels of work increases such that one burns less energy when walking than one normally would. This helps conserve energy and tends to cause the body to go back to the higher weight.
 

So, How Can One Change Metabolism?

Let’s say one did lose weight and wants to counteract this TEE loss and increased muscle efficiency at low levels of work.

To counteract this effect, one should increase muscle work beyond low level so that more energy is expended. Another way would be to increase muscle mass so that there is more muscle that can do work.

This is exactly how metabolism can be altered or increased. What can be changed most readily, and what we have the most power over in our bodies, is the NREE.

To do this, muscles need anabolic power — the power to heal and build muscle mass. Anabolic power comes from eating healthy protein sources such as lean chicken, fish, beef, and eggs as well as dry beans, tofu, and dairy products.. It seems that older adults (> 60 years) need more protein than younger adults to build muscle mass, due to the body’s natural aging process which leads to sarcopenia. How much more? Studies show between 1.2 and 1.5 g/kg of body weight per day, whereas younger persons need 0.80 g/kg.

Developing sarcopenia with age involves muscle losing the ability to use protein and amino acids to rebuild injured tissue.

Let’s put this in perspective for treating obesity.

Obesity is brought on by the body’s defense of a higher body weight by interaction with the environment of highly processed foods that work on the reward pathway, leading to weight gain and resistance to satiety. Weight loss via diet, exercise, and medications works, but this weight loss is also accompanied by a decrease in TEE.

Weight loss is primarily fat mass loss, but depending on the degree of protein intake and muscle resistance training, 20%-50% of the total weight loss is muscle mass loss. Therefore, higher-protein diets and resistance exercise can be useful in preserving muscle mass and counteracting the decrease in TEE, maintaining energy expenditure. In older patients, an additional factor is the muscle’s lack of ability to use protein as an anabolic agent to protect muscle mass and thus the need for higher protein loads to do this.

All in all, can doctors help patients boost their metabolism, especially as they lose weight and maintain that loss? Yes — through protein intake and resistance exercise training.

Here are some tips to help your patients get cardio and resistance exercise into their routine.

First find out whether your patient prefers a social exercise interaction or solo training. If social, then the gym or classes such as cycling or boot camps at those gyms may work for them, especially if they can go with a friend. If solo is better, than a gym in the home might work. Peloton bikes are expensive but the interaction is all on the website!

A personal trainer may help motivate the patient if they know someone is waiting for them.

Let’s hit the gym!

Another note: There are agents in the obesity treatment pipeline that purport to change body composition while helping patients lose weight. Some of these agents are myostatin antagonists and antibodies that inhibit the activity of myostatin to break down muscle. These agents have been found to build muscle mass, but whether the quality of the muscle mass leads to an increase in muscle strength or functionality remains controversial. The next frontier in obesity treatment will be about decreasing fat mass and increasing muscle mass while making sure that increased muscle mass leads to improved functionality.

In the meantime, aside from new agents on the horizon, the best and healthiest way to keep metabolism on the up and up is to eat healthy lean proteins and exercise. How much exercise? The recommendation is 30-60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity at least 5 days per week; plus 20 minutes of resistance exercise training 2-3 days per week for upper- and lower-extremity and core strength.

Again, let’s hit the gym!
 

Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis, Srl, L-Nutra, and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and GI Dynamics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Eating more than three meals daily, eating earlier, and eating lunch as the largest meal are linked to lower body mass index (BMI) and reduced obesity risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• According to recent research in the field of “chrononutrition,” which refers to the circadian pattern of eating behaviors, the timing of eating can affect an individual’s health and obesity.
• This exploratory, population-based study looked at the association between the timing of the largest meal of the day and the number of meals per day with BMI and obesity in 2050 nonpregnant adults in Brazil (ages 18-65 years; 15% with BMI ≥ 30; 73% women).
• In an online survey, participants reported their weight and height for BMI calculation and filled in questionnaires related to meal timing and frequency as well as diet quality and lifestyle traits.
• The 24-hour clock time (hh:mm) averages for the first eating event, lunch, and evening eating event were 8:27, 12:47, and 20:57, respectively, among all the participants.
• The median time of the largest meal was 12:38 and was the dividing line to classify people as early-eaters or late-eaters. Overall, lunch was the largest meal for 75% of people, and 75% ate more than three meals a day.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with participants who had up to three meals a day, those who reported more than three meals a day had a 0.48 lower BMI (P = .04) and lower odds of obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; P = .005).
• Eating the largest meal later was associated with higher BMI values (0.07 for each additional hour; P = .03) and higher odds of obesity (OR, 1.04; P = .01).
• The group that reported dinner as the largest meal of the day had a 0.85 higher BMI (P = .02) and greater odds of obesity (OR, 1.67; P = .004) than the group that did not have dinner as the largest meal.
• On the other hand, having lunch as the main meal appeared to serve as a protective factor with lower odds of obesity (OR, 0.71; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“Late-eaters (individuals who ate their largest meal after 12:38) exhibited several obesogenic and unhealthy behaviors (such as lower diet quality, shorter sleep duration, sedentary lifestyle, and prolonged screen time) that could potentially contribute to long-term weight gain and obesity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Giovana Longo-Silva, Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil, led this study, which was published online in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used self-reported questionnaires, which are susceptible to underreporting. The participants included a greater number of highly educated women. The study used food scoring to evaluate the overall quality of each person’s dietary intake and may have missed variations in the distribution of nutrients in meals and in the total amount of energy and nutrients consumed, which could affect the BMI of participants. Despite adjustments for sociodemographic, diet-related, and lifestyle traits, a cross-sectional study cannot distinguish between cause and effect.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Alagoas. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Eating more than three meals daily, eating earlier, and eating lunch as the largest meal are linked to lower body mass index (BMI) and reduced obesity risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• According to recent research in the field of “chrononutrition,” which refers to the circadian pattern of eating behaviors, the timing of eating can affect an individual’s health and obesity.
• This exploratory, population-based study looked at the association between the timing of the largest meal of the day and the number of meals per day with BMI and obesity in 2050 nonpregnant adults in Brazil (ages 18-65 years; 15% with BMI ≥ 30; 73% women).
• In an online survey, participants reported their weight and height for BMI calculation and filled in questionnaires related to meal timing and frequency as well as diet quality and lifestyle traits.
• The 24-hour clock time (hh:mm) averages for the first eating event, lunch, and evening eating event were 8:27, 12:47, and 20:57, respectively, among all the participants.
• The median time of the largest meal was 12:38 and was the dividing line to classify people as early-eaters or late-eaters. Overall, lunch was the largest meal for 75% of people, and 75% ate more than three meals a day.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with participants who had up to three meals a day, those who reported more than three meals a day had a 0.48 lower BMI (P = .04) and lower odds of obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; P = .005).
• Eating the largest meal later was associated with higher BMI values (0.07 for each additional hour; P = .03) and higher odds of obesity (OR, 1.04; P = .01).
• The group that reported dinner as the largest meal of the day had a 0.85 higher BMI (P = .02) and greater odds of obesity (OR, 1.67; P = .004) than the group that did not have dinner as the largest meal.
• On the other hand, having lunch as the main meal appeared to serve as a protective factor with lower odds of obesity (OR, 0.71; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“Late-eaters (individuals who ate their largest meal after 12:38) exhibited several obesogenic and unhealthy behaviors (such as lower diet quality, shorter sleep duration, sedentary lifestyle, and prolonged screen time) that could potentially contribute to long-term weight gain and obesity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Giovana Longo-Silva, Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil, led this study, which was published online in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used self-reported questionnaires, which are susceptible to underreporting. The participants included a greater number of highly educated women. The study used food scoring to evaluate the overall quality of each person’s dietary intake and may have missed variations in the distribution of nutrients in meals and in the total amount of energy and nutrients consumed, which could affect the BMI of participants. Despite adjustments for sociodemographic, diet-related, and lifestyle traits, a cross-sectional study cannot distinguish between cause and effect.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Alagoas. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Eating more than three meals daily, eating earlier, and eating lunch as the largest meal are linked to lower body mass index (BMI) and reduced obesity risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• According to recent research in the field of “chrononutrition,” which refers to the circadian pattern of eating behaviors, the timing of eating can affect an individual’s health and obesity.
• This exploratory, population-based study looked at the association between the timing of the largest meal of the day and the number of meals per day with BMI and obesity in 2050 nonpregnant adults in Brazil (ages 18-65 years; 15% with BMI ≥ 30; 73% women).
• In an online survey, participants reported their weight and height for BMI calculation and filled in questionnaires related to meal timing and frequency as well as diet quality and lifestyle traits.
• The 24-hour clock time (hh:mm) averages for the first eating event, lunch, and evening eating event were 8:27, 12:47, and 20:57, respectively, among all the participants.
• The median time of the largest meal was 12:38 and was the dividing line to classify people as early-eaters or late-eaters. Overall, lunch was the largest meal for 75% of people, and 75% ate more than three meals a day.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with participants who had up to three meals a day, those who reported more than three meals a day had a 0.48 lower BMI (P = .04) and lower odds of obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; P = .005).
• Eating the largest meal later was associated with higher BMI values (0.07 for each additional hour; P = .03) and higher odds of obesity (OR, 1.04; P = .01).
• The group that reported dinner as the largest meal of the day had a 0.85 higher BMI (P = .02) and greater odds of obesity (OR, 1.67; P = .004) than the group that did not have dinner as the largest meal.
• On the other hand, having lunch as the main meal appeared to serve as a protective factor with lower odds of obesity (OR, 0.71; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“Late-eaters (individuals who ate their largest meal after 12:38) exhibited several obesogenic and unhealthy behaviors (such as lower diet quality, shorter sleep duration, sedentary lifestyle, and prolonged screen time) that could potentially contribute to long-term weight gain and obesity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Giovana Longo-Silva, Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil, led this study, which was published online in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN.

