Obesity

Dear colleagues,

Treating obesity easily falls under our purview as gastroenterologists. But like the mouse who would bell the cat, our direct involvement has been limited. However, over the past decade, advances in endobariatrics and medical management have given us many options. But how do we choose from this growing armamentarium of minimally invasive procedures and weight loss medicines? What combination is best? And what about the standard “diet and exercise”?

In this issue of perspectives, Carolyn Newberry, MD, director of GI nutrition at Innovation Center for Health and Nutrition in Gastroenterology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, will emphasize the benefits of medical and lifestyle management. Pichamol Jirapinyo, MD, MPH, ABOM, director of bariatric endoscopy fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, responds with robust data for endoscopic therapies. We hope that their expert perspectives will help guide you in your own approach to obesity management – certainly no one size fits all. I welcome your thoughts on this growing field in gastroenterology – share with us on Twitter @AGA_GIHN.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Exciting time for endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs)

BY PICHAMOL JIRAPINYO, MD, MPH, ABOM

2022 was an exciting year for our field of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy (EBMT). Not only did it mark the 10th year anniversary since the very first-in-human endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) performed by Christopher Thompson and Robert Hawes in India, but also the MERIT trial (a randomized-controlled trial on ESG) was published.¹ This decade of work led to the OverStitch Endoscopic Suturing System (Apollo Endosurgery, Austin, Tex.) being granted de novo authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of obesity and weight regain following bariatric surgery.

Currently, at our institution, we offer four primary EBMTs for patients who are seeking endoscopic weight loss therapy and have not yet undergone prior bariatric surgery. These include the Orbera intragastric balloon (IGB) (Apollo Endosurgery), ESG (Apollo Endosurgery), primary obesity surgery endoluminal (POSE: USGI Medical, San Clemente, Calif.), and a gastric plication procedure using Endomina (Endo Tools Therapeutics, Gosselies, Belgium). While the former two have FDA approval, the latter two devices have FDA clearance for tissue approximation. The indication for primary EBMTs includes having a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m².

From our experience, patients who present to our bariatric endoscopy clinic consist of three groups. First are those who have tried several anti-obesity medications (AOMs), but are unable to tolerate the side effects or their BMI remains greater than 30 kg/m². Second are those who have heard about EBMTs and are interested in the procedures. Usually, these patients are either too light to qualify for bariatric surgery (BMI 30-35 kg/m² or 35-40 kg/m² without an obesity-related comorbidity) or are not interested in bariatric surgery for a variety of reasons, including its perceived invasiveness. The last group are those whose BMI falls within the “super obese” category, defined as a BMI ≥ 50 kg/m², who are deemed too high risk to undergo medically necessary procedures, such as an orthopedic, colorectal, or transplant surgery.

During the initial consultation, I always discuss pros and cons of all treatment modalities for obesity with the patients, ranging from lifestyle modification to AOMs, EBMTs, and bariatric surgeries. While the data on AOMs are promising, especially with the most recent FDA-approved semaglutide (Wegovy: Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) yielding 14.9% total weight loss (TWL) at 1 year, in reality, the starting doses of this medication have been out of stock for over a year.² Other AOMs, on the other hand, are associated with 6%-8% TWL and are frequently associated with intolerance due to side effects. In comparison, meta-analyses demonstrate that an IGB is associated with 11.3% TWL and ESG with 16.5% TWL at 1 year. Our recent publication describing a new technique for POSE, also known as a distal POSE procedure with a double-helix technique, demonstrates a 20.3% TWL at 1 year.³ The rate of serious adverse events for EBMTs is low with 0.1% for IGB and 1%-2% for ESG/POSE.

The question regarding a comparison between AOMs and EBMTs comes up quite frequently in clinical practice. In reality, I often encourage my patients to consider combination therapy where I prescribe an AOM at 3-6 months following EBMTs to augment the amount of weight loss. However, since this is a debate, I will highlight a few advantages of EBMTs. First, the amount of weight loss following EBMTs, especially with ESG/POSE (which is currently the most commonly-requested procedure in our practice), tends to be higher than that of most AOMs. Second, while we are eagerly awaiting the long-term safety and efficacy data for semaglutide, ESG has been shown to be durable with the patients maintaining 15.9% TWL at 5 years.⁴ Third, an EBMT is a one-time procedure. In contrast, AOMs rely on patients’ compliance with taking the medication(s) reliably and indefinitely. A study based on HMO pharmacy data of over a million patients who were prescribed AOMs showed that fewer than 2% completed 12 months of weight loss medication therapy.⁵ The long-term use of AOMs also has cost implications. Specifically, a month supply of semaglutide costs about $1,400, which translates to $16,800 in 1 year and $84,000 in 5 years, which clearly outweighs the cost of ESG/POSE that has been demonstrated to be durable up to at least 5 years. IGBs have limitations similar to those of AOMs upon removal. Nevertheless, with the average cost of an IGB being $8,000, placing one every year would still be less costly, although this would likely be unnecessary considering the weight loss trend after IGB.

There are a few hurdles that need to be overcome before EBMTs are widely adopted. Reimbursement remains a major issue at most centers in the United States. Currently, most EBMTs are offered as a self-pay procedure, making the majority of patients who are otherwise eligible and interested not able to afford the procedure. With the recently published MERIT trial, long-term data on ESG as well as several upcoming society guidelines on EBMTs, we are hopeful that insurance coverage for EBMTs is nearing. Another important aspect is training. While IGB placement and removal are simple procedures, performing a high-quality ESG/POSE requires rigorous training to ensure safety and optimal outcomes. Several professional societies are working hard to develop curriculums on EBMTs with a focus on hands-on training to ensure endoscopists are properly trained prior to starting their bariatric endoscopy program. At our institution, we have a dedicated training program focusing on bariatric endoscopy (i.e. separate from the traditional advanced endoscopy fellowship), where fellows learn advanced bariatric suturing and plication as well as multidisciplinary care for this patient population. I am hopeful that this kind of training will become more prevalent in the near future.

With mounting evidence supporting the benefits of EBMTs, bariatric endoscopy has revolutionized the care of patients suffering from obesity and its related comorbidities. Moving forward, the field will continue to evolve, and EBMT procedures will only become simpler, safer, and more effective. It is an exciting time for gastroenterologists to get involved.
 

Dr. Jirapinyo is the director of bariatric endoscopy fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston. She is board certified in internal medicine, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine and completed her bariatric endoscopy and advanced endoscopy fellowships at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. She serves as a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Spatz Medical, and ERBE, and she receives research support from USGI Medical, GI Dynamics, and Fractyl.

References

1. Abu Dayyeh BK et al. Lancet. 2022;400(10350):441-51.

2. Wilding JPH et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:989-1002.

3. Jirapinyo P and Thompson CC. Gastrointest Endosc. 2022;96(3):479-86.

4. Sharaiha RZ et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(5):1051-57.

5. Hemo B et al. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;94(2):269-75.

A new frontier for weight management: Assess your options carefully

BY CAROLYN NEWBERRY, MD

Considering the continued rise in obesity rates in this country coupled with an increase in associated digestive disease burden from conditions such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and select gastrointestinal malignancies, I believe it is now more important than ever for gastroenterologists to familiarize themselves with weight management principles and incorporation into clinical practice. A growing arsenal of tools is available for addressing excess weight, including medications and novel endobariatric techniques. Although the latter is an important consideration in patients with obesity, lifestyle counseling with or without weight loss medications sets the stage for sustainable weight loss success and may eliminate the need for procedural intervention. As such, current guidelines set forth by multiple societies, including the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), emphasize the importance of lifestyle counseling targeting caloric restriction and increased physical activity along with medical augmentation via pharmacological agents in eligible patients.^1,2 These guidelines underline the importance of medical weight management prior to consideration of procedural options, including both endobariatrics and more classic bariatric surgeries. This ensures patients understand approaches to weight loss via noninvasive means, reduces risk of weight regain by building foundational habits, and enhances overall success of procedures long term if they are pursued. In addition, newer pharmacological agents are now approaching total body weight loss percentages of currently available endobariatric techniques while still showing high tolerance rates and long-term efficacy, indicating some patients who previously would require procedures to meet weight loss goals may no longer need them.³ Alternatively, these medications may augment efforts prior to procedures, enhancing overall total body weight loss achieved. If patients are not introduced to such options initially and as a part of comprehensive care management planning, they may not achieve the same degree of weight loss success and metabolic optimization.

As a gastroenterologist co-leading a multidisciplinary weight management and lifestyle clinic, I have witnessed firsthand the enhanced outcomes in patients who pursue endobariatric procedures after establishing care with a clinical team and attempting (and succeeding) in weight loss via changes in diet, physical activity, and medication use. Patients should be encouraged to gain understanding of one’s own “personal relationship” with food and/or address medical and social barriers to weight loss maintenance prior to procedural intervention, which requires some lead time and ideally professional expertise from multiple team members, including a dietitian. Weight regain after anti-obesity surgery is common, with significant gain occurring in up to half of patients. Several factors have been associated with weight regain, including lack of consistent follow-up, excess calorie and simple carbohydrate intake, and inconsistent physical activity.⁴ As such, most insurance companies mandate a trial of at least 6 months of lifestyle and/or medical weight management prior to considering procedural reimbursement. Although robust longitudinal data for endobariatric outcomes is not yet available, it is reasonable to believe similar concepts may be in play. In fact, since endobariatric procedures are less invasive but also therefore more temporal (as in the case of endoscopic balloon placement, which is only approved for 6 months of continuous use), behavioral modification and medical management to reduce risk of significant weight regain is even more imperative. Even in the case of more durable procedures, such as endoscopic gastroplasty, lack of compliance with recommended dietary protocols can reduce efficacy by loosening and even ripping sutures prior to establishment of bridging fibrotic mucosal changes, which enhance longevity of the procedure and support continued gastric restriction and reduction in motility. Some patients who undergo endoscopic gastroplasty end up seeking out revision and repeat procedure later due to lack of results, which may be avoided with alternative dietary and lifestyle decisions in the postprocedural state.

The landscape of non-procedural weight management tools has changed in the last 1-2 years with the approval of newer injectable medications that disrupt insulin and hormonal pathways and produce sustainable weight loss similar to reported outcomes achieved with endobariatric procedures. These medications are becoming increasingly accessible and of interest to patients, with continued destigmatization of the use of weight loss drugs in practice, which had previous negative connotations and concerns regarding safety. New guidelines put forth by the AGA recommend adding pharmacological agents to lifestyle interventions over continuing lifestyle interventions alone if adequate weight loss has not been achieved with the latter.³ This further exemplifies the importance of a multifaceted approach to optimize medical weight management as first-line therapy for obesity and associated comorbidities.

In summary, although endobariatric procedures are an important tool for gastroenterologists to incorporate into their weight management plans, they must be implemented with care and only after lifestyle and medical interventions have failed to produce desired results. Shared decision making among providers and patients enhances weight loss efforts and augments sustainability of outcomes. Considering the rapidly evolving landscape of obesity medicine, gastroenterologists need to continue to stay up to date on best practices to improve patient care, reduce associated morbidity, and enhance outcomes of novel endobariatric procedures.
 

Dr. Newberry is with the Innovative Center for Health and Nutrition in Gastroenterology (ICHANGE), division of gastroenterology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York. She disclosed receiving speaker honorariums from Baxter International and InBody USA.

References

1. Acosta et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 May;15(5):631-49.

2. Jensen et al. Circulation. 2014;129:S102-38.

3. Grunvald et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(5):1198-225.

4. Athansiadis et al. Surg Endosc. 2021 Aug;35(8):4069-84.

Dear colleagues,

Treating obesity easily falls under our purview as gastroenterologists. But like the mouse who would bell the cat, our direct involvement has been limited. However, over the past decade, advances in endobariatrics and medical management have given us many options. But how do we choose from this growing armamentarium of minimally invasive procedures and weight loss medicines? What combination is best? And what about the standard “diet and exercise”?

In this issue of perspectives, Carolyn Newberry, MD, director of GI nutrition at Innovation Center for Health and Nutrition in Gastroenterology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, will emphasize the benefits of medical and lifestyle management. Pichamol Jirapinyo, MD, MPH, ABOM, director of bariatric endoscopy fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, responds with robust data for endoscopic therapies. We hope that their expert perspectives will help guide you in your own approach to obesity management – certainly no one size fits all. I welcome your thoughts on this growing field in gastroenterology – share with us on Twitter @AGA_GIHN.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Exciting time for endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs)

BY PICHAMOL JIRAPINYO, MD, MPH, ABOM

2022 was an exciting year for our field of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy (EBMT). Not only did it mark the 10th year anniversary since the very first-in-human endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) performed by Christopher Thompson and Robert Hawes in India, but also the MERIT trial (a randomized-controlled trial on ESG) was published.¹ This decade of work led to the OverStitch Endoscopic Suturing System (Apollo Endosurgery, Austin, Tex.) being granted de novo authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of obesity and weight regain following bariatric surgery.

Currently, at our institution, we offer four primary EBMTs for patients who are seeking endoscopic weight loss therapy and have not yet undergone prior bariatric surgery. These include the Orbera intragastric balloon (IGB) (Apollo Endosurgery), ESG (Apollo Endosurgery), primary obesity surgery endoluminal (POSE: USGI Medical, San Clemente, Calif.), and a gastric plication procedure using Endomina (Endo Tools Therapeutics, Gosselies, Belgium). While the former two have FDA approval, the latter two devices have FDA clearance for tissue approximation. The indication for primary EBMTs includes having a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m².

From our experience, patients who present to our bariatric endoscopy clinic consist of three groups. First are those who have tried several anti-obesity medications (AOMs), but are unable to tolerate the side effects or their BMI remains greater than 30 kg/m². Second are those who have heard about EBMTs and are interested in the procedures. Usually, these patients are either too light to qualify for bariatric surgery (BMI 30-35 kg/m² or 35-40 kg/m² without an obesity-related comorbidity) or are not interested in bariatric surgery for a variety of reasons, including its perceived invasiveness. The last group are those whose BMI falls within the “super obese” category, defined as a BMI ≥ 50 kg/m², who are deemed too high risk to undergo medically necessary procedures, such as an orthopedic, colorectal, or transplant surgery.

