![]() |
Nutrition Evidence Library |
|
Quick Links
|
What is the relationship between self-diet monitoring and body weight in adults?Conclusion
Strong evidence shows that for adults who need or desire to lose weight, or who are maintaining body weight following weight loss, self-monitoring of food intake improves outcomes. Grade: Strong Overall strength of the available supporting evidence: Strong; Moderate; Limited; Expert Opinion Only; Grade not assignable
For additional information regarding how to interpret grades, click here.
Evidence Summary Overview
The literature review identified seven studies: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (Adachi, 2007; Carels, 2008; Helsel, 2007; Lowe, 2008; Tate, 2001; Wylie-Rosett, 2001) and one non-randomized controlled trial (Yon, 2007). In the majority of studies, diet self-monitoring included keeping a daily record of food consumed, with a focus on monitoring calorie intake. The studies were conducted in the Evidence Summary Paragraphs
Carels RA et al, 2008 (positive quality) conducted an RCT in the US to examine the relationship between self-monitoring adherence and weight loss. Subjects were enrolled in a 14-week weight loss intervention, and were instructed to complete daily diaries of food intake and exercise to monitor energy intake and energy expenditure. Weight and height were measured, and BMI calculated at baseline and 14-weeks. The final sample included 44 subjects (mean age = 46 years; mean BMI = 36kg/m2). Greater self-monitoring throughout the program was significantly associated with greater overall weight loss (P<0.0001). Self-monitoring throughout the program accounted for 25% of the variance in overall weight loss. Individuals who lost 5% of their body weight during the intervention self-monitored more than twice as many days as did individuals who did not lose 5% of their body weight (P<0.001). The authors concluded that self-monitoring of energy intake and expenditure were significantly, positively associated with weight loss. Helsel DL et al, 2007 (neutral quality) conducted an RCT in the US to determine whether different methods of self-monitoring of eating and exercise behaviors affects body weight in overweight adults. Subjects participated in a 16-week correspondence-based behavioral weight-loss program and were assigned to either the Detailed Self-Monitoring Group (instructed to self-monitor eating and exercise behaviors using a weekly diary) or the Transitional Self-Monitoring Group (instructed to self-monitor using the detailed approach for weeks one to eight, and then transition to an abbreviated eating and exercise diary from weeks nine to 16). The final sample included 42 subjects. There was a significant decrease in body weight from zero to 16 weeks in the detailed self-monitoring group (-7.5±5.3kg) and the transitional self-monitoring group (-7.6±5.5kg) (P=0.001), with no significant (NS) difference between the groups. There were significant correlation coefficients between change in body weight and number of diaries returned (R=0.53, P<0.03). The authors concluded that the self-monitoring process is important for facilitating weight loss and change in eating and physical activity behaviors. Lowe MR et al, 2008 (neutral quality) conducted an RCT in the US to compare group weight loss interventions, aimed at improving weight loss maintenance, on body weight. The weight loss phase was eight weeks in length, and was based on an Optifast meal replacement-supplemented, 1,100kcal per day diet. The weight maintenance phase was 14 weeks in length, and subjects were randomly assigned to three groups during this phase: The Control group received basic instruction about nutrition and behavioral and lifestyle modifications; the Enhanced Food Monitoring Accuracy (EFMA) group received training on accurate food reporting and practiced food monitoring daily; and the Reduced Energy Density Eating (REDE) group was instructed on a reduced energy density diet in addition to the training provided to EFMA subjects. Assessments were conducted at baseline, post-weight loss (eight weeks), post-intervention (22 weeks), and at six- and 18-month follow-ups. The final sample included 103 subjects (N=35 in the Control group, N=35 in the EFMA group and N=33 in the REDE group). For the EFMA and Control groups, there was a significant correlation between the ratio of reported calories eaten per day divided by current body weight (an assessment of reporting accuracy) and better weight control (P<0.05), but not for REDE subjects. For all subjects combined, there was no significant correlation between the ratio of reported calories eaten per day divided by current body weight and better weight control. The authors conclude that these results do not provide consistent support for the hypothesis that training in food monitoring accuracy changed calorie intake or weight. Tate DF et al, 2001 (positive quality) conducted an RCT in the US to determine whether a structured Internet behavioral weight loss program produces greater initial weight loss and changes in waist circumference than a weight loss education Web site. Subjects were assigned to a six-month weight loss program of either Internet education or Internet behavior therapy. The Internet behavior therapy program included weekly online submission of self-monitoring diaries. Body weight was measured at zero, three and six months. The final sample included 65 subjects (ages 10 to 60 years, BMI from 25 to 36kg/m2). The Internet behavior therapy group lost more weight (-4.0±2.8kg at three months and -4.1±4.5kg at six months) than the Internet education group (-1.7±2.7kg at three months and -1.6±3.3kg at six months) (P=0.005). The authors concluded that individuals who followed a structured behavioral treatment program that included daily self-monitoring of dietary intake had better weight loss than those who did not follow a structured program.
Research Design and Implementation Rating Summary For a summary of the Research Design and Implementation Rating results, click here.
Worksheets
|