LIMITATIONS:

The study used self-reported questionnaires, which are susceptible to underreporting. The participants included a greater number of highly educated women. The study used food scoring to evaluate the overall quality of each person’s dietary intake and may have missed variations in the distribution of nutrients in meals and in the total amount of energy and nutrients consumed, which could affect the BMI of participants. Despite adjustments for sociodemographic, diet-related, and lifestyle traits, a cross-sectional study cannot distinguish between cause and effect.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Alagoas. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery is associated with long-term improvements in cognition and brain structure in addition to general health benefits and expected weight loss, a large study found.

Among 133 adults with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery, roughly two in five showed > 20% improvement in global cognitive function at 24 months following the surgery. 

“Notably, the temporal cortex exhibited not only higher cortical thickness but also higher vascular efficiency after surgery,” reported Amanda Kiliaan, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“These results highlight beneficial vascular responses occurring in conjunction with bariatric surgery,” the researchers wrote. 

They also suggested that weight-loss surgery may represent a treatment option for patients with obesity and dementia. 

The study was published online on February 9, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of developing dementia. Bariatric surgery-induced weight loss has been associated with improvements in brain function and structure in some small cohort studies with short follow-up periods. However, long-term neurological outcomes associated with bariatric surgery are unclear. 

To investigate, Dr. Kiliaan and colleagues studied 133 adults with severe obesity (mean age, 46 years; 84% women) who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The researchers collected relevant data from laboratory tests, cognitive tests, and MRI brain scans before surgery and at 6 and 24 months after surgery.

Overall, mean body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure were significantly lower at 6 and 24 months after surgery. At 24 months, significantly fewer patients were taking antihypertensive medication (17% vs 36% before surgery). 

Improvements in inflammatory markers, depressive symptoms, and physical activity were also evident after surgery. 
 

Cognitive Improvements 

Several cognitive domains showed significant improvement at 6 and 24 months after bariatric surgery. Based on the 20% change index, improvements in working memory, episodic memory, and verbal fluency were seen in 11%, 32%, and 24% of participants, respectively. 

Forty percent of patients showed improvement in their able to shift their attention, and 43% showed improvements in global cognition after surgery. 

Several changes in brain parameters were also noted. Despite lower cerebral blood flow (CBF) in several regions, volumes of hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, frontal cortex, white matter, and white matter hyperintensity remained stable after surgery. 

The temporal cortex showed a greater thickness (mean, 2.724 mm vs 2.761 mm; P = .007) and lower spatial coefficient of variation (sCOV; median, 4.41% vs 3.97%; P = .02) after surgery. 

Overall, the results suggest that cognitive improvements “begin shortly after bariatric surgery and are long lasting,” the authors wrote. 

Various factors may be involved including remission of comorbidities, higher physical activity, lower depressive symptoms, and lower inflammatory factors, they suggest. Stabilization of volume, CBF, and sCOV in brain regions, coupled with gains in cortical thickness and vascular efficiency in the temporal cortex could also play a role.
 

‘Remarkable’ Results

“Taken together, the research intimates bariatric surgery’s potential protective effects against dementia manifest through both weight-related brain changes and reducing cardiovascular risk factors,” Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These remarkable neurological transformations intimate this surgery represents a pivotal opportunity to combat the parallel public health crises of obesity and dementia threatening society,” he said. 

“In demonstrating a durable cognitive and brain boost out years beyond surgery, patients now have an emphatic answer — these aren’t short-lived benefits but rather profound improvements propelling them positively for the rest of life,” he added. 

This opens up questions on whether the new class of obesity medications targeting glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide pathways, that can achieve weight loss approaching that of bariatric surgery, could have similar benefits. 

The use of GLP-1 drugs have also shown neuroprotective effects such as improvement in motor and cognitive deficits, reduction of neuroinflammation, prevention of neuronal loss, and possibly slowing of neurodegeneration across animal models of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke, said Dr. Lakhan. However, the exact mechanisms and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier require further confirmation, especially in humans.

Large, long-term, randomized controlled trials looking into potential effects of semaglutide on early Alzheimer›s disease, including the EVOKE Plus trial, are currently underway, he noted. 

“These game-changing obesity drugs may hand us medicine’s holy grail — a pill to rival surgery’s brain benefits without the scalpel, allowing patients a more accessible path to protecting their brain,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study had no funding from industry. Dr. Kiliaan and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery is associated with long-term improvements in cognition and brain structure in addition to general health benefits and expected weight loss, a large study found.

Among 133 adults with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery, roughly two in five showed > 20% improvement in global cognitive function at 24 months following the surgery. 