During the initial consultation, I always discuss pros and cons of all treatment modalities for obesity with the patients, ranging from lifestyle modification to AOMs, EBMTs, and bariatric surgeries. While the data on AOMs are promising, especially with the most recent FDA-approved semaglutide (Wegovy: Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) yielding 14.9% total weight loss (TWL) at 1 year, in reality, the starting doses of this medication have been out of stock for over a year.² Other AOMs, on the other hand, are associated with 6%-8% TWL and are frequently associated with intolerance due to side effects. In comparison, meta-analyses demonstrate that an IGB is associated with 11.3% TWL and ESG with 16.5% TWL at 1 year. Our recent publication describing a new technique for POSE, also known as a distal POSE procedure with a double-helix technique, demonstrates a 20.3% TWL at 1 year.³ The rate of serious adverse events for EBMTs is low with 0.1% for IGB and 1%-2% for ESG/POSE.

The question regarding a comparison between AOMs and EBMTs comes up quite frequently in clinical practice. In reality, I often encourage my patients to consider combination therapy where I prescribe an AOM at 3-6 months following EBMTs to augment the amount of weight loss. However, since this is a debate, I will highlight a few advantages of EBMTs. First, the amount of weight loss following EBMTs, especially with ESG/POSE (which is currently the most commonly-requested procedure in our practice), tends to be higher than that of most AOMs. Second, while we are eagerly awaiting the long-term safety and efficacy data for semaglutide, ESG has been shown to be durable with the patients maintaining 15.9% TWL at 5 years.⁴ Third, an EBMT is a one-time procedure. In contrast, AOMs rely on patients’ compliance with taking the medication(s) reliably and indefinitely. A study based on HMO pharmacy data of over a million patients who were prescribed AOMs showed that fewer than 2% completed 12 months of weight loss medication therapy.⁵ The long-term use of AOMs also has cost implications. Specifically, a month supply of semaglutide costs about $1,400, which translates to $16,800 in 1 year and $84,000 in 5 years, which clearly outweighs the cost of ESG/POSE that has been demonstrated to be durable up to at least 5 years. IGBs have limitations similar to those of AOMs upon removal. Nevertheless, with the average cost of an IGB being $8,000, placing one every year would still be less costly, although this would likely be unnecessary considering the weight loss trend after IGB.

There are a few hurdles that need to be overcome before EBMTs are widely adopted. Reimbursement remains a major issue at most centers in the United States. Currently, most EBMTs are offered as a self-pay procedure, making the majority of patients who are otherwise eligible and interested not able to afford the procedure. With the recently published MERIT trial, long-term data on ESG as well as several upcoming society guidelines on EBMTs, we are hopeful that insurance coverage for EBMTs is nearing. Another important aspect is training. While IGB placement and removal are simple procedures, performing a high-quality ESG/POSE requires rigorous training to ensure safety and optimal outcomes. Several professional societies are working hard to develop curriculums on EBMTs with a focus on hands-on training to ensure endoscopists are properly trained prior to starting their bariatric endoscopy program. At our institution, we have a dedicated training program focusing on bariatric endoscopy (i.e. separate from the traditional advanced endoscopy fellowship), where fellows learn advanced bariatric suturing and plication as well as multidisciplinary care for this patient population. I am hopeful that this kind of training will become more prevalent in the near future.

With mounting evidence supporting the benefits of EBMTs, bariatric endoscopy has revolutionized the care of patients suffering from obesity and its related comorbidities. Moving forward, the field will continue to evolve, and EBMT procedures will only become simpler, safer, and more effective. It is an exciting time for gastroenterologists to get involved.
 

Dr. Jirapinyo is the director of bariatric endoscopy fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston. She is board certified in internal medicine, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine and completed her bariatric endoscopy and advanced endoscopy fellowships at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. She serves as a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Spatz Medical, and ERBE, and she receives research support from USGI Medical, GI Dynamics, and Fractyl.

References

1. Abu Dayyeh BK et al. Lancet. 2022;400(10350):441-51.

2. Wilding JPH et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:989-1002.

3. Jirapinyo P and Thompson CC. Gastrointest Endosc. 2022;96(3):479-86.

4. Sharaiha RZ et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(5):1051-57.

5. Hemo B et al. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;94(2):269-75.

A new frontier for weight management: Assess your options carefully

BY CAROLYN NEWBERRY, MD

Considering the continued rise in obesity rates in this country coupled with an increase in associated digestive disease burden from conditions such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and select gastrointestinal malignancies, I believe it is now more important than ever for gastroenterologists to familiarize themselves with weight management principles and incorporation into clinical practice. A growing arsenal of tools is available for addressing excess weight, including medications and novel endobariatric techniques. Although the latter is an important consideration in patients with obesity, lifestyle counseling with or without weight loss medications sets the stage for sustainable weight loss success and may eliminate the need for procedural intervention. As such, current guidelines set forth by multiple societies, including the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), emphasize the importance of lifestyle counseling targeting caloric restriction and increased physical activity along with medical augmentation via pharmacological agents in eligible patients.^1,2 These guidelines underline the importance of medical weight management prior to consideration of procedural options, including both endobariatrics and more classic bariatric surgeries. This ensures patients understand approaches to weight loss via noninvasive means, reduces risk of weight regain by building foundational habits, and enhances overall success of procedures long term if they are pursued. In addition, newer pharmacological agents are now approaching total body weight loss percentages of currently available endobariatric techniques while still showing high tolerance rates and long-term efficacy, indicating some patients who previously would require procedures to meet weight loss goals may no longer need them.³ Alternatively, these medications may augment efforts prior to procedures, enhancing overall total body weight loss achieved. If patients are not introduced to such options initially and as a part of comprehensive care management planning, they may not achieve the same degree of weight loss success and metabolic optimization.

As a gastroenterologist co-leading a multidisciplinary weight management and lifestyle clinic, I have witnessed firsthand the enhanced outcomes in patients who pursue endobariatric procedures after establishing care with a clinical team and attempting (and succeeding) in weight loss via changes in diet, physical activity, and medication use. Patients should be encouraged to gain understanding of one’s own “personal relationship” with food and/or address medical and social barriers to weight loss maintenance prior to procedural intervention, which requires some lead time and ideally professional expertise from multiple team members, including a dietitian. Weight regain after anti-obesity surgery is common, with significant gain occurring in up to half of patients. Several factors have been associated with weight regain, including lack of consistent follow-up, excess calorie and simple carbohydrate intake, and inconsistent physical activity.⁴ As such, most insurance companies mandate a trial of at least 6 months of lifestyle and/or medical weight management prior to considering procedural reimbursement. Although robust longitudinal data for endobariatric outcomes is not yet available, it is reasonable to believe similar concepts may be in play. In fact, since endobariatric procedures are less invasive but also therefore more temporal (as in the case of endoscopic balloon placement, which is only approved for 6 months of continuous use), behavioral modification and medical management to reduce risk of significant weight regain is even more imperative. Even in the case of more durable procedures, such as endoscopic gastroplasty, lack of compliance with recommended dietary protocols can reduce efficacy by loosening and even ripping sutures prior to establishment of bridging fibrotic mucosal changes, which enhance longevity of the procedure and support continued gastric restriction and reduction in motility. Some patients who undergo endoscopic gastroplasty end up seeking out revision and repeat procedure later due to lack of results, which may be avoided with alternative dietary and lifestyle decisions in the postprocedural state.

The landscape of non-procedural weight management tools has changed in the last 1-2 years with the approval of newer injectable medications that disrupt insulin and hormonal pathways and produce sustainable weight loss similar to reported outcomes achieved with endobariatric procedures. These medications are becoming increasingly accessible and of interest to patients, with continued destigmatization of the use of weight loss drugs in practice, which had previous negative connotations and concerns regarding safety. New guidelines put forth by the AGA recommend adding pharmacological agents to lifestyle interventions over continuing lifestyle interventions alone if adequate weight loss has not been achieved with the latter.³ This further exemplifies the importance of a multifaceted approach to optimize medical weight management as first-line therapy for obesity and associated comorbidities.

In summary, although endobariatric procedures are an important tool for gastroenterologists to incorporate into their weight management plans, they must be implemented with care and only after lifestyle and medical interventions have failed to produce desired results. Shared decision making among providers and patients enhances weight loss efforts and augments sustainability of outcomes. Considering the rapidly evolving landscape of obesity medicine, gastroenterologists need to continue to stay up to date on best practices to improve patient care, reduce associated morbidity, and enhance outcomes of novel endobariatric procedures.
 

Dr. Newberry is with the Innovative Center for Health and Nutrition in Gastroenterology (ICHANGE), division of gastroenterology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York. She disclosed receiving speaker honorariums from Baxter International and InBody USA.

References

1. Acosta et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 May;15(5):631-49.

2. Jensen et al. Circulation. 2014;129:S102-38.

3. Grunvald et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(5):1198-225.

4. Athansiadis et al. Surg Endosc. 2021 Aug;35(8):4069-84.

Dear colleagues,

Treating obesity easily falls under our purview as gastroenterologists. But like the mouse who would bell the cat, our direct involvement has been limited. However, over the past decade, advances in endobariatrics and medical management have given us many options. But how do we choose from this growing armamentarium of minimally invasive procedures and weight loss medicines? What combination is best? And what about the standard “diet and exercise”?

In this issue of perspectives, Carolyn Newberry, MD, director of GI nutrition at Innovation Center for Health and Nutrition in Gastroenterology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, will emphasize the benefits of medical and lifestyle management. Pichamol Jirapinyo, MD, MPH, ABOM, director of bariatric endoscopy fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, responds with robust data for endoscopic therapies. We hope that their expert perspectives will help guide you in your own approach to obesity management – certainly no one size fits all. I welcome your thoughts on this growing field in gastroenterology – share with us on Twitter @AGA_GIHN.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Exciting time for endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs)

BY PICHAMOL JIRAPINYO, MD, MPH, ABOM

2022 was an exciting year for our field of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy (EBMT). Not only did it mark the 10th year anniversary since the very first-in-human endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) performed by Christopher Thompson and Robert Hawes in India, but also the MERIT trial (a randomized-controlled trial on ESG) was published.¹ This decade of work led to the OverStitch Endoscopic Suturing System (Apollo Endosurgery, Austin, Tex.) being granted de novo authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of obesity and weight regain following bariatric surgery.

Currently, at our institution, we offer four primary EBMTs for patients who are seeking endoscopic weight loss therapy and have not yet undergone prior bariatric surgery. These include the Orbera intragastric balloon (IGB) (Apollo Endosurgery), ESG (Apollo Endosurgery), primary obesity surgery endoluminal (POSE: USGI Medical, San Clemente, Calif.), and a gastric plication procedure using Endomina (Endo Tools Therapeutics, Gosselies, Belgium). While the former two have FDA approval, the latter two devices have FDA clearance for tissue approximation. The indication for primary EBMTs includes having a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m².

From our experience, patients who present to our bariatric endoscopy clinic consist of three groups. First are those who have tried several anti-obesity medications (AOMs), but are unable to tolerate the side effects or their BMI remains greater than 30 kg/m². Second are those who have heard about EBMTs and are interested in the procedures. Usually, these patients are either too light to qualify for bariatric surgery (BMI 30-35 kg/m² or 35-40 kg/m² without an obesity-related comorbidity) or are not interested in bariatric surgery for a variety of reasons, including its perceived invasiveness. The last group are those whose BMI falls within the “super obese” category, defined as a BMI ≥ 50 kg/m², who are deemed too high risk to undergo medically necessary procedures, such as an orthopedic, colorectal, or transplant surgery.

During the initial consultation, I always discuss pros and cons of all treatment modalities for obesity with the patients, ranging from lifestyle modification to AOMs, EBMTs, and bariatric surgeries. While the data on AOMs are promising, especially with the most recent FDA-approved semaglutide (Wegovy: Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) yielding 14.9% total weight loss (TWL) at 1 year, in reality, the starting doses of this medication have been out of stock for over a year.² Other AOMs, on the other hand, are associated with 6%-8% TWL and are frequently associated with intolerance due to side effects. In comparison, meta-analyses demonstrate that an IGB is associated with 11.3% TWL and ESG with 16.5% TWL at 1 year. Our recent publication describing a new technique for POSE, also known as a distal POSE procedure with a double-helix technique, demonstrates a 20.3% TWL at 1 year.³ The rate of serious adverse events for EBMTs is low with 0.1% for IGB and 1%-2% for ESG/POSE.

The question regarding a comparison between AOMs and EBMTs comes up quite frequently in clinical practice. In reality, I often encourage my patients to consider combination therapy where I prescribe an AOM at 3-6 months following EBMTs to augment the amount of weight loss. However, since this is a debate, I will highlight a few advantages of EBMTs. First, the amount of weight loss following EBMTs, especially with ESG/POSE (which is currently the most commonly-requested procedure in our practice), tends to be higher than that of most AOMs. Second, while we are eagerly awaiting the long-term safety and efficacy data for semaglutide, ESG has been shown to be durable with the patients maintaining 15.9% TWL at 5 years.⁴ Third, an EBMT is a one-time procedure. In contrast, AOMs rely on patients’ compliance with taking the medication(s) reliably and indefinitely. A study based on HMO pharmacy data of over a million patients who were prescribed AOMs showed that fewer than 2% completed 12 months of weight loss medication therapy.⁵ The long-term use of AOMs also has cost implications. Specifically, a month supply of semaglutide costs about $1,400, which translates to $16,800 in 1 year and $84,000 in 5 years, which clearly outweighs the cost of ESG/POSE that has been demonstrated to be durable up to at least 5 years. IGBs have limitations similar to those of AOMs upon removal. Nevertheless, with the average cost of an IGB being $8,000, placing one every year would still be less costly, although this would likely be unnecessary considering the weight loss trend after IGB.

There are a few hurdles that need to be overcome before EBMTs are widely adopted. Reimbursement remains a major issue at most centers in the United States. Currently, most EBMTs are offered as a self-pay procedure, making the majority of patients who are otherwise eligible and interested not able to afford the procedure. With the recently published MERIT trial, long-term data on ESG as well as several upcoming society guidelines on EBMTs, we are hopeful that insurance coverage for EBMTs is nearing. Another important aspect is training. While IGB placement and removal are simple procedures, performing a high-quality ESG/POSE requires rigorous training to ensure safety and optimal outcomes. Several professional societies are working hard to develop curriculums on EBMTs with a focus on hands-on training to ensure endoscopists are properly trained prior to starting their bariatric endoscopy program. At our institution, we have a dedicated training program focusing on bariatric endoscopy (i.e. separate from the traditional advanced endoscopy fellowship), where fellows learn advanced bariatric suturing and plication as well as multidisciplinary care for this patient population. I am hopeful that this kind of training will become more prevalent in the near future.

With mounting evidence supporting the benefits of EBMTs, bariatric endoscopy has revolutionized the care of patients suffering from obesity and its related comorbidities. Moving forward, the field will continue to evolve, and EBMT procedures will only become simpler, safer, and more effective. It is an exciting time for gastroenterologists to get involved.
 

Dr. Jirapinyo is the director of bariatric endoscopy fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston. She is board certified in internal medicine, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine and completed her bariatric endoscopy and advanced endoscopy fellowships at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. She serves as a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Spatz Medical, and ERBE, and she receives research support from USGI Medical, GI Dynamics, and Fractyl.

References

1. Abu Dayyeh BK et al. Lancet. 2022;400(10350):441-51.

2. Wilding JPH et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:989-1002.

3. Jirapinyo P and Thompson CC. Gastrointest Endosc. 2022;96(3):479-86.

4. Sharaiha RZ et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(5):1051-57.

5. Hemo B et al. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;94(2):269-75.

A new frontier for weight management: Assess your options carefully

BY CAROLYN NEWBERRY, MD

Considering the continued rise in obesity rates in this country coupled with an increase in associated digestive disease burden from conditions such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and select gastrointestinal malignancies, I believe it is now more important than ever for gastroenterologists to familiarize themselves with weight management principles and incorporation into clinical practice. A growing arsenal of tools is available for addressing excess weight, including medications and novel endobariatric techniques. Although the latter is an important consideration in patients with obesity, lifestyle counseling with or without weight loss medications sets the stage for sustainable weight loss success and may eliminate the need for procedural intervention. As such, current guidelines set forth by multiple societies, including the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), emphasize the importance of lifestyle counseling targeting caloric restriction and increased physical activity along with medical augmentation via pharmacological agents in eligible patients.^1,2 These guidelines underline the importance of medical weight management prior to consideration of procedural options, including both endobariatrics and more classic bariatric surgeries. This ensures patients understand approaches to weight loss via noninvasive means, reduces risk of weight regain by building foundational habits, and enhances overall success of procedures long term if they are pursued. In addition, newer pharmacological agents are now approaching total body weight loss percentages of currently available endobariatric techniques while still showing high tolerance rates and long-term efficacy, indicating some patients who previously would require procedures to meet weight loss goals may no longer need them.³ Alternatively, these medications may augment efforts prior to procedures, enhancing overall total body weight loss achieved. If patients are not introduced to such options initially and as a part of comprehensive care management planning, they may not achieve the same degree of weight loss success and metabolic optimization.

As a gastroenterologist co-leading a multidisciplinary weight management and lifestyle clinic, I have witnessed firsthand the enhanced outcomes in patients who pursue endobariatric procedures after establishing care with a clinical team and attempting (and succeeding) in weight loss via changes in diet, physical activity, and medication use. Patients should be encouraged to gain understanding of one’s own “personal relationship” with food and/or address medical and social barriers to weight loss maintenance prior to procedural intervention, which requires some lead time and ideally professional expertise from multiple team members, including a dietitian. Weight regain after anti-obesity surgery is common, with significant gain occurring in up to half of patients. Several factors have been associated with weight regain, including lack of consistent follow-up, excess calorie and simple carbohydrate intake, and inconsistent physical activity.⁴ As such, most insurance companies mandate a trial of at least 6 months of lifestyle and/or medical weight management prior to considering procedural reimbursement. Although robust longitudinal data for endobariatric outcomes is not yet available, it is reasonable to believe similar concepts may be in play. In fact, since endobariatric procedures are less invasive but also therefore more temporal (as in the case of endoscopic balloon placement, which is only approved for 6 months of continuous use), behavioral modification and medical management to reduce risk of significant weight regain is even more imperative. Even in the case of more durable procedures, such as endoscopic gastroplasty, lack of compliance with recommended dietary protocols can reduce efficacy by loosening and even ripping sutures prior to establishment of bridging fibrotic mucosal changes, which enhance longevity of the procedure and support continued gastric restriction and reduction in motility. Some patients who undergo endoscopic gastroplasty end up seeking out revision and repeat procedure later due to lack of results, which may be avoided with alternative dietary and lifestyle decisions in the postprocedural state.

The landscape of non-procedural weight management tools has changed in the last 1-2 years with the approval of newer injectable medications that disrupt insulin and hormonal pathways and produce sustainable weight loss similar to reported outcomes achieved with endobariatric procedures. These medications are becoming increasingly accessible and of interest to patients, with continued destigmatization of the use of weight loss drugs in practice, which had previous negative connotations and concerns regarding safety. New guidelines put forth by the AGA recommend adding pharmacological agents to lifestyle interventions over continuing lifestyle interventions alone if adequate weight loss has not been achieved with the latter.³ This further exemplifies the importance of a multifaceted approach to optimize medical weight management as first-line therapy for obesity and associated comorbidities.

In summary, although endobariatric procedures are an important tool for gastroenterologists to incorporate into their weight management plans, they must be implemented with care and only after lifestyle and medical interventions have failed to produce desired results. Shared decision making among providers and patients enhances weight loss efforts and augments sustainability of outcomes. Considering the rapidly evolving landscape of obesity medicine, gastroenterologists need to continue to stay up to date on best practices to improve patient care, reduce associated morbidity, and enhance outcomes of novel endobariatric procedures.
 

Dr. Newberry is with the Innovative Center for Health and Nutrition in Gastroenterology (ICHANGE), division of gastroenterology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York. She disclosed receiving speaker honorariums from Baxter International and InBody USA.

References

1. Acosta et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 May;15(5):631-49.

2. Jensen et al. Circulation. 2014;129:S102-38.

3. Grunvald et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(5):1198-225.

4. Athansiadis et al. Surg Endosc. 2021 Aug;35(8):4069-84.

This patient's clinical presentation of weight gain and associated symptoms are most closely related to a diagnosis of obesity. In addition, her laboratory findings are consistent with common obesity complications, including prediabetes and dyslipidemia, and her blood pressure is borderline high. 

Obesity is a chronic, multifactorial disease with a complex pathogenesis comprising of genetic, biological, psychosocial, socioeconomic, and environmental factors. It is a heterogeneous disease characterized by a dysfunction of the normal pathways and mechanisms that are involved in body fat regulation (often referred to as weight regulation), which may lead to variable presentation and complications. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the highest age-adjusted prevalence of obesity is seen in non-Hispanic Black adults (49.9%), followed by Hispanic adults (45.6%), non-Hispanic White adults (41.4%), and non-Hispanic Asian adults (16.1%).

Epidemiologic studies have defined obesity as a BMI > 30, which is then subclassified into class 1 (BMI of 30-34.9), class 2 (BMI of 35-39.9), or class 3 (BMI ≥ 40) obesity. Though BMI is widely used to evaluate and classify obesity, it mainly represents general adiposity and can be confounded by excessive muscle mass or frailty. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association state that in addition to weight and BMI, clinicians should consider weight distribution (including predisposition for central/visceral adipose deposition) and weight gain pattern and trajectory because these can help guide risk stratification and treatment options.

Increasingly, evidence supports visceral adiposity, or abdominal obesity, as a marker of cardiovascular risk. Abdominal obesity has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of mortality. On its own, BMI is an insufficient biomarker of abdominal obesity. Not all individuals with obesity have a central distribution of their weight; some individuals may have central obesity without meeting the criteria for the BMI definition of obesity. This can lead to misclassification and underdiagnosis of health risks in clinical practice. Consequently, numerous organizations and expert panels have recommended that waist circumference be measured along with BMI, specifically when the BMI < 35. Measurement of both BMI and waist circumference provides valuable opportunities to counsel patients regarding their risk for cardiovascular disease and other complications of obesity. Waist-to-hip ratio has also been shown to be a stronger predictor for mortality compared with BMI; however, it is rarely measured in clinical practice.

Although rarely performed outside of research settings, measurement of epicardial and pericardial fat via CT is also emerging as a potentially useful approach for informing predictive and precision medicine strategies. Recently, the Jackson Heart Study showed pericardial and visceral fat volumes were associated with incident heart failure, particularly heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and all-cause mortality among Black participants even after adjusting for age, sex, education, and smoking status. Another recent study showed an increased risk of heart failure, particularly heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, among men and women with high pericardial fat volume. The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis showed that pericardial fat was associated with a higher risk of all-cause cardiovascular disease, hard atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and heart failure. Epicardial fat is directly correlated with BMI, visceral adiposity, and waist circumference.

Best practices for the management of obesity begin with recognizing and treating it as a complex chronic disease rather than the result of an individual's lifestyle choices. According to a 2020 joint international consensus statement for ending the stigma of obesity, the assumption that choosing to eat less and/or exercise more can entirely prevent or reverse obesity is contradicted by a definitive body of biological and clinical evidence that shows obesity results primarily from a complex combination of genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. When diagnosing patients with obesity, it may be helpful for clinicians to acknowledge that the term obesity is often perceived as an undesirable term because it has been associated with stigma but that it is in fact a clinical diagnosis, not a judgement. Many patients prefer the neutral term unhealthy weight over obesity.

As with other chronic diseases, individualized treatment and long-term support along with shared decision-making are essential for optimizing outcomes. Key components of obesity management include diet, exercise, and behavioral modification. In addition, an increasing array of pharmacologic therapies are also showing unprecedented efficacy for weight management, including several drugs that are also approved for the management of type 2 diabetes. In particular, the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, semaglutide and liraglutide, and the novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)–GLP-1 receptor agonist, tirzepatide have been associated with significant weight loss. Semaglutide and liraglutide have been US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved for chronic weight management and tirzepatide was granted fast track designation for the treatment of obesity by the FDA in October 2022. These drugs may also help to prevent the progression of prediabetes to diabetes. For individuals with severe obesity, metabolic and bariatric surgery is an effective treatment option that is associated with clinically significant and relatively sustained weight reduction in addition to significant amelioration of related complications.

W. Scott Butsch, MD, MSc, Director of Obesity Medicine, Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Dr. Butsch has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Novo Nordisk, Inc.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

This patient's clinical presentation of weight gain and associated symptoms are most closely related to a diagnosis of obesity. In addition, her laboratory findings are consistent with common obesity complications, including prediabetes and dyslipidemia, and her blood pressure is borderline high. 

Obesity is a chronic, multifactorial disease with a complex pathogenesis comprising of genetic, biological, psychosocial, socioeconomic, and environmental factors. It is a heterogeneous disease characterized by a dysfunction of the normal pathways and mechanisms that are involved in body fat regulation (often referred to as weight regulation), which may lead to variable presentation and complications. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the highest age-adjusted prevalence of obesity is seen in non-Hispanic Black adults (49.9%), followed by Hispanic adults (45.6%), non-Hispanic White adults (41.4%), and non-Hispanic Asian adults (16.1%).

Epidemiologic studies have defined obesity as a BMI > 30, which is then subclassified into class 1 (BMI of 30-34.9), class 2 (BMI of 35-39.9), or class 3 (BMI ≥ 40) obesity. Though BMI is widely used to evaluate and classify obesity, it mainly represents general adiposity and can be confounded by excessive muscle mass or frailty. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association state that in addition to weight and BMI, clinicians should consider weight distribution (including predisposition for central/visceral adipose deposition) and weight gain pattern and trajectory because these can help guide risk stratification and treatment options.

Increasingly, evidence supports visceral adiposity, or abdominal obesity, as a marker of cardiovascular risk. Abdominal obesity has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of mortality. On its own, BMI is an insufficient biomarker of abdominal obesity. Not all individuals with obesity have a central distribution of their weight; some individuals may have central obesity without meeting the criteria for the BMI definition of obesity. This can lead to misclassification and underdiagnosis of health risks in clinical practice. Consequently, numerous organizations and expert panels have recommended that waist circumference be measured along with BMI, specifically when the BMI < 35. Measurement of both BMI and waist circumference provides valuable opportunities to counsel patients regarding their risk for cardiovascular disease and other complications of obesity. Waist-to-hip ratio has also been shown to be a stronger predictor for mortality compared with BMI; however, it is rarely measured in clinical practice.

Although rarely performed outside of research settings, measurement of epicardial and pericardial fat via CT is also emerging as a potentially useful approach for informing predictive and precision medicine strategies. Recently, the Jackson Heart Study showed pericardial and visceral fat volumes were associated with incident heart failure, particularly heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and all-cause mortality among Black participants even after adjusting for age, sex, education, and smoking status. Another recent study showed an increased risk of heart failure, particularly heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, among men and women with high pericardial fat volume. The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis showed that pericardial fat was associated with a higher risk of all-cause cardiovascular disease, hard atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and heart failure. Epicardial fat is directly correlated with BMI, visceral adiposity, and waist circumference.

Best practices for the management of obesity begin with recognizing and treating it as a complex chronic disease rather than the result of an individual's lifestyle choices. According to a 2020 joint international consensus statement for ending the stigma of obesity, the assumption that choosing to eat less and/or exercise more can entirely prevent or reverse obesity is contradicted by a definitive body of biological and clinical evidence that shows obesity results primarily from a complex combination of genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. When diagnosing patients with obesity, it may be helpful for clinicians to acknowledge that the term obesity is often perceived as an undesirable term because it has been associated with stigma but that it is in fact a clinical diagnosis, not a judgement. Many patients prefer the neutral term unhealthy weight over obesity.

As with other chronic diseases, individualized treatment and long-term support along with shared decision-making are essential for optimizing outcomes. Key components of obesity management include diet, exercise, and behavioral modification. In addition, an increasing array of pharmacologic therapies are also showing unprecedented efficacy for weight management, including several drugs that are also approved for the management of type 2 diabetes. In particular, the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, semaglutide and liraglutide, and the novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)–GLP-1 receptor agonist, tirzepatide have been associated with significant weight loss. Semaglutide and liraglutide have been US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved for chronic weight management and tirzepatide was granted fast track designation for the treatment of obesity by the FDA in October 2022. These drugs may also help to prevent the progression of prediabetes to diabetes. For individuals with severe obesity, metabolic and bariatric surgery is an effective treatment option that is associated with clinically significant and relatively sustained weight reduction in addition to significant amelioration of related complications.

W. Scott Butsch, MD, MSc, Director of Obesity Medicine, Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Dr. Butsch has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Novo Nordisk, Inc.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

This patient's clinical presentation of weight gain and associated symptoms are most closely related to a diagnosis of obesity. In addition, her laboratory findings are consistent with common obesity complications, including prediabetes and dyslipidemia, and her blood pressure is borderline high. 

Obesity is a chronic, multifactorial disease with a complex pathogenesis comprising of genetic, biological, psychosocial, socioeconomic, and environmental factors. It is a heterogeneous disease characterized by a dysfunction of the normal pathways and mechanisms that are involved in body fat regulation (often referred to as weight regulation), which may lead to variable presentation and complications. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the highest age-adjusted prevalence of obesity is seen in non-Hispanic Black adults (49.9%), followed by Hispanic adults (45.6%), non-Hispanic White adults (41.4%), and non-Hispanic Asian adults (16.1%).