“Notably, the temporal cortex exhibited not only higher cortical thickness but also higher vascular efficiency after surgery,” reported Amanda Kiliaan, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“These results highlight beneficial vascular responses occurring in conjunction with bariatric surgery,” the researchers wrote. 

They also suggested that weight-loss surgery may represent a treatment option for patients with obesity and dementia. 

The study was published online on February 9, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of developing dementia. Bariatric surgery-induced weight loss has been associated with improvements in brain function and structure in some small cohort studies with short follow-up periods. However, long-term neurological outcomes associated with bariatric surgery are unclear. 

To investigate, Dr. Kiliaan and colleagues studied 133 adults with severe obesity (mean age, 46 years; 84% women) who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The researchers collected relevant data from laboratory tests, cognitive tests, and MRI brain scans before surgery and at 6 and 24 months after surgery.

Overall, mean body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure were significantly lower at 6 and 24 months after surgery. At 24 months, significantly fewer patients were taking antihypertensive medication (17% vs 36% before surgery). 

Improvements in inflammatory markers, depressive symptoms, and physical activity were also evident after surgery. 
 

Cognitive Improvements 

Several cognitive domains showed significant improvement at 6 and 24 months after bariatric surgery. Based on the 20% change index, improvements in working memory, episodic memory, and verbal fluency were seen in 11%, 32%, and 24% of participants, respectively. 

Forty percent of patients showed improvement in their able to shift their attention, and 43% showed improvements in global cognition after surgery. 

Several changes in brain parameters were also noted. Despite lower cerebral blood flow (CBF) in several regions, volumes of hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, frontal cortex, white matter, and white matter hyperintensity remained stable after surgery. 

The temporal cortex showed a greater thickness (mean, 2.724 mm vs 2.761 mm; P = .007) and lower spatial coefficient of variation (sCOV; median, 4.41% vs 3.97%; P = .02) after surgery. 

Overall, the results suggest that cognitive improvements “begin shortly after bariatric surgery and are long lasting,” the authors wrote. 

Various factors may be involved including remission of comorbidities, higher physical activity, lower depressive symptoms, and lower inflammatory factors, they suggest. Stabilization of volume, CBF, and sCOV in brain regions, coupled with gains in cortical thickness and vascular efficiency in the temporal cortex could also play a role.
 

‘Remarkable’ Results

“Taken together, the research intimates bariatric surgery’s potential protective effects against dementia manifest through both weight-related brain changes and reducing cardiovascular risk factors,” Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These remarkable neurological transformations intimate this surgery represents a pivotal opportunity to combat the parallel public health crises of obesity and dementia threatening society,” he said. 

“In demonstrating a durable cognitive and brain boost out years beyond surgery, patients now have an emphatic answer — these aren’t short-lived benefits but rather profound improvements propelling them positively for the rest of life,” he added. 

This opens up questions on whether the new class of obesity medications targeting glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide pathways, that can achieve weight loss approaching that of bariatric surgery, could have similar benefits. 

The use of GLP-1 drugs have also shown neuroprotective effects such as improvement in motor and cognitive deficits, reduction of neuroinflammation, prevention of neuronal loss, and possibly slowing of neurodegeneration across animal models of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke, said Dr. Lakhan. However, the exact mechanisms and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier require further confirmation, especially in humans.

Large, long-term, randomized controlled trials looking into potential effects of semaglutide on early Alzheimer›s disease, including the EVOKE Plus trial, are currently underway, he noted. 

“These game-changing obesity drugs may hand us medicine’s holy grail — a pill to rival surgery’s brain benefits without the scalpel, allowing patients a more accessible path to protecting their brain,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study had no funding from industry. Dr. Kiliaan and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery is associated with long-term improvements in cognition and brain structure in addition to general health benefits and expected weight loss, a large study found.

Among 133 adults with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery, roughly two in five showed > 20% improvement in global cognitive function at 24 months following the surgery. 

“Notably, the temporal cortex exhibited not only higher cortical thickness but also higher vascular efficiency after surgery,” reported Amanda Kiliaan, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

“These results highlight beneficial vascular responses occurring in conjunction with bariatric surgery,” the researchers wrote. 

They also suggested that weight-loss surgery may represent a treatment option for patients with obesity and dementia. 

The study was published online on February 9, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of developing dementia. Bariatric surgery-induced weight loss has been associated with improvements in brain function and structure in some small cohort studies with short follow-up periods. However, long-term neurological outcomes associated with bariatric surgery are unclear. 

To investigate, Dr. Kiliaan and colleagues studied 133 adults with severe obesity (mean age, 46 years; 84% women) who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The researchers collected relevant data from laboratory tests, cognitive tests, and MRI brain scans before surgery and at 6 and 24 months after surgery.

Overall, mean body weight, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure were significantly lower at 6 and 24 months after surgery. At 24 months, significantly fewer patients were taking antihypertensive medication (17% vs 36% before surgery). 

Improvements in inflammatory markers, depressive symptoms, and physical activity were also evident after surgery. 
 

Cognitive Improvements 

Several cognitive domains showed significant improvement at 6 and 24 months after bariatric surgery. Based on the 20% change index, improvements in working memory, episodic memory, and verbal fluency were seen in 11%, 32%, and 24% of participants, respectively. 

Forty percent of patients showed improvement in their able to shift their attention, and 43% showed improvements in global cognition after surgery. 

Several changes in brain parameters were also noted. Despite lower cerebral blood flow (CBF) in several regions, volumes of hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, frontal cortex, white matter, and white matter hyperintensity remained stable after surgery. 

The temporal cortex showed a greater thickness (mean, 2.724 mm vs 2.761 mm; P = .007) and lower spatial coefficient of variation (sCOV; median, 4.41% vs 3.97%; P = .02) after surgery. 

Overall, the results suggest that cognitive improvements “begin shortly after bariatric surgery and are long lasting,” the authors wrote. 

Various factors may be involved including remission of comorbidities, higher physical activity, lower depressive symptoms, and lower inflammatory factors, they suggest. Stabilization of volume, CBF, and sCOV in brain regions, coupled with gains in cortical thickness and vascular efficiency in the temporal cortex could also play a role.
 

‘Remarkable’ Results

“Taken together, the research intimates bariatric surgery’s potential protective effects against dementia manifest through both weight-related brain changes and reducing cardiovascular risk factors,” Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These remarkable neurological transformations intimate this surgery represents a pivotal opportunity to combat the parallel public health crises of obesity and dementia threatening society,” he said. 

“In demonstrating a durable cognitive and brain boost out years beyond surgery, patients now have an emphatic answer — these aren’t short-lived benefits but rather profound improvements propelling them positively for the rest of life,” he added. 

This opens up questions on whether the new class of obesity medications targeting glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide pathways, that can achieve weight loss approaching that of bariatric surgery, could have similar benefits. 

The use of GLP-1 drugs have also shown neuroprotective effects such as improvement in motor and cognitive deficits, reduction of neuroinflammation, prevention of neuronal loss, and possibly slowing of neurodegeneration across animal models of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke, said Dr. Lakhan. However, the exact mechanisms and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier require further confirmation, especially in humans.

Large, long-term, randomized controlled trials looking into potential effects of semaglutide on early Alzheimer›s disease, including the EVOKE Plus trial, are currently underway, he noted. 