Epidemiologic studies have defined obesity as a BMI > 30, which is then subclassified into class 1 (BMI of 30-34.9), class 2 (BMI of 35-39.9), or class 3 (BMI ≥ 40) obesity. Though BMI is widely used to evaluate and classify obesity, it mainly represents general adiposity and can be confounded by excessive muscle mass or frailty. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association state that in addition to weight and BMI, clinicians should consider weight distribution (including predisposition for central/visceral adipose deposition) and weight gain pattern and trajectory because these can help guide risk stratification and treatment options.

Increasingly, evidence supports visceral adiposity, or abdominal obesity, as a marker of cardiovascular risk. Abdominal obesity has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of mortality. On its own, BMI is an insufficient biomarker of abdominal obesity. Not all individuals with obesity have a central distribution of their weight; some individuals may have central obesity without meeting the criteria for the BMI definition of obesity. This can lead to misclassification and underdiagnosis of health risks in clinical practice. Consequently, numerous organizations and expert panels have recommended that waist circumference be measured along with BMI, specifically when the BMI < 35. Measurement of both BMI and waist circumference provides valuable opportunities to counsel patients regarding their risk for cardiovascular disease and other complications of obesity. Waist-to-hip ratio has also been shown to be a stronger predictor for mortality compared with BMI; however, it is rarely measured in clinical practice.

Although rarely performed outside of research settings, measurement of epicardial and pericardial fat via CT is also emerging as a potentially useful approach for informing predictive and precision medicine strategies. Recently, the Jackson Heart Study showed pericardial and visceral fat volumes were associated with incident heart failure, particularly heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and all-cause mortality among Black participants even after adjusting for age, sex, education, and smoking status. Another recent study showed an increased risk of heart failure, particularly heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, among men and women with high pericardial fat volume. The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis showed that pericardial fat was associated with a higher risk of all-cause cardiovascular disease, hard atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and heart failure. Epicardial fat is directly correlated with BMI, visceral adiposity, and waist circumference.

Best practices for the management of obesity begin with recognizing and treating it as a complex chronic disease rather than the result of an individual's lifestyle choices. According to a 2020 joint international consensus statement for ending the stigma of obesity, the assumption that choosing to eat less and/or exercise more can entirely prevent or reverse obesity is contradicted by a definitive body of biological and clinical evidence that shows obesity results primarily from a complex combination of genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. When diagnosing patients with obesity, it may be helpful for clinicians to acknowledge that the term obesity is often perceived as an undesirable term because it has been associated with stigma but that it is in fact a clinical diagnosis, not a judgement. Many patients prefer the neutral term unhealthy weight over obesity.

As with other chronic diseases, individualized treatment and long-term support along with shared decision-making are essential for optimizing outcomes. Key components of obesity management include diet, exercise, and behavioral modification. In addition, an increasing array of pharmacologic therapies are also showing unprecedented efficacy for weight management, including several drugs that are also approved for the management of type 2 diabetes. In particular, the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, semaglutide and liraglutide, and the novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)–GLP-1 receptor agonist, tirzepatide have been associated with significant weight loss. Semaglutide and liraglutide have been US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved for chronic weight management and tirzepatide was granted fast track designation for the treatment of obesity by the FDA in October 2022. These drugs may also help to prevent the progression of prediabetes to diabetes. For individuals with severe obesity, metabolic and bariatric surgery is an effective treatment option that is associated with clinically significant and relatively sustained weight reduction in addition to significant amelioration of related complications.

W. Scott Butsch, MD, MSc, Director of Obesity Medicine, Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Dr. Butsch has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Novo Nordisk, Inc.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

A recent study found that people with obesity have lower blood levels of vitamin D than people of healthy weight. This association of obesity with low vitamin D levels has led to much speculation on whether low vitamin D levels cause obesity or whether obesity causes low vitamin D levels. The interest in this topic is piqued by the possibility that if vitamin D deficiency causes obesity, perhaps treatment could be as simple as providing vitamin D supplementation to enhance weight loss.

What is known about vitamin D’s role in the body?

It’s well known that vitamin D is essential for bone health as well as balancing the minerals calcium and phosphorus, but what is its role in weight management? Approximately 80%-90% of vitamin D in the body is from the skin synthesis of cholecalciferol through ultraviolet B radiation from sun exposure. The normal range of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is measured as nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). Most experts recommend a level between 20 and 40 ng/mL, but this has been a controversial topic of never-ending debate in the medical literature.

Vitamin D levels and obesity

A strong link exists between low vitamin D levels (serum 25[OH] vitamin D) and obesity. This has been noted for many years without identifying the underlying reasons beyond the sequestering of vitamin D in adipose tissue, although I’ll discuss other possibilities.

The inverse correlation between vitamin D and obesity has been seen in other diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, prediabetes, and insulin resistance, as well as in sarcopenia and aging. Most studies emphasized the correlation between increasing adiposity with vitamin D deficiency in all ethnic and age groups. The causes and potential direct consequences of the vitamin D deficiency state in obesity are not well understood.
 

Vitamin D and adipose tissue

It’s been proposed that low vitamin D status in obesity might be due to increased vitamin D clearance from serum and enhanced storage of vitamin D by adipose tissue.

In adipose tissue, vitamin D exerts a variety of effects on inflammation, innate immunity, metabolism, and differentiation and apoptosis in many cell types. There is a stronger association between 25(OH)D and visceral fat as compared to subcutaneous adipose tissue, which suggests an influence of inflammation and components of the metabolic syndrome on vitamin D metabolism.

Because vitamin D has anti-inflammatory properties, it’s possible that low vitamin D status contributes to adipose tissue inflammation, a key link between obesity and its associated metabolic complications in obesity. A higher storage of vitamin D in adipose tissue, if accompanied by a parallel increase in the local synthesis of 1,25(OH)2D3 and action, may conceivably modulate adipocyte function as well as the activity of adipose tissue macrophages and hence the level of adipose tissue inflammation. In addition, it seems likely that 1,25(OH)2D3 also regulates the function of macrophages and other immune cell populations within adipose tissue.

It’s well known that vitamin D is stored in body fat, leading to the assumption that this was important in the evolution of vertebrates, including humans, who lived at latitudes where vitamin D could not be made in the winter and vitamin D stores had to be mobilized to maintain vitamin D sufficiency.
 

What is vitamin D’s role in obesity?

The main question that has eluded an answer so far is this one: Is vitamin D deficiency only a coincidental finding in obesity due to sequestration of the vitamin in fat, or does it have a role in the development of obesity and its complications, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension?

Low vitamin D usually leads to impaired calcium absorption in the intestine and a lower calcium level, and eventually enhanced bone turnover and impaired bone mineral density (BMD).

However, it is known that in obesity there is greater BMD than in those who are lean. This leads to the conclusion that because there is a lack of vitamin D deficiency effects on bone in those with obesity, there is not really a vitamin D deficiency, and it may be that the sequestration in adipose tissue leads to a permanent supply that can maintain bone health.

An alternative explanation is that there is greater skeletal loading in obesity, and elevations in hormones such as estrogen and leptin could compensate for the vitamin D deficiency, leading to greater BMD in obesity.

Several other potential mechanisms besides sequestration of vitamin D in adipose tissue have been identified for low vitamin D and obesity. These include impaired hepatic 25-hydroxylation in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, less sunlight exposure due to lower mobility and different clothing habits in people with obesity vs. their lean counterparts, and adverse dietary habits. For example, people with higher BMIs spend less time exercising outdoors and are more sedentary in general than their lean counterparts. Therefore, they are less likely to get sun exposure because of a decrease in time spent outdoors. Those with higher BMIs also tend to cover their bodies, showing less skin when outdoors than their leaner counterparts, and thus there is likely to be less conversion to vitamin D via skin and sun exposure in people with obesity.

Some studies suggest that an increased level of parathyroid hormone due to vitamin D deficiency promotes lipogenesis because of greater calcium influx in adipocytes. Another hypothesis is that the active form of vitamin D, 1,25(OH) D, inhibits adipogenesis through actions modulated by vitamin D receptors. These studies are promising, but prospective randomized trials are needed to determine whether vitamin D supplementation is a treatment option in preventing obesity. So far, vitamin D supplementation shows inconsistent results.

To conclude, there is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in obesity, most likely because of dilution and sequestration in greater volumes of fat, blood muscle, and liver in obesity. Low vitamin D levels can’t be ruled out as a cause of obesity because of the research showing some interesting findings in vitamin D receptors in adipose tissue. Vitamin D deficiency in obesity doesn’t seem to affect bone mass but could have deleterious effects on other organ systems.

Weight loss improves obesity and complications, including the risk for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes as well as vitamin D deficiency.
 

What do the guidelines say?

Treatment of vitamin D deficiency requires higher doses in obesity to achieve the same serum concentration compared with lean persons. Maintenance doses should not differ between those with obesity and lean persons.

The association of vitamin D and obesity remains elusive. Studies need to focus on vitamin D, vitamin D receptors, and actions of vitamin D in adipose tissue to investigate this relationship further.

In the meantime, media attention remains focused on the potential treatment and prevention of obesity with the mighty, all-purpose vitamin D, even though there is scant evidence.

Dr. Apovian is codirector at the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, diabetes and hypertension at Harvard University, Boston. She disclosed conflicts of interest with Abbott, Allergan, Altimmune, Bariatrix Nutrition, Cowen and Company, Curavit, Rhythm Pharma, Jazz, Nutrisystem, Roman, Novo Nordisk, EnteroMedics, Gelesis Srl, Zafgen, Xeno, L-Nutra, Tivity, and Real Appeal.

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

A recent study found that people with obesity have lower blood levels of vitamin D than people of healthy weight. This association of obesity with low vitamin D levels has led to much speculation on whether low vitamin D levels cause obesity or whether obesity causes low vitamin D levels. The interest in this topic is piqued by the possibility that if vitamin D deficiency causes obesity, perhaps treatment could be as simple as providing vitamin D supplementation to enhance weight loss.

What is known about vitamin D’s role in the body?

It’s well known that vitamin D is essential for bone health as well as balancing the minerals calcium and phosphorus, but what is its role in weight management? Approximately 80%-90% of vitamin D in the body is from the skin synthesis of cholecalciferol through ultraviolet B radiation from sun exposure. The normal range of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is measured as nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). Most experts recommend a level between 20 and 40 ng/mL, but this has been a controversial topic of never-ending debate in the medical literature.

Vitamin D levels and obesity

A strong link exists between low vitamin D levels (serum 25[OH] vitamin D) and obesity. This has been noted for many years without identifying the underlying reasons beyond the sequestering of vitamin D in adipose tissue, although I’ll discuss other possibilities.

The inverse correlation between vitamin D and obesity has been seen in other diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, prediabetes, and insulin resistance, as well as in sarcopenia and aging. Most studies emphasized the correlation between increasing adiposity with vitamin D deficiency in all ethnic and age groups. The causes and potential direct consequences of the vitamin D deficiency state in obesity are not well understood.
 

Vitamin D and adipose tissue

It’s been proposed that low vitamin D status in obesity might be due to increased vitamin D clearance from serum and enhanced storage of vitamin D by adipose tissue.

In adipose tissue, vitamin D exerts a variety of effects on inflammation, innate immunity, metabolism, and differentiation and apoptosis in many cell types. There is a stronger association between 25(OH)D and visceral fat as compared to subcutaneous adipose tissue, which suggests an influence of inflammation and components of the metabolic syndrome on vitamin D metabolism.

Because vitamin D has anti-inflammatory properties, it’s possible that low vitamin D status contributes to adipose tissue inflammation, a key link between obesity and its associated metabolic complications in obesity. A higher storage of vitamin D in adipose tissue, if accompanied by a parallel increase in the local synthesis of 1,25(OH)2D3 and action, may conceivably modulate adipocyte function as well as the activity of adipose tissue macrophages and hence the level of adipose tissue inflammation. In addition, it seems likely that 1,25(OH)2D3 also regulates the function of macrophages and other immune cell populations within adipose tissue.

It’s well known that vitamin D is stored in body fat, leading to the assumption that this was important in the evolution of vertebrates, including humans, who lived at latitudes where vitamin D could not be made in the winter and vitamin D stores had to be mobilized to maintain vitamin D sufficiency.
 

What is vitamin D’s role in obesity?

The main question that has eluded an answer so far is this one: Is vitamin D deficiency only a coincidental finding in obesity due to sequestration of the vitamin in fat, or does it have a role in the development of obesity and its complications, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension?

Low vitamin D usually leads to impaired calcium absorption in the intestine and a lower calcium level, and eventually enhanced bone turnover and impaired bone mineral density (BMD).

However, it is known that in obesity there is greater BMD than in those who are lean. This leads to the conclusion that because there is a lack of vitamin D deficiency effects on bone in those with obesity, there is not really a vitamin D deficiency, and it may be that the sequestration in adipose tissue leads to a permanent supply that can maintain bone health.

An alternative explanation is that there is greater skeletal loading in obesity, and elevations in hormones such as estrogen and leptin could compensate for the vitamin D deficiency, leading to greater BMD in obesity.

Several other potential mechanisms besides sequestration of vitamin D in adipose tissue have been identified for low vitamin D and obesity. These include impaired hepatic 25-hydroxylation in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, less sunlight exposure due to lower mobility and different clothing habits in people with obesity vs. their lean counterparts, and adverse dietary habits. For example, people with higher BMIs spend less time exercising outdoors and are more sedentary in general than their lean counterparts. Therefore, they are less likely to get sun exposure because of a decrease in time spent outdoors. Those with higher BMIs also tend to cover their bodies, showing less skin when outdoors than their leaner counterparts, and thus there is likely to be less conversion to vitamin D via skin and sun exposure in people with obesity.

Some studies suggest that an increased level of parathyroid hormone due to vitamin D deficiency promotes lipogenesis because of greater calcium influx in adipocytes. Another hypothesis is that the active form of vitamin D, 1,25(OH) D, inhibits adipogenesis through actions modulated by vitamin D receptors. These studies are promising, but prospective randomized trials are needed to determine whether vitamin D supplementation is a treatment option in preventing obesity. So far, vitamin D supplementation shows inconsistent results.

To conclude, there is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in obesity, most likely because of dilution and sequestration in greater volumes of fat, blood muscle, and liver in obesity. Low vitamin D levels can’t be ruled out as a cause of obesity because of the research showing some interesting findings in vitamin D receptors in adipose tissue. Vitamin D deficiency in obesity doesn’t seem to affect bone mass but could have deleterious effects on other organ systems.

Weight loss improves obesity and complications, including the risk for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes as well as vitamin D deficiency.
 

What do the guidelines say?

Treatment of vitamin D deficiency requires higher doses in obesity to achieve the same serum concentration compared with lean persons. Maintenance doses should not differ between those with obesity and lean persons.

The association of vitamin D and obesity remains elusive. Studies need to focus on vitamin D, vitamin D receptors, and actions of vitamin D in adipose tissue to investigate this relationship further.

In the meantime, media attention remains focused on the potential treatment and prevention of obesity with the mighty, all-purpose vitamin D, even though there is scant evidence.

Dr. Apovian is codirector at the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, diabetes and hypertension at Harvard University, Boston. She disclosed conflicts of interest with Abbott, Allergan, Altimmune, Bariatrix Nutrition, Cowen and Company, Curavit, Rhythm Pharma, Jazz, Nutrisystem, Roman, Novo Nordisk, EnteroMedics, Gelesis Srl, Zafgen, Xeno, L-Nutra, Tivity, and Real Appeal.

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

A recent study found that people with obesity have lower blood levels of vitamin D than people of healthy weight. This association of obesity with low vitamin D levels has led to much speculation on whether low vitamin D levels cause obesity or whether obesity causes low vitamin D levels. The interest in this topic is piqued by the possibility that if vitamin D deficiency causes obesity, perhaps treatment could be as simple as providing vitamin D supplementation to enhance weight loss.

What is known about vitamin D’s role in the body?

It’s well known that vitamin D is essential for bone health as well as balancing the minerals calcium and phosphorus, but what is its role in weight management? Approximately 80%-90% of vitamin D in the body is from the skin synthesis of cholecalciferol through ultraviolet B radiation from sun exposure. The normal range of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is measured as nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). Most experts recommend a level between 20 and 40 ng/mL, but this has been a controversial topic of never-ending debate in the medical literature.

Vitamin D levels and obesity

A strong link exists between low vitamin D levels (serum 25[OH] vitamin D) and obesity. This has been noted for many years without identifying the underlying reasons beyond the sequestering of vitamin D in adipose tissue, although I’ll discuss other possibilities.

The inverse correlation between vitamin D and obesity has been seen in other diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, prediabetes, and insulin resistance, as well as in sarcopenia and aging. Most studies emphasized the correlation between increasing adiposity with vitamin D deficiency in all ethnic and age groups. The causes and potential direct consequences of the vitamin D deficiency state in obesity are not well understood.
 

Vitamin D and adipose tissue

It’s been proposed that low vitamin D status in obesity might be due to increased vitamin D clearance from serum and enhanced storage of vitamin D by adipose tissue.

In adipose tissue, vitamin D exerts a variety of effects on inflammation, innate immunity, metabolism, and differentiation and apoptosis in many cell types. There is a stronger association between 25(OH)D and visceral fat as compared to subcutaneous adipose tissue, which suggests an influence of inflammation and components of the metabolic syndrome on vitamin D metabolism.

Because vitamin D has anti-inflammatory properties, it’s possible that low vitamin D status contributes to adipose tissue inflammation, a key link between obesity and its associated metabolic complications in obesity. A higher storage of vitamin D in adipose tissue, if accompanied by a parallel increase in the local synthesis of 1,25(OH)2D3 and action, may conceivably modulate adipocyte function as well as the activity of adipose tissue macrophages and hence the level of adipose tissue inflammation. In addition, it seems likely that 1,25(OH)2D3 also regulates the function of macrophages and other immune cell populations within adipose tissue.

It’s well known that vitamin D is stored in body fat, leading to the assumption that this was important in the evolution of vertebrates, including humans, who lived at latitudes where vitamin D could not be made in the winter and vitamin D stores had to be mobilized to maintain vitamin D sufficiency.
 

What is vitamin D’s role in obesity?

The main question that has eluded an answer so far is this one: Is vitamin D deficiency only a coincidental finding in obesity due to sequestration of the vitamin in fat, or does it have a role in the development of obesity and its complications, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension?

Low vitamin D usually leads to impaired calcium absorption in the intestine and a lower calcium level, and eventually enhanced bone turnover and impaired bone mineral density (BMD).

However, it is known that in obesity there is greater BMD than in those who are lean. This leads to the conclusion that because there is a lack of vitamin D deficiency effects on bone in those with obesity, there is not really a vitamin D deficiency, and it may be that the sequestration in adipose tissue leads to a permanent supply that can maintain bone health.

An alternative explanation is that there is greater skeletal loading in obesity, and elevations in hormones such as estrogen and leptin could compensate for the vitamin D deficiency, leading to greater BMD in obesity.

Several other potential mechanisms besides sequestration of vitamin D in adipose tissue have been identified for low vitamin D and obesity. These include impaired hepatic 25-hydroxylation in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, less sunlight exposure due to lower mobility and different clothing habits in people with obesity vs. their lean counterparts, and adverse dietary habits. For example, people with higher BMIs spend less time exercising outdoors and are more sedentary in general than their lean counterparts. Therefore, they are less likely to get sun exposure because of a decrease in time spent outdoors. Those with higher BMIs also tend to cover their bodies, showing less skin when outdoors than their leaner counterparts, and thus there is likely to be less conversion to vitamin D via skin and sun exposure in people with obesity.

Some studies suggest that an increased level of parathyroid hormone due to vitamin D deficiency promotes lipogenesis because of greater calcium influx in adipocytes. Another hypothesis is that the active form of vitamin D, 1,25(OH) D, inhibits adipogenesis through actions modulated by vitamin D receptors. These studies are promising, but prospective randomized trials are needed to determine whether vitamin D supplementation is a treatment option in preventing obesity. So far, vitamin D supplementation shows inconsistent results.

To conclude, there is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in obesity, most likely because of dilution and sequestration in greater volumes of fat, blood muscle, and liver in obesity. Low vitamin D levels can’t be ruled out as a cause of obesity because of the research showing some interesting findings in vitamin D receptors in adipose tissue. Vitamin D deficiency in obesity doesn’t seem to affect bone mass but could have deleterious effects on other organ systems.

Weight loss improves obesity and complications, including the risk for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes as well as vitamin D deficiency.
 

What do the guidelines say?

Treatment of vitamin D deficiency requires higher doses in obesity to achieve the same serum concentration compared with lean persons. Maintenance doses should not differ between those with obesity and lean persons.

The association of vitamin D and obesity remains elusive. Studies need to focus on vitamin D, vitamin D receptors, and actions of vitamin D in adipose tissue to investigate this relationship further.

In the meantime, media attention remains focused on the potential treatment and prevention of obesity with the mighty, all-purpose vitamin D, even though there is scant evidence.

Dr. Apovian is codirector at the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, diabetes and hypertension at Harvard University, Boston. She disclosed conflicts of interest with Abbott, Allergan, Altimmune, Bariatrix Nutrition, Cowen and Company, Curavit, Rhythm Pharma, Jazz, Nutrisystem, Roman, Novo Nordisk, EnteroMedics, Gelesis Srl, Zafgen, Xeno, L-Nutra, Tivity, and Real Appeal.

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

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) does not appear to contribute to weight loss for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, according to results of a randomized controlled trial.

The small study by Perttu Lahtinen, MD, with Päijät-Häme Central Hospital in Lahti, Finland, and colleagues was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Bariatric surgery remains the most effective strategy for treating severe obesity. Yet some patients achieve only minimal weight loss or regain weight after surgery, the researchers noted.

There is much interest in the gut microbiota as a potential target for the treatment of obesity. FMT from a lean donor has shown promise in treating obesity in mouse models (Science. 2013 Sep 6. doi: 10.1126/science.1241214).

The Finnish trial, however, does not support that conclusion.

The study included 41 adults (71% women; mean age, 48.7 years) with severe obesity (mean body mass index, 42.5 kg/m²). Twenty-one received FMT from a lean donor, and 20 received FMT from their own feces (autologous placebo). FMT was administered by gastroscopy into the duodenum 6 months before laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy. All patients also consumed a very-low-calorie diet approximately 4 weeks before the surgery.

Bariatric surgery led to equal weight reductions for both groups, but there was no additive benefit in terms of weight loss with FMT.

Six months after the administration of FMT, and before the surgery was performed, the percentage of total weight loss, the main outcome, was 4.8% (P < .001) in the FMT group and 4.6% (P = .006) in the placebo group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups (absolute difference, 0.2%).

At 18 months (12 months after surgery), the percentage of total weight loss was 25.3% (P < .001) in the FMT group and 25.2% (P < .001) in the placebo group – an absolute difference of 0.1%.

The researchers said the main limitation of their study is the small number of patients. Because there were few patients, the study may be inadequate to show possible minor effects of FMT on weight; it’s unclear whether a much larger sample size would have yielded any differences between the groups.

Nonetheless, the study suggests that FMT does not affect weight loss for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, the researchers said.

The study was supported by governmental research grants and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) does not appear to contribute to weight loss for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, according to results of a randomized controlled trial.

The small study by Perttu Lahtinen, MD, with Päijät-Häme Central Hospital in Lahti, Finland, and colleagues was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Bariatric surgery remains the most effective strategy for treating severe obesity. Yet some patients achieve only minimal weight loss or regain weight after surgery, the researchers noted.

There is much interest in the gut microbiota as a potential target for the treatment of obesity. FMT from a lean donor has shown promise in treating obesity in mouse models (Science. 2013 Sep 6. doi: 10.1126/science.1241214).

The Finnish trial, however, does not support that conclusion.

The study included 41 adults (71% women; mean age, 48.7 years) with severe obesity (mean body mass index, 42.5 kg/m²). Twenty-one received FMT from a lean donor, and 20 received FMT from their own feces (autologous placebo). FMT was administered by gastroscopy into the duodenum 6 months before laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy. All patients also consumed a very-low-calorie diet approximately 4 weeks before the surgery.

Bariatric surgery led to equal weight reductions for both groups, but there was no additive benefit in terms of weight loss with FMT.

Six months after the administration of FMT, and before the surgery was performed, the percentage of total weight loss, the main outcome, was 4.8% (P < .001) in the FMT group and 4.6% (P = .006) in the placebo group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups (absolute difference, 0.2%).

At 18 months (12 months after surgery), the percentage of total weight loss was 25.3% (P < .001) in the FMT group and 25.2% (P < .001) in the placebo group – an absolute difference of 0.1%.

The researchers said the main limitation of their study is the small number of patients. Because there were few patients, the study may be inadequate to show possible minor effects of FMT on weight; it’s unclear whether a much larger sample size would have yielded any differences between the groups.

Nonetheless, the study suggests that FMT does not affect weight loss for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, the researchers said.

The study was supported by governmental research grants and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) does not appear to contribute to weight loss for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, according to results of a randomized controlled trial.

The small study by Perttu Lahtinen, MD, with Päijät-Häme Central Hospital in Lahti, Finland, and colleagues was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Bariatric surgery remains the most effective strategy for treating severe obesity. Yet some patients achieve only minimal weight loss or regain weight after surgery, the researchers noted.

There is much interest in the gut microbiota as a potential target for the treatment of obesity. FMT from a lean donor has shown promise in treating obesity in mouse models (Science. 2013 Sep 6. doi: 10.1126/science.1241214).

The Finnish trial, however, does not support that conclusion.

The study included 41 adults (71% women; mean age, 48.7 years) with severe obesity (mean body mass index, 42.5 kg/m²). Twenty-one received FMT from a lean donor, and 20 received FMT from their own feces (autologous placebo). FMT was administered by gastroscopy into the duodenum 6 months before laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy. All patients also consumed a very-low-calorie diet approximately 4 weeks before the surgery.

Bariatric surgery led to equal weight reductions for both groups, but there was no additive benefit in terms of weight loss with FMT.

Six months after the administration of FMT, and before the surgery was performed, the percentage of total weight loss, the main outcome, was 4.8% (P < .001) in the FMT group and 4.6% (P = .006) in the placebo group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups (absolute difference, 0.2%).

At 18 months (12 months after surgery), the percentage of total weight loss was 25.3% (P < .001) in the FMT group and 25.2% (P < .001) in the placebo group – an absolute difference of 0.1%.

The researchers said the main limitation of their study is the small number of patients. Because there were few patients, the study may be inadequate to show possible minor effects of FMT on weight; it’s unclear whether a much larger sample size would have yielded any differences between the groups.

Nonetheless, the study suggests that FMT does not affect weight loss for patients who undergo bariatric surgery, the researchers said.

The study was supported by governmental research grants and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

“I could relate to many, many, many of the experiences and emotions that Charlie, which is Brendan Fraser’s character, was portraying,” Patricia Nece recalls after watching a preview copy of the new film “The Whale.”

A24

Much of the movie “rang true and hit home for me as things that I, too, had experienced,” Ms. Nece, the board of directors’ chair of the Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) and a person living with obesity, shares with this news organization.

In theaters as of December 9, The Whale chronicles the experience of a 600-lb, middle-aged man named Charlie. Throughout the film, Charlie seeks to rebuild his relationship with his estranged teenage daughter. Charlie had left his daughter and family to pursue a relationship with a man, who eventually died. As he navigates the pain surrounding his partner’s death and his lack of community, Charlie turns to food for comfort.

When the movie premiered at the Venice Film Festival, Mr. Fraser received a 6-minute standing ovation. However, activists criticized the movie for casting Fraser over an actor with obesity as well as its depiction of people with obesity.

Representatives from the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance contend that casting an actor without obesity only contributes to ongoing bias against people of size. “Medical weight stigma and other socio-political determinants of health for people of all sizes cause far more harm to fat people than body fat does. Bias endangers fat people’s health. Anti-obesity organizations, such as those consulted with for this movie, contribute to stigma rather than reducing it as they claim,” NAAFA wrote in a statement to this news organization.

And they added that though the fat suit used in the movie may be superior to previous ones, it is still not an accurate depiction: “The creators of The Whale consider its CGI-generated fat suit to be superior to tactile fat suits, but we don’t. The issue with fat suits in Hollywood is not that they aren’t realistic enough. The issue is that they are used rather than using performers who actually live in bodies like the ones being depicted. If there is a 600-pound character in a movie, there should be a 600-pound human in that role. Rather than concentrate on the hype around the fake fat body created for The Whale, we want to see Hollywood create more opportunities for fat people across the size spectrum, both in front of the camera and behind the scenes.”
 

Prosthetics vs. reality?

Ms. Nece says she understands the controversy surrounding the use of fat suits but believes that it was not done in poor taste.