“These game-changing obesity drugs may hand us medicine’s holy grail — a pill to rival surgery’s brain benefits without the scalpel, allowing patients a more accessible path to protecting their brain,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study had no funding from industry. Dr. Kiliaan and Dr. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cohort study of primary care patients with obesity found significant associations between weight management treatments (WMTs) and ≥ 5% weight loss for individuals.

Yet, low WMT utilization hindered population-level benefit.

METHODOLOGY:

This retrospective, population-based cross-sectional cohort study included 149,959 primary care patients from a Michigan academic health system between October 2015 and March 2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• From 2017 to 2019, the average unadjusted body mass index (BMI) increased from 29.34 kg/m2 to 29.61 kg/m2 and the prevalence of obesity from 39.2% to 40.7%.
• Among 31,284 patients with obesity in 2017, 25.9% (6665) achieved ≥ 5% weight loss at 2 years.
• Among 37,245 with obesity in either 2017 or 2019 and sufficient follow-up, 1-year WMT utilization increased from 5.3% in 2017 to 7.1% in 2019 (difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.2%), including nutritional counseling (6.3%), weight loss medication prescriptions (2.6%), and bariatric surgery (1.0%).
• In two groups of n = 5090 with and without WMT exposure who were propensity score–matched on covariates including BMI, sex, and age, the probabilities of ≥ 5% weight loss at 1 year were 15.6% without WMTs, 23.1% for nutrition counseling, 54.6% for meal replacement, 27.8% for weight loss medication, and 93% for bariatric surgery, with all approaches significant compared to no WMTs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health systems and insurers should consider novel strategies to enhance preference-sensitive use of WMT to optimize achievement of 5% or greater weight loss among individuals and populations with obesity.”

“While we included glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes, including semaglutide 1.0 mg, in our analyses, the study period predated the [US Food and Drug Administration]-approval of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management. Future work should explore the potential for semaglutide 2.4 mg and other medications with substantial weight loss effectiveness to reduce weight at the population level.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by James Henderson, PhD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues and was published online in JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

Single health system. Electronic health record data may be subject to weight and WMT measurement error, lack of adherence data, and any information about outside WMT access. Retrospective, observational study, subject to bias. Study period occurred before FDA approval of semaglutide for weight management, and thus, the findings may understate current use and effectiveness of weight loss medications.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Michigan Center for Diabetes Translational Research, Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the Elizabeth Weiser Caswell Diabetes Institute at the University of Michigan. Dr. Henderson had no further disclosures, but some of the coauthors had industry ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cohort study of primary care patients with obesity found significant associations between weight management treatments (WMTs) and ≥ 5% weight loss for individuals.

Yet, low WMT utilization hindered population-level benefit.

METHODOLOGY:

This retrospective, population-based cross-sectional cohort study included 149,959 primary care patients from a Michigan academic health system between October 2015 and March 2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• From 2017 to 2019, the average unadjusted body mass index (BMI) increased from 29.34 kg/m2 to 29.61 kg/m2 and the prevalence of obesity from 39.2% to 40.7%.
• Among 31,284 patients with obesity in 2017, 25.9% (6665) achieved ≥ 5% weight loss at 2 years.
• Among 37,245 with obesity in either 2017 or 2019 and sufficient follow-up, 1-year WMT utilization increased from 5.3% in 2017 to 7.1% in 2019 (difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.2%), including nutritional counseling (6.3%), weight loss medication prescriptions (2.6%), and bariatric surgery (1.0%).
• In two groups of n = 5090 with and without WMT exposure who were propensity score–matched on covariates including BMI, sex, and age, the probabilities of ≥ 5% weight loss at 1 year were 15.6% without WMTs, 23.1% for nutrition counseling, 54.6% for meal replacement, 27.8% for weight loss medication, and 93% for bariatric surgery, with all approaches significant compared to no WMTs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health systems and insurers should consider novel strategies to enhance preference-sensitive use of WMT to optimize achievement of 5% or greater weight loss among individuals and populations with obesity.”

“While we included glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes, including semaglutide 1.0 mg, in our analyses, the study period predated the [US Food and Drug Administration]-approval of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management. Future work should explore the potential for semaglutide 2.4 mg and other medications with substantial weight loss effectiveness to reduce weight at the population level.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by James Henderson, PhD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues and was published online in JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

Single health system. Electronic health record data may be subject to weight and WMT measurement error, lack of adherence data, and any information about outside WMT access. Retrospective, observational study, subject to bias. Study period occurred before FDA approval of semaglutide for weight management, and thus, the findings may understate current use and effectiveness of weight loss medications.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Michigan Center for Diabetes Translational Research, Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the Elizabeth Weiser Caswell Diabetes Institute at the University of Michigan. Dr. Henderson had no further disclosures, but some of the coauthors had industry ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cohort study of primary care patients with obesity found significant associations between weight management treatments (WMTs) and ≥ 5% weight loss for individuals.

Yet, low WMT utilization hindered population-level benefit.

METHODOLOGY:

This retrospective, population-based cross-sectional cohort study included 149,959 primary care patients from a Michigan academic health system between October 2015 and March 2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• From 2017 to 2019, the average unadjusted body mass index (BMI) increased from 29.34 kg/m2 to 29.61 kg/m2 and the prevalence of obesity from 39.2% to 40.7%.
• Among 31,284 patients with obesity in 2017, 25.9% (6665) achieved ≥ 5% weight loss at 2 years.
• Among 37,245 with obesity in either 2017 or 2019 and sufficient follow-up, 1-year WMT utilization increased from 5.3% in 2017 to 7.1% in 2019 (difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.2%), including nutritional counseling (6.3%), weight loss medication prescriptions (2.6%), and bariatric surgery (1.0%).
• In two groups of n = 5090 with and without WMT exposure who were propensity score–matched on covariates including BMI, sex, and age, the probabilities of ≥ 5% weight loss at 1 year were 15.6% without WMTs, 23.1% for nutrition counseling, 54.6% for meal replacement, 27.8% for weight loss medication, and 93% for bariatric surgery, with all approaches significant compared to no WMTs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health systems and insurers should consider novel strategies to enhance preference-sensitive use of WMT to optimize achievement of 5% or greater weight loss among individuals and populations with obesity.”

“While we included glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes, including semaglutide 1.0 mg, in our analyses, the study period predated the [US Food and Drug Administration]-approval of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management. Future work should explore the potential for semaglutide 2.4 mg and other medications with substantial weight loss effectiveness to reduce weight at the population level.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by James Henderson, PhD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues and was published online in JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

Single health system. Electronic health record data may be subject to weight and WMT measurement error, lack of adherence data, and any information about outside WMT access. Retrospective, observational study, subject to bias. Study period occurred before FDA approval of semaglutide for weight management, and thus, the findings may understate current use and effectiveness of weight loss medications.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Michigan Center for Diabetes Translational Research, Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the Elizabeth Weiser Caswell Diabetes Institute at the University of Michigan. Dr. Henderson had no further disclosures, but some of the coauthors had industry ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher body mass index (BMI) at the start of pregnancy is associated with increased risk for adverse maternal outcomes, including preeclampsia, and neonatal complications, such as respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), in a dose-dependent manner, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 58,497 singleton pregnancies delivered at an urban hospital between 2013 and 2021.
• They focused on pregnancies delivered between 24 and 42 weeks of gestation, for which information about BMI at the first prenatal visit was available.
• 21.1% of mothers had class I , 9.3% had class II obesity, and 6% had class III obesity.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Obesity was associated with a dose-dependent increase in cesarean deliveries (27% of deliveries without obesity vs 46% of deliveries with class III obesity).
• Severe preeclampsia occurred in 8% of mothers without obesity and in 19% of mothers with class III obesity.
• Infants born to mothers with class III obesity were more likely than were infants born to mothers without obesity to have RDS, with a relative risk (RR) of 2.66.
• With class II obesity, the RR was 1.77. With class I obesity, the RR was 1.3.
• Obesity also was associated with increased risk for grade III-IV  (RR), 4.58 for class III obesity) and  (RR, 3.76).