“OAC got involved with the movie after Brendan was already chosen for the part, and we never would have gotten involved with it had the prosthetics or fat suit been used to ridicule or make fun of people with obesity, which is usually the case,” she explains.

“But we knew from the start that that was never the intent of anyone involved with The Whale. And I think that’s shown by the fact that Brendan and Darren Aronofsky, the director, reached out to people who live with obesity on a daily basis to find out and learn more about it and to educate themselves about it,” Ms. Nece continues.

In a Daily Mail article, Mr. Fraser credited his son Griffin, who is autistic and obese, with helping him understand the struggles that people with obesity face.

Rachel Goldman, PhD, a clinical psychologist in private practice in New York and a professor in the psychology department at New York University, notes that there are other considerations that played into casting. “I know there was some pushback in terms of could, a say 600-lb individual, even be able to go to be on set every day and do this kind of work, and the answer is we don’t know.”

“I’m sure Darren chose Brendan for many reasons above and beyond just his body. I think that’s very important to keep in mind that just as much as representation is very important, I think it is also about finding the right person for the right role,” adds Dr. Goldman, who served as a consultant to the film.
 

Fat suits, extreme weight gains all to play a role

About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to the 2017-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, but that reality is not reflected in films or television.

A study of 1018 major television characters found that 24% of men and 14% of women had either overweight or obesity – far below the national average. And when characters with obesity are portrayed, actors often wear prosthetics, like Gwyneth Paltrow in Shallow Hal or Eddie Murphy in the Nutty Professor.

But unlike Mr. Fraser, some actors gain weight quickly instead.

This practice is unhealthy, says Jaime Almandoz, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and a nonsurgical weight management expert. In interviews, actors have shared how they increased calorie intake by drinking two milkshakes per day, going to fast food places regularly, or, in Mark Walhberg’s case, consuming 7,000 calories per day to gain 30 pounds for his role as boxer-turned-priest in the movie Father Stu.

This method provides their bodies with excess calories they are unable to burn off. “Then the amount of sugar and fat that streams into the blood as a result creates problems both directly and indirectly as your body tries to store it. It basically ends up using overflow warehouses for fat storage, like the liver for example, so we can create a condition called fatty liver, or in the muscle and other places, and this excess sugar and fat in the bloodstream cause several factors that are both insulin resistance causing,” Dr. Almandoz explains.

Though gaining weight helps the actor understand the character’s life experience, it may also be risky.

“To have an actor deliberately put his own health at risk and gain a certain amount of weight and whatever that might entail, one – that’s not necessarily the safest thing for that actor – but two, it’s also important to highlight the authentic experience of someone who has dealt with this chronic disease as well,” says Disha Narang, MD, a quadruple-board certified endocrinologist, obesity medicine, and culinary medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital, Chicago.

These extreme fluctuations in weight may create problems. “It is typically not something we recommend because there could be metabolic damages as well as health concerns when patients are trying to gain weight quickly, just as we don’t want patients to lose weight quickly,” says Kurt Hong, MD, PhD, board-certified in internal medicine and clinical nutrition at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Hong notes that it may be difficult for individuals to experience sudden weight gain because the body works hard to maintain a state of homeostasis.

“Similarly, to someone trying to gain weight you overeat, initially your body will try to again, maybe enhance its metabolic efficiency to hold the body stable,” Dr. Hong adds.

Dietary choices that may contribute to insulin resistance or promote high blood sugar can contribute to inflammation and a number of other adverse health outcomes, notes Dr. Almandoz. “The things that actors need to do in order to gain this magnitude of weight and they want to do it in the most time-effective manner is often not helpful for our bodies, it can be very problematic, the same thing goes for weight loss when actors need to lose significant amounts of weight for roles,” says Dr. Almandoz.

And Dr. Hong explained that for patients trying to lose weight, they may cut calories, but the body will try to compensate by slowing down the metabolism to keep their weight the same.
 

‘Your own worst bully’

In “The Whale,” Charlie appears to suffer from internalized weight bias, which is common to many people living with obesity, Ms. Nece says.

“Internalized weight bias is when the person of size takes all that negativity and turns it on themselves. The easiest way to describe that is to tell you that I became my own worst bully because I started believing all the negative things people said to me about my weight,” Ms. Nece adds.

Her hope is that the film will bring attention to the harm that this bias creates, especially when it derives from other people. “There’s no telling whether it will, but what Charlie experiences in bias and stigma from others clearly happens. It’s realistic. Those of us in large bodies have experienced what he is experiencing, so some people have said the movie is fat-phobic, but I see it as I can relate to those experiences because I have them too, so they are very realistic.”

Ms. Nece notes that it is important for clinicians to understand that obesity is a multifaceted and sensitive topic. “For those medical professionals who do not already know that obesity is complex, I hope the film will begin to open their eyes to the many different facets involved in obesity and their patients with obesity, I hope it will help them empathize and show compassion to their patients with obesity,” she concludes.

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

“I could relate to many, many, many of the experiences and emotions that Charlie, which is Brendan Fraser’s character, was portraying,” Patricia Nece recalls after watching a preview copy of the new film “The Whale.”

A24

Much of the movie “rang true and hit home for me as things that I, too, had experienced,” Ms. Nece, the board of directors’ chair of the Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) and a person living with obesity, shares with this news organization.

In theaters as of December 9, The Whale chronicles the experience of a 600-lb, middle-aged man named Charlie. Throughout the film, Charlie seeks to rebuild his relationship with his estranged teenage daughter. Charlie had left his daughter and family to pursue a relationship with a man, who eventually died. As he navigates the pain surrounding his partner’s death and his lack of community, Charlie turns to food for comfort.

When the movie premiered at the Venice Film Festival, Mr. Fraser received a 6-minute standing ovation. However, activists criticized the movie for casting Fraser over an actor with obesity as well as its depiction of people with obesity.

Representatives from the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance contend that casting an actor without obesity only contributes to ongoing bias against people of size. “Medical weight stigma and other socio-political determinants of health for people of all sizes cause far more harm to fat people than body fat does. Bias endangers fat people’s health. Anti-obesity organizations, such as those consulted with for this movie, contribute to stigma rather than reducing it as they claim,” NAAFA wrote in a statement to this news organization.

And they added that though the fat suit used in the movie may be superior to previous ones, it is still not an accurate depiction: “The creators of The Whale consider its CGI-generated fat suit to be superior to tactile fat suits, but we don’t. The issue with fat suits in Hollywood is not that they aren’t realistic enough. The issue is that they are used rather than using performers who actually live in bodies like the ones being depicted. If there is a 600-pound character in a movie, there should be a 600-pound human in that role. Rather than concentrate on the hype around the fake fat body created for The Whale, we want to see Hollywood create more opportunities for fat people across the size spectrum, both in front of the camera and behind the scenes.”
 

Prosthetics vs. reality?

Ms. Nece says she understands the controversy surrounding the use of fat suits but believes that it was not done in poor taste.

“OAC got involved with the movie after Brendan was already chosen for the part, and we never would have gotten involved with it had the prosthetics or fat suit been used to ridicule or make fun of people with obesity, which is usually the case,” she explains.

“But we knew from the start that that was never the intent of anyone involved with The Whale. And I think that’s shown by the fact that Brendan and Darren Aronofsky, the director, reached out to people who live with obesity on a daily basis to find out and learn more about it and to educate themselves about it,” Ms. Nece continues.

In a Daily Mail article, Mr. Fraser credited his son Griffin, who is autistic and obese, with helping him understand the struggles that people with obesity face.

Rachel Goldman, PhD, a clinical psychologist in private practice in New York and a professor in the psychology department at New York University, notes that there are other considerations that played into casting. “I know there was some pushback in terms of could, a say 600-lb individual, even be able to go to be on set every day and do this kind of work, and the answer is we don’t know.”

“I’m sure Darren chose Brendan for many reasons above and beyond just his body. I think that’s very important to keep in mind that just as much as representation is very important, I think it is also about finding the right person for the right role,” adds Dr. Goldman, who served as a consultant to the film.
 

Fat suits, extreme weight gains all to play a role

About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to the 2017-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, but that reality is not reflected in films or television.

A study of 1018 major television characters found that 24% of men and 14% of women had either overweight or obesity – far below the national average. And when characters with obesity are portrayed, actors often wear prosthetics, like Gwyneth Paltrow in Shallow Hal or Eddie Murphy in the Nutty Professor.

But unlike Mr. Fraser, some actors gain weight quickly instead.

This practice is unhealthy, says Jaime Almandoz, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and a nonsurgical weight management expert. In interviews, actors have shared how they increased calorie intake by drinking two milkshakes per day, going to fast food places regularly, or, in Mark Walhberg’s case, consuming 7,000 calories per day to gain 30 pounds for his role as boxer-turned-priest in the movie Father Stu.

This method provides their bodies with excess calories they are unable to burn off. “Then the amount of sugar and fat that streams into the blood as a result creates problems both directly and indirectly as your body tries to store it. It basically ends up using overflow warehouses for fat storage, like the liver for example, so we can create a condition called fatty liver, or in the muscle and other places, and this excess sugar and fat in the bloodstream cause several factors that are both insulin resistance causing,” Dr. Almandoz explains.

Though gaining weight helps the actor understand the character’s life experience, it may also be risky.

“To have an actor deliberately put his own health at risk and gain a certain amount of weight and whatever that might entail, one – that’s not necessarily the safest thing for that actor – but two, it’s also important to highlight the authentic experience of someone who has dealt with this chronic disease as well,” says Disha Narang, MD, a quadruple-board certified endocrinologist, obesity medicine, and culinary medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital, Chicago.

These extreme fluctuations in weight may create problems. “It is typically not something we recommend because there could be metabolic damages as well as health concerns when patients are trying to gain weight quickly, just as we don’t want patients to lose weight quickly,” says Kurt Hong, MD, PhD, board-certified in internal medicine and clinical nutrition at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Hong notes that it may be difficult for individuals to experience sudden weight gain because the body works hard to maintain a state of homeostasis.

“Similarly, to someone trying to gain weight you overeat, initially your body will try to again, maybe enhance its metabolic efficiency to hold the body stable,” Dr. Hong adds.

Dietary choices that may contribute to insulin resistance or promote high blood sugar can contribute to inflammation and a number of other adverse health outcomes, notes Dr. Almandoz. “The things that actors need to do in order to gain this magnitude of weight and they want to do it in the most time-effective manner is often not helpful for our bodies, it can be very problematic, the same thing goes for weight loss when actors need to lose significant amounts of weight for roles,” says Dr. Almandoz.

And Dr. Hong explained that for patients trying to lose weight, they may cut calories, but the body will try to compensate by slowing down the metabolism to keep their weight the same.
 

‘Your own worst bully’

In “The Whale,” Charlie appears to suffer from internalized weight bias, which is common to many people living with obesity, Ms. Nece says.

“Internalized weight bias is when the person of size takes all that negativity and turns it on themselves. The easiest way to describe that is to tell you that I became my own worst bully because I started believing all the negative things people said to me about my weight,” Ms. Nece adds.

Her hope is that the film will bring attention to the harm that this bias creates, especially when it derives from other people. “There’s no telling whether it will, but what Charlie experiences in bias and stigma from others clearly happens. It’s realistic. Those of us in large bodies have experienced what he is experiencing, so some people have said the movie is fat-phobic, but I see it as I can relate to those experiences because I have them too, so they are very realistic.”

Ms. Nece notes that it is important for clinicians to understand that obesity is a multifaceted and sensitive topic. “For those medical professionals who do not already know that obesity is complex, I hope the film will begin to open their eyes to the many different facets involved in obesity and their patients with obesity, I hope it will help them empathize and show compassion to their patients with obesity,” she concludes.

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

“I could relate to many, many, many of the experiences and emotions that Charlie, which is Brendan Fraser’s character, was portraying,” Patricia Nece recalls after watching a preview copy of the new film “The Whale.”

A24

Much of the movie “rang true and hit home for me as things that I, too, had experienced,” Ms. Nece, the board of directors’ chair of the Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) and a person living with obesity, shares with this news organization.

In theaters as of December 9, The Whale chronicles the experience of a 600-lb, middle-aged man named Charlie. Throughout the film, Charlie seeks to rebuild his relationship with his estranged teenage daughter. Charlie had left his daughter and family to pursue a relationship with a man, who eventually died. As he navigates the pain surrounding his partner’s death and his lack of community, Charlie turns to food for comfort.

When the movie premiered at the Venice Film Festival, Mr. Fraser received a 6-minute standing ovation. However, activists criticized the movie for casting Fraser over an actor with obesity as well as its depiction of people with obesity.

Representatives from the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance contend that casting an actor without obesity only contributes to ongoing bias against people of size. “Medical weight stigma and other socio-political determinants of health for people of all sizes cause far more harm to fat people than body fat does. Bias endangers fat people’s health. Anti-obesity organizations, such as those consulted with for this movie, contribute to stigma rather than reducing it as they claim,” NAAFA wrote in a statement to this news organization.

And they added that though the fat suit used in the movie may be superior to previous ones, it is still not an accurate depiction: “The creators of The Whale consider its CGI-generated fat suit to be superior to tactile fat suits, but we don’t. The issue with fat suits in Hollywood is not that they aren’t realistic enough. The issue is that they are used rather than using performers who actually live in bodies like the ones being depicted. If there is a 600-pound character in a movie, there should be a 600-pound human in that role. Rather than concentrate on the hype around the fake fat body created for The Whale, we want to see Hollywood create more opportunities for fat people across the size spectrum, both in front of the camera and behind the scenes.”
 

Prosthetics vs. reality?

Ms. Nece says she understands the controversy surrounding the use of fat suits but believes that it was not done in poor taste.

“OAC got involved with the movie after Brendan was already chosen for the part, and we never would have gotten involved with it had the prosthetics or fat suit been used to ridicule or make fun of people with obesity, which is usually the case,” she explains.

“But we knew from the start that that was never the intent of anyone involved with The Whale. And I think that’s shown by the fact that Brendan and Darren Aronofsky, the director, reached out to people who live with obesity on a daily basis to find out and learn more about it and to educate themselves about it,” Ms. Nece continues.

In a Daily Mail article, Mr. Fraser credited his son Griffin, who is autistic and obese, with helping him understand the struggles that people with obesity face.

Rachel Goldman, PhD, a clinical psychologist in private practice in New York and a professor in the psychology department at New York University, notes that there are other considerations that played into casting. “I know there was some pushback in terms of could, a say 600-lb individual, even be able to go to be on set every day and do this kind of work, and the answer is we don’t know.”

“I’m sure Darren chose Brendan for many reasons above and beyond just his body. I think that’s very important to keep in mind that just as much as representation is very important, I think it is also about finding the right person for the right role,” adds Dr. Goldman, who served as a consultant to the film.
 

Fat suits, extreme weight gains all to play a role

About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to the 2017-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, but that reality is not reflected in films or television.

A study of 1018 major television characters found that 24% of men and 14% of women had either overweight or obesity – far below the national average. And when characters with obesity are portrayed, actors often wear prosthetics, like Gwyneth Paltrow in Shallow Hal or Eddie Murphy in the Nutty Professor.

But unlike Mr. Fraser, some actors gain weight quickly instead.

This practice is unhealthy, says Jaime Almandoz, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and a nonsurgical weight management expert. In interviews, actors have shared how they increased calorie intake by drinking two milkshakes per day, going to fast food places regularly, or, in Mark Walhberg’s case, consuming 7,000 calories per day to gain 30 pounds for his role as boxer-turned-priest in the movie Father Stu.

This method provides their bodies with excess calories they are unable to burn off. “Then the amount of sugar and fat that streams into the blood as a result creates problems both directly and indirectly as your body tries to store it. It basically ends up using overflow warehouses for fat storage, like the liver for example, so we can create a condition called fatty liver, or in the muscle and other places, and this excess sugar and fat in the bloodstream cause several factors that are both insulin resistance causing,” Dr. Almandoz explains.

Though gaining weight helps the actor understand the character’s life experience, it may also be risky.

“To have an actor deliberately put his own health at risk and gain a certain amount of weight and whatever that might entail, one – that’s not necessarily the safest thing for that actor – but two, it’s also important to highlight the authentic experience of someone who has dealt with this chronic disease as well,” says Disha Narang, MD, a quadruple-board certified endocrinologist, obesity medicine, and culinary medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital, Chicago.

These extreme fluctuations in weight may create problems. “It is typically not something we recommend because there could be metabolic damages as well as health concerns when patients are trying to gain weight quickly, just as we don’t want patients to lose weight quickly,” says Kurt Hong, MD, PhD, board-certified in internal medicine and clinical nutrition at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Hong notes that it may be difficult for individuals to experience sudden weight gain because the body works hard to maintain a state of homeostasis.

“Similarly, to someone trying to gain weight you overeat, initially your body will try to again, maybe enhance its metabolic efficiency to hold the body stable,” Dr. Hong adds.

Dietary choices that may contribute to insulin resistance or promote high blood sugar can contribute to inflammation and a number of other adverse health outcomes, notes Dr. Almandoz. “The things that actors need to do in order to gain this magnitude of weight and they want to do it in the most time-effective manner is often not helpful for our bodies, it can be very problematic, the same thing goes for weight loss when actors need to lose significant amounts of weight for roles,” says Dr. Almandoz.

And Dr. Hong explained that for patients trying to lose weight, they may cut calories, but the body will try to compensate by slowing down the metabolism to keep their weight the same.
 

‘Your own worst bully’

In “The Whale,” Charlie appears to suffer from internalized weight bias, which is common to many people living with obesity, Ms. Nece says.

“Internalized weight bias is when the person of size takes all that negativity and turns it on themselves. The easiest way to describe that is to tell you that I became my own worst bully because I started believing all the negative things people said to me about my weight,” Ms. Nece adds.

Her hope is that the film will bring attention to the harm that this bias creates, especially when it derives from other people. “There’s no telling whether it will, but what Charlie experiences in bias and stigma from others clearly happens. It’s realistic. Those of us in large bodies have experienced what he is experiencing, so some people have said the movie is fat-phobic, but I see it as I can relate to those experiences because I have them too, so they are very realistic.”

Ms. Nece notes that it is important for clinicians to understand that obesity is a multifaceted and sensitive topic. “For those medical professionals who do not already know that obesity is complex, I hope the film will begin to open their eyes to the many different facets involved in obesity and their patients with obesity, I hope it will help them empathize and show compassion to their patients with obesity,” she concludes.

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

Short bursts of activity are approximately as effective for general health as longer sessions, especially for those who are mainly sedentary, according to several recently published studies.

If your fitness goals are greater, and you want to build muscle strength and endurance, compete in a 5K, or just look better in your swimsuit, you will need to do more. But for basic health, it appears that short bursts can help, the new research papers and experts suggest.

“Whether you accumulate activity in many short bouts versus one extended bout, the general health benefits tend to be similar,” Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said in an interview.

Current public health recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest doing at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week for health benefits, but this activity can be accumulated in any way over the week, she noted. Previous versions of the CDC guidelines on exercise suggested that physical activity bouts should be at least 10 minutes each, but the latest version of the guidelines acknowledges that bursts of less than 10 minutes may be beneficial.

However, “the activity or fitness level at which someone starts and the specific health goals matter,” Dr. Paluch continued. “Short bouts may be particularly beneficial for those least active to get moving more to improve their general wellness.”

The current federal physical activity guidelines are still worth striving for, and patients can work their way to this goal, accumulating 150 or more minutes in a way that works best for them, she added.

“There is a lack of research directly comparing individuals who consistently accumulate their activity in many short bouts versus single bouts over an extended period of time,” Dr. Paluch noted. From a public health perspective, since both short and long bouts have health benefits, the best physical activity is what fits into your life and helps build a lifelong habit.

The benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health are well documented. A review from Circulation published in 2003 summarized the benefits of regular physical activity on measures of cardiovascular health including reduction in body weight, blood pressure, and bad cholesterol, while increasing insulin sensitivity, good cholesterol, and muscular strength and function. In that review, author Jonathan N. Myers, PhD, now of Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that “one need not be a marathon runner or an elite athlete to derive significant benefits from physical activity.” In fact, “the greatest gains in terms of mortality are achieved when an individual goes from being sedentary to becoming moderately active.”

A recent large, population-based study showed the value of short bursts of exercise for those previously sedentary. In this study, published in Nature Medicine, a team in Australia used wearable fitness trackers to measure the health benefits of what researchers have named “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” or VILPA.

Some examples of VILPA include power walking on the way to work, climbing stairs, or even running around with your kids on the playground.

Specifically, individuals who engaged in the median VILPA frequency of three bursts of vigorous activity lasting 1-2 minutes showed a 38%-40% reduction in all-cause mortality risk and cancer mortality risk, and a 48%-49% reduction in cardiovascular mortality risk.

The researchers repeated their analysis for a group of 62,344 adults from the UK Biobank who reported regular vigorous physical activity (VPA). They found similar effects on mortality, based on 1,552 deaths reported.

These results suggest that VILPA may be a reasonable physical activity target, especially for people not able or willing to exercise more formally or intensely, the researchers noted.

“We have known for a long time that leisure-time exercise often reaches vigorous intensity and has many health benefits, but we understand less about the health potential of daily movement, especially activities done as part of daily living that reach vigorous intensity,” lead author Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of physical activity, lifestyle and population health at the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre, said in an interview.

“As long as the heart rate goes up for a minute or 2 it will likely be vigorous activity,” Dr. Stamatakis said in an interview. “It is also important that clinicians effectively communicate how patients can know that they are reaching vigorous intensity,” he said.

Signs of vigorous intensity include increased heart rate and getting out of breath after about 20-40 seconds from the start of the VILPA burst. After about a minute of VILPA, the person doing it should be too out of breath to speak more than a few words comfortably, he said.
 

Data support value of any and all exercise

The Nature Medicine study supports other recent research showing the value of short, intense bursts of physical activity. A pair of recent studies also used fitness trackers to measure activity in adults and assess the benefits on outcomes including death and heart disease.

One of these studies, which was published in the European Heart Journal, also used fitness trackers to measure physical activity at moderate and vigorous levels. The researchers found that individuals who performed at least 20% of their physical activity at a moderate to high level, such as by doing brisk walking in lieu of strolling had a significantly lower risk of heart disease than those whose daily activity included less than 20% at a moderate or intense level.

In another study from the European Heart Journal, researchers found that short bursts of vigorous physical activity of 2 minutes or less adding up to 15-20 minutes per week was enough to reduce mortality by as much as 40%.

Plus, a meta-analysis published in the Lancet showed a decrease in all-cause mortality with an increase in the number of daily steps, although the impact of stepping rate on mortality was inconsistent.

“Many studies have investigated the health benefits of physical activity, but not the importance of these difficult-to-capture VILPA bouts that accrue during the course of normal activities of daily living,” Lee Stoner, PhD, an exercise physiologist and director of the Cardiometabolic Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Dr. Stoner, who was not involved in the Nature Medicine study, said he was not surprised by the overall finding that doing short bursts of activity impacted mortality and cardiovascular disease, but was slightly surprised by the strength of the evidence.

“The referent group in the Nature Medicine study were those accruing no VILPA”, likely meaning they were very inactive,” Dr. Stoner said and added that he thinks this demonstrates the value of VILPA.

Even without immediately meeting the specific numbers recommended by the CDC, “any physical activity is better than none, especially if vigorous, and VILPA can be built into normal daily routines,” Dr. Stoner added.
 

What’s missing in short bursts?

Short bursts of activity do have their limits when it comes to overall fitness, said Dr. Stoner.

“Endurance will not be improved as much through short bursts, because such activities are unlikely to be as effective at empowering the mitochondria – the batteries keeping our cells running, including skeletal muscle cells,” he said. “Additionally, the vigorous bouts are unlikely to be as effective at improving muscular strength and endurance. For this, it is recommended that we engage each muscle group in strengthening exercises two times per week.”

However, Dr. Stoner agreed that prescribing short bursts of intense activity as part of daily living may be a great way to get people started with exercise.

“The key is to remove barriers to physical activity pursuit, then focusing on long-term routine rather than short-term gain,” he said. “Individuals are better served if they focus on goals other than weight loss, for which physical activity or exercise may not be the solution. Rather, being physically active can improve vigor, make daily activities simpler, and improve cognitive abilities,” and any physical activity is one of the most effective solutions for regulating blood glucose levels and improving cardiovascular risk factors.
 

Make it routine – and fun

To benefit from physical activity, cultivating and sustaining a long-term routine is key, said Dr. Stoner, whose research has focused on sedentary behavior and cardiovascular disease. Whatever the activity is, shorter bursts, or longer bouts or both, it is essential that individuals figure out activities that they enjoy if they want to create sustained behavior, and thus health change, Gabriel Zieff, MA, a doctoral candidate in Dr. Stoner’s Cardiometabolic Lab, who conducts studies on exercise, noted in an interview.

“We exercise enthusiasts and researchers are often hyperfocused on whether this duration or that duration is better, whether this intensity or that intensity is better,” but at the end of the day, it is the enjoyment factor that often predicts sustained behavior change, and should be part of discussions with patients to help reduce sedentary behavior and promote activity, Mr. Zieff said.
 

Short bouts can encourage hesitant exercisers

“To best support health, clinicians should consider taking a few seconds to ask patients about their physical activity levels,” said Dr. Paluch, who was the lead author on the Lancet meta-analysis of daily steps. In that study, Dr. Paluch and colleagues found that taking more steps each day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, that study did not measure step rate.

Clinicians can emphasize that health benefits do not require an hour-long exercise routine and special equipment, and moving more, even in shorts bursts of activity can have meaningful associations with health, particularly for those who are less active, she said.

The recent studies on short bursts of activity agree that “some physical activity is better than none and adults should move more throughout the day in whatever way makes sense to them and fits best into their lives,” said Dr. Paluch. “For example, opting for the stairs instead of the elevator, a brisk walk to the bus stop, a short game of hide and seek with the children or grandchildren – anything that gets your body moving more, even if briefly. Making simple lifestyle changes is often easier in small bites. In time, this can grow into long-term habits, ultimately leading to an overall active lifestyle that supports living healthier for longer.”

The Nature Medicine study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Several coauthors were supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Novo Nordisk, the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, the Alan Turing Institute, the British Heart Foundation, and Health Data Research UK, an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation. Dr. Paluch and Dr. Stoner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Short bursts of activity are approximately as effective for general health as longer sessions, especially for those who are mainly sedentary, according to several recently published studies.

If your fitness goals are greater, and you want to build muscle strength and endurance, compete in a 5K, or just look better in your swimsuit, you will need to do more. But for basic health, it appears that short bursts can help, the new research papers and experts suggest.

“Whether you accumulate activity in many short bouts versus one extended bout, the general health benefits tend to be similar,” Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said in an interview.

Current public health recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest doing at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week for health benefits, but this activity can be accumulated in any way over the week, she noted. Previous versions of the CDC guidelines on exercise suggested that physical activity bouts should be at least 10 minutes each, but the latest version of the guidelines acknowledges that bursts of less than 10 minutes may be beneficial.

However, “the activity or fitness level at which someone starts and the specific health goals matter,” Dr. Paluch continued. “Short bouts may be particularly beneficial for those least active to get moving more to improve their general wellness.”

The current federal physical activity guidelines are still worth striving for, and patients can work their way to this goal, accumulating 150 or more minutes in a way that works best for them, she added.

“There is a lack of research directly comparing individuals who consistently accumulate their activity in many short bouts versus single bouts over an extended period of time,” Dr. Paluch noted. From a public health perspective, since both short and long bouts have health benefits, the best physical activity is what fits into your life and helps build a lifelong habit.

The benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health are well documented. A review from Circulation published in 2003 summarized the benefits of regular physical activity on measures of cardiovascular health including reduction in body weight, blood pressure, and bad cholesterol, while increasing insulin sensitivity, good cholesterol, and muscular strength and function. In that review, author Jonathan N. Myers, PhD, now of Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that “one need not be a marathon runner or an elite athlete to derive significant benefits from physical activity.” In fact, “the greatest gains in terms of mortality are achieved when an individual goes from being sedentary to becoming moderately active.”

A recent large, population-based study showed the value of short bursts of exercise for those previously sedentary. In this study, published in Nature Medicine, a team in Australia used wearable fitness trackers to measure the health benefits of what researchers have named “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” or VILPA.

Some examples of VILPA include power walking on the way to work, climbing stairs, or even running around with your kids on the playground.

Specifically, individuals who engaged in the median VILPA frequency of three bursts of vigorous activity lasting 1-2 minutes showed a 38%-40% reduction in all-cause mortality risk and cancer mortality risk, and a 48%-49% reduction in cardiovascular mortality risk.

The researchers repeated their analysis for a group of 62,344 adults from the UK Biobank who reported regular vigorous physical activity (VPA). They found similar effects on mortality, based on 1,552 deaths reported.

These results suggest that VILPA may be a reasonable physical activity target, especially for people not able or willing to exercise more formally or intensely, the researchers noted.

“We have known for a long time that leisure-time exercise often reaches vigorous intensity and has many health benefits, but we understand less about the health potential of daily movement, especially activities done as part of daily living that reach vigorous intensity,” lead author Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of physical activity, lifestyle and population health at the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre, said in an interview.