IN PRACTICE:

“Infants born to patients with higher classes of obesity have significant associated morbidity including a 2 to 4 times increased risk of neonatal acidosis, grades III-IV intraventricular hemorrhage, sepsis, and RDS,” the researchers reported. 

SOURCE:

Sara I. Jones, MD, with University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, presented the study on February 14 at the 2024 Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, in National Harbor, Maryland. 

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher body mass index (BMI) at the start of pregnancy is associated with increased risk for adverse maternal outcomes, including preeclampsia, and neonatal complications, such as respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), in a dose-dependent manner, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 58,497 singleton pregnancies delivered at an urban hospital between 2013 and 2021.
• They focused on pregnancies delivered between 24 and 42 weeks of gestation, for which information about BMI at the first prenatal visit was available.
• 21.1% of mothers had class I , 9.3% had class II obesity, and 6% had class III obesity.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Obesity was associated with a dose-dependent increase in cesarean deliveries (27% of deliveries without obesity vs 46% of deliveries with class III obesity).
• Severe preeclampsia occurred in 8% of mothers without obesity and in 19% of mothers with class III obesity.
• Infants born to mothers with class III obesity were more likely than were infants born to mothers without obesity to have RDS, with a relative risk (RR) of 2.66.
• With class II obesity, the RR was 1.77. With class I obesity, the RR was 1.3.
• Obesity also was associated with increased risk for grade III-IV  (RR), 4.58 for class III obesity) and  (RR, 3.76).

IN PRACTICE:

“Infants born to patients with higher classes of obesity have significant associated morbidity including a 2 to 4 times increased risk of neonatal acidosis, grades III-IV intraventricular hemorrhage, sepsis, and RDS,” the researchers reported. 

SOURCE:

Sara I. Jones, MD, with University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, presented the study on February 14 at the 2024 Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, in National Harbor, Maryland. 

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher body mass index (BMI) at the start of pregnancy is associated with increased risk for adverse maternal outcomes, including preeclampsia, and neonatal complications, such as respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), in a dose-dependent manner, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 58,497 singleton pregnancies delivered at an urban hospital between 2013 and 2021.
• They focused on pregnancies delivered between 24 and 42 weeks of gestation, for which information about BMI at the first prenatal visit was available.
• 21.1% of mothers had class I , 9.3% had class II obesity, and 6% had class III obesity.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Obesity was associated with a dose-dependent increase in cesarean deliveries (27% of deliveries without obesity vs 46% of deliveries with class III obesity).
• Severe preeclampsia occurred in 8% of mothers without obesity and in 19% of mothers with class III obesity.
• Infants born to mothers with class III obesity were more likely than were infants born to mothers without obesity to have RDS, with a relative risk (RR) of 2.66.
• With class II obesity, the RR was 1.77. With class I obesity, the RR was 1.3.
• Obesity also was associated with increased risk for grade III-IV  (RR), 4.58 for class III obesity) and  (RR, 3.76).

IN PRACTICE:

“Infants born to patients with higher classes of obesity have significant associated morbidity including a 2 to 4 times increased risk of neonatal acidosis, grades III-IV intraventricular hemorrhage, sepsis, and RDS,” the researchers reported. 

SOURCE:

Sara I. Jones, MD, with University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, presented the study on February 14 at the 2024 Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, in National Harbor, Maryland. 

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How much of societal diet-related scientific illiteracy can be blamed on the publication decisions of medical journals around food studies?

That was the question I pondered when reading “Association between kimchi consumption and obesity based on BMI and abdominal obesity in Korean adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Examinees study,” recently published in BMJ Open. Although I will get to the study particulars momentarily, that it’s 2024 and journals are still publishing cross-sectional studies of the impact of a single food’s subjectively reported consumption on health outcomes is mind boggling.

You might wonder why I wasn’t mind boggled by the authors rather than the journal — but the authors’ interest in publishing a study on kimchi’s supposed impact on obesity is an easy thing to explain, in that the study was funded by the World Institute of Kimchi, where two of its four authors are employed.

You might also wonder why I wasn’t mind boggled by media running with this story — but the media’s job is to capture eyeballs, and who doesn’t love a good magic food story, doubly so for one involving obesity and one with a study backing it up?

Back to this World Institute of Kimchi project looking at kimchi intake on obesity rates. No doubt if I worked for the World Institute of Kimchi, I would want kimchi to be shown to be somehow magically protective against weight gain. So how might I go about exploring that?

Well, I could look to the data from the Health Examinees (HEXA) Study. The HEXA study was a cross-sectional look at South Koreans; included in their data collection was a 106-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ).

That questionnaire looked at 106 food items — yep, you guessed it, explicitly including kimchi. Not included in this FFQ, though, were prepared foods, meaning that it was unable to measure seasonings, spices, or cooking oils. Also perhaps problematic is that no doubt most of us consume more than 106 total food items in our diets. Perhaps this is why the validation study of HEXA’s food item–based FFQ found that it had “relatively low validity” when compared against 12-day food diaries and why its creators themselves report it to be in their study’s conclusion only “reasonably acceptable” to apply to a population. But yes, kimchi!

So for the sake of this exercise, though, let’s assume that instead of only a reasonably acceptable FFQ with low validity, the FFQ was fantastic and its data robust. How great then is kimchi at preventing obesity? Certainly, the media report it’s pretty darn good. Here’s a smattering from the literal dozens of headlines of stories covering this paper:

Eating kimchi every day could help stave off weight gain, new study says — NBC News

Eating kimchi every day may prevent weight gain, research suggests — Sky News

Want to avoid piling on the pounds? Try kimchi for breakfast — The Telegraph

But when we turn to the paper itself, suddenly things aren’t so clear.

According to the paper, men who reported eating two to three servings of kimchi per day were found to have lower rates of obesity, whereas men who reported eating three to five servings of kimchi per day were not. But these are overlapping groups! Also found was that men consuming more than five servings of kimchi per day have higher rates of obesity. When taken together, these findings do not demonstrate a statistically significant trend of kimchi intake on obesity in men. Whereas in women, things are worse in that the more kimchi reportedly consumed, the more obesity, in a trend that did (just) reach statistical significance.

So even if we pretend the FFQs were robust enough to make conclusions about a single food’s impact on obesity, and we pretend there was a well-described, plausible mechanistic reason to believe same (there isn’t), and we pretend that this particular FFQ had better than “relatively low validity,” there is no conclusion here to be drawn about kimchi’s impact on obesity.

What we can conclude is that when it comes to publishing papers purporting to find the impact of single foods on obesity, journals will still happily publish them and their publication will lead to hyperbolic headlines and stories, which in turn reinforce the scientifically illiterate notion that the highly complex multifactorial problem of obesity boils down to simple food choices, which in turn keeps weight loss grifters everywhere in business while fueling societal weight bias.

Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How much of societal diet-related scientific illiteracy can be blamed on the publication decisions of medical journals around food studies?

That was the question I pondered when reading “Association between kimchi consumption and obesity based on BMI and abdominal obesity in Korean adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Examinees study,” recently published in BMJ Open. Although I will get to the study particulars momentarily, that it’s 2024 and journals are still publishing cross-sectional studies of the impact of a single food’s subjectively reported consumption on health outcomes is mind boggling.

You might wonder why I wasn’t mind boggled by the authors rather than the journal — but the authors’ interest in publishing a study on kimchi’s supposed impact on obesity is an easy thing to explain, in that the study was funded by the World Institute of Kimchi, where two of its four authors are employed.

You might also wonder why I wasn’t mind boggled by media running with this story — but the media’s job is to capture eyeballs, and who doesn’t love a good magic food story, doubly so for one involving obesity and one with a study backing it up?

Back to this World Institute of Kimchi project looking at kimchi intake on obesity rates. No doubt if I worked for the World Institute of Kimchi, I would want kimchi to be shown to be somehow magically protective against weight gain. So how might I go about exploring that?

Well, I could look to the data from the Health Examinees (HEXA) Study. The HEXA study was a cross-sectional look at South Koreans; included in their data collection was a 106-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ).

That questionnaire looked at 106 food items — yep, you guessed it, explicitly including kimchi. Not included in this FFQ, though, were prepared foods, meaning that it was unable to measure seasonings, spices, or cooking oils. Also perhaps problematic is that no doubt most of us consume more than 106 total food items in our diets. Perhaps this is why the validation study of HEXA’s food item–based FFQ found that it had “relatively low validity” when compared against 12-day food diaries and why its creators themselves report it to be in their study’s conclusion only “reasonably acceptable” to apply to a population. But yes, kimchi!

So for the sake of this exercise, though, let’s assume that instead of only a reasonably acceptable FFQ with low validity, the FFQ was fantastic and its data robust. How great then is kimchi at preventing obesity? Certainly, the media report it’s pretty darn good. Here’s a smattering from the literal dozens of headlines of stories covering this paper:

Eating kimchi every day could help stave off weight gain, new study says — NBC News

Eating kimchi every day may prevent weight gain, research suggests — Sky News

Want to avoid piling on the pounds? Try kimchi for breakfast — The Telegraph

But when we turn to the paper itself, suddenly things aren’t so clear.

According to the paper, men who reported eating two to three servings of kimchi per day were found to have lower rates of obesity, whereas men who reported eating three to five servings of kimchi per day were not. But these are overlapping groups! Also found was that men consuming more than five servings of kimchi per day have higher rates of obesity. When taken together, these findings do not demonstrate a statistically significant trend of kimchi intake on obesity in men. Whereas in women, things are worse in that the more kimchi reportedly consumed, the more obesity, in a trend that did (just) reach statistical significance.

So even if we pretend the FFQs were robust enough to make conclusions about a single food’s impact on obesity, and we pretend there was a well-described, plausible mechanistic reason to believe same (there isn’t), and we pretend that this particular FFQ had better than “relatively low validity,” there is no conclusion here to be drawn about kimchi’s impact on obesity.

What we can conclude is that when it comes to publishing papers purporting to find the impact of single foods on obesity, journals will still happily publish them and their publication will lead to hyperbolic headlines and stories, which in turn reinforce the scientifically illiterate notion that the highly complex multifactorial problem of obesity boils down to simple food choices, which in turn keeps weight loss grifters everywhere in business while fueling societal weight bias.

Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How much of societal diet-related scientific illiteracy can be blamed on the publication decisions of medical journals around food studies?

That was the question I pondered when reading “Association between kimchi consumption and obesity based on BMI and abdominal obesity in Korean adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Examinees study,” recently published in BMJ Open. Although I will get to the study particulars momentarily, that it’s 2024 and journals are still publishing cross-sectional studies of the impact of a single food’s subjectively reported consumption on health outcomes is mind boggling.

You might wonder why I wasn’t mind boggled by the authors rather than the journal — but the authors’ interest in publishing a study on kimchi’s supposed impact on obesity is an easy thing to explain, in that the study was funded by the World Institute of Kimchi, where two of its four authors are employed.

You might also wonder why I wasn’t mind boggled by media running with this story — but the media’s job is to capture eyeballs, and who doesn’t love a good magic food story, doubly so for one involving obesity and one with a study backing it up?

Back to this World Institute of Kimchi project looking at kimchi intake on obesity rates. No doubt if I worked for the World Institute of Kimchi, I would want kimchi to be shown to be somehow magically protective against weight gain. So how might I go about exploring that?

Well, I could look to the data from the Health Examinees (HEXA) Study. The HEXA study was a cross-sectional look at South Koreans; included in their data collection was a 106-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ).

That questionnaire looked at 106 food items — yep, you guessed it, explicitly including kimchi. Not included in this FFQ, though, were prepared foods, meaning that it was unable to measure seasonings, spices, or cooking oils. Also perhaps problematic is that no doubt most of us consume more than 106 total food items in our diets. Perhaps this is why the validation study of HEXA’s food item–based FFQ found that it had “relatively low validity” when compared against 12-day food diaries and why its creators themselves report it to be in their study’s conclusion only “reasonably acceptable” to apply to a population. But yes, kimchi!

So for the sake of this exercise, though, let’s assume that instead of only a reasonably acceptable FFQ with low validity, the FFQ was fantastic and its data robust. How great then is kimchi at preventing obesity? Certainly, the media report it’s pretty darn good. Here’s a smattering from the literal dozens of headlines of stories covering this paper:

Eating kimchi every day could help stave off weight gain, new study says — NBC News

Eating kimchi every day may prevent weight gain, research suggests — Sky News

Want to avoid piling on the pounds? Try kimchi for breakfast — The Telegraph

But when we turn to the paper itself, suddenly things aren’t so clear.

According to the paper, men who reported eating two to three servings of kimchi per day were found to have lower rates of obesity, whereas men who reported eating three to five servings of kimchi per day were not. But these are overlapping groups! Also found was that men consuming more than five servings of kimchi per day have higher rates of obesity. When taken together, these findings do not demonstrate a statistically significant trend of kimchi intake on obesity in men. Whereas in women, things are worse in that the more kimchi reportedly consumed, the more obesity, in a trend that did (just) reach statistical significance.

So even if we pretend the FFQs were robust enough to make conclusions about a single food’s impact on obesity, and we pretend there was a well-described, plausible mechanistic reason to believe same (there isn’t), and we pretend that this particular FFQ had better than “relatively low validity,” there is no conclusion here to be drawn about kimchi’s impact on obesity.

What we can conclude is that when it comes to publishing papers purporting to find the impact of single foods on obesity, journals will still happily publish them and their publication will lead to hyperbolic headlines and stories, which in turn reinforce the scientifically illiterate notion that the highly complex multifactorial problem of obesity boils down to simple food choices, which in turn keeps weight loss grifters everywhere in business while fueling societal weight bias.

Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He disclosed ties with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Women who experience an adverse pregnancy outcome during their first pregnancy are significantly more likely to experience either the same or any adverse pregnancy outcome in a subsequent pregnancy than are those with no adverse pregnancy outcome during a first pregnancy, based on data from more than 4000 individuals.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) occur in approximately 20%-30% of pregnancies and contribute to significant perinatal morbidity, William A. Grobman, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (abstract 17).

Risk factors for APOs include nulliparity and prior APOs, as well as age, body mass index, and blood pressure, he said. However, less is known about factors identified early in a first pregnancy that might predict an APO in a second pregnancy, he explained.

Dr. Grobman and colleagues used data from the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study, a cohort of more than 10,000 nulliparous women at eight sites in the United States.

The current study included a subset of individuals with two pregnancies of at least 20 weeks’ gestation who were followed for up to 7 years after delivery via telephone and in-person visits and for whom APO information was available.

An APO was defined as any of a range of outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, small-for-gestational age at birth (less than 5th percentile for weight), gestational diabetes, or fetal death.

The goal of the study was to determine patterns of APOs across two pregnancies, and to identify factors in the first pregnancy that might be associated with these patterns, Dr. Grobman said.

The study population included 4253 women from the nuMOM2b; of these, 1332 (31%) experienced an APO during their first pregnancies.

Women with an APO during the first pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a second APO than were those with no initial APO (40% vs. 15%), said Dr. Grobman. Overall, the APO that occurred most frequently in the first pregnancy was the one most likely to occur in the second.

However, “the increased risk for an APO during a second pregnancy was greater for any APO in women with a history of any APO compared to women with no prior APO,” he said.

In this study, the most common APOs were gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“In general, no risk markers were associated with a particular pattern of APO development,” Dr. Grobman said.

However, some markers from the first trimester of the first pregnancy were significantly associated with an APO in the second pregnancy, including body mass index, age older than 35 years, blood pressure, and cardiometabolic serum analytes. Also, the magnitude of APO recurrence risk was highest among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with other ethnicities.

The findings were limited by a lack of data on placental pathology, Dr. Grobman noted during the discussion. However, the findings underscored the need to better understand the risk factors for APOs and develop prevention strategies, he said. The results also emphasize the need to account for transitions of care for patients who experience an APO, he added.
 

Data May Inform Patient Guidance

“Patients with an adverse pregnancy outcome in a first pregnancy often experience considerable anxiety when thinking about a second pregnancy,” Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said in an interview.

“This study helps to provide insight into factors which may be associated with increased risk in a subsequent pregnancy, and importantly identifies some factors that are potentially modifiable, such as BMI and blood pressure,” said Dr. Biggio, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“Based on the findings from this analysis, we need research to determine whether these findings apply to not only patients having their first pregnancy, but also adverse outcomes in any pregnancy,” Dr. Biggio said in an interview. “In addition, we need to explore whether modification of any of these risk factors can improve pregnancy outcomes, so that all patients can have the birth experience that they desire,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Grobman and Dr. Biggio had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Women who experience an adverse pregnancy outcome during their first pregnancy are significantly more likely to experience either the same or any adverse pregnancy outcome in a subsequent pregnancy than are those with no adverse pregnancy outcome during a first pregnancy, based on data from more than 4000 individuals.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) occur in approximately 20%-30% of pregnancies and contribute to significant perinatal morbidity, William A. Grobman, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (abstract 17).

Risk factors for APOs include nulliparity and prior APOs, as well as age, body mass index, and blood pressure, he said. However, less is known about factors identified early in a first pregnancy that might predict an APO in a second pregnancy, he explained.

Dr. Grobman and colleagues used data from the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study, a cohort of more than 10,000 nulliparous women at eight sites in the United States.

The current study included a subset of individuals with two pregnancies of at least 20 weeks’ gestation who were followed for up to 7 years after delivery via telephone and in-person visits and for whom APO information was available.

An APO was defined as any of a range of outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, small-for-gestational age at birth (less than 5th percentile for weight), gestational diabetes, or fetal death.

The goal of the study was to determine patterns of APOs across two pregnancies, and to identify factors in the first pregnancy that might be associated with these patterns, Dr. Grobman said.

The study population included 4253 women from the nuMOM2b; of these, 1332 (31%) experienced an APO during their first pregnancies.

Women with an APO during the first pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a second APO than were those with no initial APO (40% vs. 15%), said Dr. Grobman. Overall, the APO that occurred most frequently in the first pregnancy was the one most likely to occur in the second.

However, “the increased risk for an APO during a second pregnancy was greater for any APO in women with a history of any APO compared to women with no prior APO,” he said.

In this study, the most common APOs were gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“In general, no risk markers were associated with a particular pattern of APO development,” Dr. Grobman said.

However, some markers from the first trimester of the first pregnancy were significantly associated with an APO in the second pregnancy, including body mass index, age older than 35 years, blood pressure, and cardiometabolic serum analytes. Also, the magnitude of APO recurrence risk was highest among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with other ethnicities.

The findings were limited by a lack of data on placental pathology, Dr. Grobman noted during the discussion. However, the findings underscored the need to better understand the risk factors for APOs and develop prevention strategies, he said. The results also emphasize the need to account for transitions of care for patients who experience an APO, he added.
 

Data May Inform Patient Guidance

“Patients with an adverse pregnancy outcome in a first pregnancy often experience considerable anxiety when thinking about a second pregnancy,” Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said in an interview.

“This study helps to provide insight into factors which may be associated with increased risk in a subsequent pregnancy, and importantly identifies some factors that are potentially modifiable, such as BMI and blood pressure,” said Dr. Biggio, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“Based on the findings from this analysis, we need research to determine whether these findings apply to not only patients having their first pregnancy, but also adverse outcomes in any pregnancy,” Dr. Biggio said in an interview. “In addition, we need to explore whether modification of any of these risk factors can improve pregnancy outcomes, so that all patients can have the birth experience that they desire,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Grobman and Dr. Biggio had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Women who experience an adverse pregnancy outcome during their first pregnancy are significantly more likely to experience either the same or any adverse pregnancy outcome in a subsequent pregnancy than are those with no adverse pregnancy outcome during a first pregnancy, based on data from more than 4000 individuals.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) occur in approximately 20%-30% of pregnancies and contribute to significant perinatal morbidity, William A. Grobman, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (abstract 17).

Risk factors for APOs include nulliparity and prior APOs, as well as age, body mass index, and blood pressure, he said. However, less is known about factors identified early in a first pregnancy that might predict an APO in a second pregnancy, he explained.

Dr. Grobman and colleagues used data from the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study, a cohort of more than 10,000 nulliparous women at eight sites in the United States.

The current study included a subset of individuals with two pregnancies of at least 20 weeks’ gestation who were followed for up to 7 years after delivery via telephone and in-person visits and for whom APO information was available.

An APO was defined as any of a range of outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, small-for-gestational age at birth (less than 5th percentile for weight), gestational diabetes, or fetal death.

The goal of the study was to determine patterns of APOs across two pregnancies, and to identify factors in the first pregnancy that might be associated with these patterns, Dr. Grobman said.

The study population included 4253 women from the nuMOM2b; of these, 1332 (31%) experienced an APO during their first pregnancies.

Women with an APO during the first pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a second APO than were those with no initial APO (40% vs. 15%), said Dr. Grobman. Overall, the APO that occurred most frequently in the first pregnancy was the one most likely to occur in the second.

However, “the increased risk for an APO during a second pregnancy was greater for any APO in women with a history of any APO compared to women with no prior APO,” he said.

In this study, the most common APOs were gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“In general, no risk markers were associated with a particular pattern of APO development,” Dr. Grobman said.

However, some markers from the first trimester of the first pregnancy were significantly associated with an APO in the second pregnancy, including body mass index, age older than 35 years, blood pressure, and cardiometabolic serum analytes. Also, the magnitude of APO recurrence risk was highest among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with other ethnicities.

The findings were limited by a lack of data on placental pathology, Dr. Grobman noted during the discussion. However, the findings underscored the need to better understand the risk factors for APOs and develop prevention strategies, he said. The results also emphasize the need to account for transitions of care for patients who experience an APO, he added.
 

Data May Inform Patient Guidance

“Patients with an adverse pregnancy outcome in a first pregnancy often experience considerable anxiety when thinking about a second pregnancy,” Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said in an interview.

“This study helps to provide insight into factors which may be associated with increased risk in a subsequent pregnancy, and importantly identifies some factors that are potentially modifiable, such as BMI and blood pressure,” said Dr. Biggio, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“Based on the findings from this analysis, we need research to determine whether these findings apply to not only patients having their first pregnancy, but also adverse outcomes in any pregnancy,” Dr. Biggio said in an interview. “In addition, we need to explore whether modification of any of these risk factors can improve pregnancy outcomes, so that all patients can have the birth experience that they desire,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Grobman and Dr. Biggio had no financial conflicts to disclose.

TOPLINE:

Oral intragastric expandable capsules taken twice daily before meals reduce body weight in adults with overweight or obesity compared with placebo, with mild gastrointestinal adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Numerous anti-obesity pharmacotherapies have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing weight, but they may lead to side effects.
• This 24-week phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled study evaluated 2.24 g oral intragastric expandable capsules for weight loss in 280 adults (ages 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 24 kg/m2).
• One capsule, taken before lunch and dinner with water, expands to fill about one quarter of average stomach volume and then passes through the body, similar to the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared device Plenity.
• Primary endpoints were the percentage change in body weight from baseline and the weight loss response rate (weight loss of at least 5% of baseline body weight) at week 24.
• Researchers analyzed efficacy outcomes in two ways: Intention to treat (a full analysis based on groups to which they were randomly assigned) and per protocol (based on data from participants who follow the protocol).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 24 weeks, the change in mean body weight was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (estimated treatment difference [ETD], −3.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• The weight loss response rate at 24 weeks was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (ETD, 29.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• Reduction in fasting insulin levels was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo (P = .008), while improvements in the lipid profile, fasting plasma glucose levels, and heart rate were similar between the groups.
• Gastrointestinal disorders were reported in 25.0% of participants in the intragastric expandable capsule group compared with 21.9% in the placebo group, with most being transient and mild in severity.

IN PRACTICE:

“As a mild and safe anti-obesity medication, intragastric expandable capsules provide a new therapeutic choice for individuals with overweight or obesity, helping them to enhance and maintain the effect of diet restriction,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

Difei Lu, MD, Department of Endocrinology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China, led the study, which was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included individuals who were overweight or obese, who might have been more willing to lose weight than the general population. Moreover, only 3.25% of the participants had type 2 diabetes, and participants were relatively young. This may have reduced the potential to discover metabolic or cardiovascular improvement by the product.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Xiamen Junde Pharmaceutical Technology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral intragastric expandable capsules taken twice daily before meals reduce body weight in adults with overweight or obesity compared with placebo, with mild gastrointestinal adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Numerous anti-obesity pharmacotherapies have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing weight, but they may lead to side effects.
• This 24-week phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled study evaluated 2.24 g oral intragastric expandable capsules for weight loss in 280 adults (ages 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 24 kg/m2).
• One capsule, taken before lunch and dinner with water, expands to fill about one quarter of average stomach volume and then passes through the body, similar to the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared device Plenity.
• Primary endpoints were the percentage change in body weight from baseline and the weight loss response rate (weight loss of at least 5% of baseline body weight) at week 24.
• Researchers analyzed efficacy outcomes in two ways: Intention to treat (a full analysis based on groups to which they were randomly assigned) and per protocol (based on data from participants who follow the protocol).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 24 weeks, the change in mean body weight was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (estimated treatment difference [ETD], −3.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• The weight loss response rate at 24 weeks was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (ETD, 29.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• Reduction in fasting insulin levels was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo (P = .008), while improvements in the lipid profile, fasting plasma glucose levels, and heart rate were similar between the groups.
• Gastrointestinal disorders were reported in 25.0% of participants in the intragastric expandable capsule group compared with 21.9% in the placebo group, with most being transient and mild in severity.

IN PRACTICE:

“As a mild and safe anti-obesity medication, intragastric expandable capsules provide a new therapeutic choice for individuals with overweight or obesity, helping them to enhance and maintain the effect of diet restriction,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

Difei Lu, MD, Department of Endocrinology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China, led the study, which was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included individuals who were overweight or obese, who might have been more willing to lose weight than the general population. Moreover, only 3.25% of the participants had type 2 diabetes, and participants were relatively young. This may have reduced the potential to discover metabolic or cardiovascular improvement by the product.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Xiamen Junde Pharmaceutical Technology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral intragastric expandable capsules taken twice daily before meals reduce body weight in adults with overweight or obesity compared with placebo, with mild gastrointestinal adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Numerous anti-obesity pharmacotherapies have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing weight, but they may lead to side effects.
• This 24-week phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled study evaluated 2.24 g oral intragastric expandable capsules for weight loss in 280 adults (ages 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 24 kg/m2).
• One capsule, taken before lunch and dinner with water, expands to fill about one quarter of average stomach volume and then passes through the body, similar to the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared device Plenity.
• Primary endpoints were the percentage change in body weight from baseline and the weight loss response rate (weight loss of at least 5% of baseline body weight) at week 24.
• Researchers analyzed efficacy outcomes in two ways: Intention to treat (a full analysis based on groups to which they were randomly assigned) and per protocol (based on data from participants who follow the protocol).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 24 weeks, the change in mean body weight was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (estimated treatment difference [ETD], −3.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• The weight loss response rate at 24 weeks was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (ETD, 29.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• Reduction in fasting insulin levels was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo (P = .008), while improvements in the lipid profile, fasting plasma glucose levels, and heart rate were similar between the groups.
• Gastrointestinal disorders were reported in 25.0% of participants in the intragastric expandable capsule group compared with 21.9% in the placebo group, with most being transient and mild in severity.

IN PRACTICE:

“As a mild and safe anti-obesity medication, intragastric expandable capsules provide a new therapeutic choice for individuals with overweight or obesity, helping them to enhance and maintain the effect of diet restriction,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

Difei Lu, MD, Department of Endocrinology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China, led the study, which was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included individuals who were overweight or obese, who might have been more willing to lose weight than the general population. Moreover, only 3.25% of the participants had type 2 diabetes, and participants were relatively young. This may have reduced the potential to discover metabolic or cardiovascular improvement by the product.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Xiamen Junde Pharmaceutical Technology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.