“As long as the heart rate goes up for a minute or 2 it will likely be vigorous activity,” Dr. Stamatakis said in an interview. “It is also important that clinicians effectively communicate how patients can know that they are reaching vigorous intensity,” he said.

Signs of vigorous intensity include increased heart rate and getting out of breath after about 20-40 seconds from the start of the VILPA burst. After about a minute of VILPA, the person doing it should be too out of breath to speak more than a few words comfortably, he said.
 

Data support value of any and all exercise

The Nature Medicine study supports other recent research showing the value of short, intense bursts of physical activity. A pair of recent studies also used fitness trackers to measure activity in adults and assess the benefits on outcomes including death and heart disease.

One of these studies, which was published in the European Heart Journal, also used fitness trackers to measure physical activity at moderate and vigorous levels. The researchers found that individuals who performed at least 20% of their physical activity at a moderate to high level, such as by doing brisk walking in lieu of strolling had a significantly lower risk of heart disease than those whose daily activity included less than 20% at a moderate or intense level.

In another study from the European Heart Journal, researchers found that short bursts of vigorous physical activity of 2 minutes or less adding up to 15-20 minutes per week was enough to reduce mortality by as much as 40%.

Plus, a meta-analysis published in the Lancet showed a decrease in all-cause mortality with an increase in the number of daily steps, although the impact of stepping rate on mortality was inconsistent.

“Many studies have investigated the health benefits of physical activity, but not the importance of these difficult-to-capture VILPA bouts that accrue during the course of normal activities of daily living,” Lee Stoner, PhD, an exercise physiologist and director of the Cardiometabolic Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Dr. Stoner, who was not involved in the Nature Medicine study, said he was not surprised by the overall finding that doing short bursts of activity impacted mortality and cardiovascular disease, but was slightly surprised by the strength of the evidence.

“The referent group in the Nature Medicine study were those accruing no VILPA”, likely meaning they were very inactive,” Dr. Stoner said and added that he thinks this demonstrates the value of VILPA.

Even without immediately meeting the specific numbers recommended by the CDC, “any physical activity is better than none, especially if vigorous, and VILPA can be built into normal daily routines,” Dr. Stoner added.
 

What’s missing in short bursts?

Short bursts of activity do have their limits when it comes to overall fitness, said Dr. Stoner.

“Endurance will not be improved as much through short bursts, because such activities are unlikely to be as effective at empowering the mitochondria – the batteries keeping our cells running, including skeletal muscle cells,” he said. “Additionally, the vigorous bouts are unlikely to be as effective at improving muscular strength and endurance. For this, it is recommended that we engage each muscle group in strengthening exercises two times per week.”

However, Dr. Stoner agreed that prescribing short bursts of intense activity as part of daily living may be a great way to get people started with exercise.

“The key is to remove barriers to physical activity pursuit, then focusing on long-term routine rather than short-term gain,” he said. “Individuals are better served if they focus on goals other than weight loss, for which physical activity or exercise may not be the solution. Rather, being physically active can improve vigor, make daily activities simpler, and improve cognitive abilities,” and any physical activity is one of the most effective solutions for regulating blood glucose levels and improving cardiovascular risk factors.
 

Make it routine – and fun

To benefit from physical activity, cultivating and sustaining a long-term routine is key, said Dr. Stoner, whose research has focused on sedentary behavior and cardiovascular disease. Whatever the activity is, shorter bursts, or longer bouts or both, it is essential that individuals figure out activities that they enjoy if they want to create sustained behavior, and thus health change, Gabriel Zieff, MA, a doctoral candidate in Dr. Stoner’s Cardiometabolic Lab, who conducts studies on exercise, noted in an interview.

“We exercise enthusiasts and researchers are often hyperfocused on whether this duration or that duration is better, whether this intensity or that intensity is better,” but at the end of the day, it is the enjoyment factor that often predicts sustained behavior change, and should be part of discussions with patients to help reduce sedentary behavior and promote activity, Mr. Zieff said.
 

Short bouts can encourage hesitant exercisers

“To best support health, clinicians should consider taking a few seconds to ask patients about their physical activity levels,” said Dr. Paluch, who was the lead author on the Lancet meta-analysis of daily steps. In that study, Dr. Paluch and colleagues found that taking more steps each day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, that study did not measure step rate.

Clinicians can emphasize that health benefits do not require an hour-long exercise routine and special equipment, and moving more, even in shorts bursts of activity can have meaningful associations with health, particularly for those who are less active, she said.

The recent studies on short bursts of activity agree that “some physical activity is better than none and adults should move more throughout the day in whatever way makes sense to them and fits best into their lives,” said Dr. Paluch. “For example, opting for the stairs instead of the elevator, a brisk walk to the bus stop, a short game of hide and seek with the children or grandchildren – anything that gets your body moving more, even if briefly. Making simple lifestyle changes is often easier in small bites. In time, this can grow into long-term habits, ultimately leading to an overall active lifestyle that supports living healthier for longer.”

The Nature Medicine study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Several coauthors were supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Novo Nordisk, the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, the Alan Turing Institute, the British Heart Foundation, and Health Data Research UK, an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation. Dr. Paluch and Dr. Stoner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Short bursts of activity are approximately as effective for general health as longer sessions, especially for those who are mainly sedentary, according to several recently published studies.

If your fitness goals are greater, and you want to build muscle strength and endurance, compete in a 5K, or just look better in your swimsuit, you will need to do more. But for basic health, it appears that short bursts can help, the new research papers and experts suggest.

“Whether you accumulate activity in many short bouts versus one extended bout, the general health benefits tend to be similar,” Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said in an interview.

Current public health recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest doing at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week for health benefits, but this activity can be accumulated in any way over the week, she noted. Previous versions of the CDC guidelines on exercise suggested that physical activity bouts should be at least 10 minutes each, but the latest version of the guidelines acknowledges that bursts of less than 10 minutes may be beneficial.

However, “the activity or fitness level at which someone starts and the specific health goals matter,” Dr. Paluch continued. “Short bouts may be particularly beneficial for those least active to get moving more to improve their general wellness.”

The current federal physical activity guidelines are still worth striving for, and patients can work their way to this goal, accumulating 150 or more minutes in a way that works best for them, she added.

“There is a lack of research directly comparing individuals who consistently accumulate their activity in many short bouts versus single bouts over an extended period of time,” Dr. Paluch noted. From a public health perspective, since both short and long bouts have health benefits, the best physical activity is what fits into your life and helps build a lifelong habit.

The benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health are well documented. A review from Circulation published in 2003 summarized the benefits of regular physical activity on measures of cardiovascular health including reduction in body weight, blood pressure, and bad cholesterol, while increasing insulin sensitivity, good cholesterol, and muscular strength and function. In that review, author Jonathan N. Myers, PhD, now of Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that “one need not be a marathon runner or an elite athlete to derive significant benefits from physical activity.” In fact, “the greatest gains in terms of mortality are achieved when an individual goes from being sedentary to becoming moderately active.”

A recent large, population-based study showed the value of short bursts of exercise for those previously sedentary. In this study, published in Nature Medicine, a team in Australia used wearable fitness trackers to measure the health benefits of what researchers have named “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” or VILPA.

Some examples of VILPA include power walking on the way to work, climbing stairs, or even running around with your kids on the playground.

Specifically, individuals who engaged in the median VILPA frequency of three bursts of vigorous activity lasting 1-2 minutes showed a 38%-40% reduction in all-cause mortality risk and cancer mortality risk, and a 48%-49% reduction in cardiovascular mortality risk.

The researchers repeated their analysis for a group of 62,344 adults from the UK Biobank who reported regular vigorous physical activity (VPA). They found similar effects on mortality, based on 1,552 deaths reported.

These results suggest that VILPA may be a reasonable physical activity target, especially for people not able or willing to exercise more formally or intensely, the researchers noted.

“We have known for a long time that leisure-time exercise often reaches vigorous intensity and has many health benefits, but we understand less about the health potential of daily movement, especially activities done as part of daily living that reach vigorous intensity,” lead author Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of physical activity, lifestyle and population health at the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre, said in an interview.

“As long as the heart rate goes up for a minute or 2 it will likely be vigorous activity,” Dr. Stamatakis said in an interview. “It is also important that clinicians effectively communicate how patients can know that they are reaching vigorous intensity,” he said.

Signs of vigorous intensity include increased heart rate and getting out of breath after about 20-40 seconds from the start of the VILPA burst. After about a minute of VILPA, the person doing it should be too out of breath to speak more than a few words comfortably, he said.
 

Data support value of any and all exercise

The Nature Medicine study supports other recent research showing the value of short, intense bursts of physical activity. A pair of recent studies also used fitness trackers to measure activity in adults and assess the benefits on outcomes including death and heart disease.

One of these studies, which was published in the European Heart Journal, also used fitness trackers to measure physical activity at moderate and vigorous levels. The researchers found that individuals who performed at least 20% of their physical activity at a moderate to high level, such as by doing brisk walking in lieu of strolling had a significantly lower risk of heart disease than those whose daily activity included less than 20% at a moderate or intense level.

In another study from the European Heart Journal, researchers found that short bursts of vigorous physical activity of 2 minutes or less adding up to 15-20 minutes per week was enough to reduce mortality by as much as 40%.

Plus, a meta-analysis published in the Lancet showed a decrease in all-cause mortality with an increase in the number of daily steps, although the impact of stepping rate on mortality was inconsistent.

“Many studies have investigated the health benefits of physical activity, but not the importance of these difficult-to-capture VILPA bouts that accrue during the course of normal activities of daily living,” Lee Stoner, PhD, an exercise physiologist and director of the Cardiometabolic Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Dr. Stoner, who was not involved in the Nature Medicine study, said he was not surprised by the overall finding that doing short bursts of activity impacted mortality and cardiovascular disease, but was slightly surprised by the strength of the evidence.

“The referent group in the Nature Medicine study were those accruing no VILPA”, likely meaning they were very inactive,” Dr. Stoner said and added that he thinks this demonstrates the value of VILPA.

Even without immediately meeting the specific numbers recommended by the CDC, “any physical activity is better than none, especially if vigorous, and VILPA can be built into normal daily routines,” Dr. Stoner added.
 

What’s missing in short bursts?

Short bursts of activity do have their limits when it comes to overall fitness, said Dr. Stoner.

“Endurance will not be improved as much through short bursts, because such activities are unlikely to be as effective at empowering the mitochondria – the batteries keeping our cells running, including skeletal muscle cells,” he said. “Additionally, the vigorous bouts are unlikely to be as effective at improving muscular strength and endurance. For this, it is recommended that we engage each muscle group in strengthening exercises two times per week.”

However, Dr. Stoner agreed that prescribing short bursts of intense activity as part of daily living may be a great way to get people started with exercise.

“The key is to remove barriers to physical activity pursuit, then focusing on long-term routine rather than short-term gain,” he said. “Individuals are better served if they focus on goals other than weight loss, for which physical activity or exercise may not be the solution. Rather, being physically active can improve vigor, make daily activities simpler, and improve cognitive abilities,” and any physical activity is one of the most effective solutions for regulating blood glucose levels and improving cardiovascular risk factors.
 

Make it routine – and fun

To benefit from physical activity, cultivating and sustaining a long-term routine is key, said Dr. Stoner, whose research has focused on sedentary behavior and cardiovascular disease. Whatever the activity is, shorter bursts, or longer bouts or both, it is essential that individuals figure out activities that they enjoy if they want to create sustained behavior, and thus health change, Gabriel Zieff, MA, a doctoral candidate in Dr. Stoner’s Cardiometabolic Lab, who conducts studies on exercise, noted in an interview.

“We exercise enthusiasts and researchers are often hyperfocused on whether this duration or that duration is better, whether this intensity or that intensity is better,” but at the end of the day, it is the enjoyment factor that often predicts sustained behavior change, and should be part of discussions with patients to help reduce sedentary behavior and promote activity, Mr. Zieff said.
 

Short bouts can encourage hesitant exercisers

“To best support health, clinicians should consider taking a few seconds to ask patients about their physical activity levels,” said Dr. Paluch, who was the lead author on the Lancet meta-analysis of daily steps. In that study, Dr. Paluch and colleagues found that taking more steps each day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, that study did not measure step rate.

Clinicians can emphasize that health benefits do not require an hour-long exercise routine and special equipment, and moving more, even in shorts bursts of activity can have meaningful associations with health, particularly for those who are less active, she said.

The recent studies on short bursts of activity agree that “some physical activity is better than none and adults should move more throughout the day in whatever way makes sense to them and fits best into their lives,” said Dr. Paluch. “For example, opting for the stairs instead of the elevator, a brisk walk to the bus stop, a short game of hide and seek with the children or grandchildren – anything that gets your body moving more, even if briefly. Making simple lifestyle changes is often easier in small bites. In time, this can grow into long-term habits, ultimately leading to an overall active lifestyle that supports living healthier for longer.”

The Nature Medicine study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Several coauthors were supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Novo Nordisk, the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, the Alan Turing Institute, the British Heart Foundation, and Health Data Research UK, an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation. Dr. Paluch and Dr. Stoner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued extended growth charts to help doctors and researchers better understand patterns of development for the most overweight children and adolescents.

In 2017-2018, more than 4.5 million U.S. youth met the criteria for severe obesity – defined as 120% of the 95th percentile, or 35 kg/m² or greater – according to the CDC.

The new growth charts will not replace the current charts but extend beyond the 97th percentile for body mass index. Formerly, data were extrapolated for anything over the 95th percentile based on evidence from 1963 to 1980, when obesity rates were lower.

The extended growth charts are based on data collected between 1988 and 2015 from young children and adolescents with obesity.

Experts said the expanded charts will allow researchers and clinicians to track the effects of interventions for obesity whether they involve an increase in physical activity, a decrease in consumption, or other interventions. The corresponding z-score charts also are provided.

Physicians should still use the CDC’s BMI-for-age growth charts from 2000 for pediatric patients with BMIs under the 95th percentile. The agency said it does not intend to update those charts.

The definitions of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity remain unchanged.
 

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued extended growth charts to help doctors and researchers better understand patterns of development for the most overweight children and adolescents.

In 2017-2018, more than 4.5 million U.S. youth met the criteria for severe obesity – defined as 120% of the 95th percentile, or 35 kg/m² or greater – according to the CDC.

The new growth charts will not replace the current charts but extend beyond the 97th percentile for body mass index. Formerly, data were extrapolated for anything over the 95th percentile based on evidence from 1963 to 1980, when obesity rates were lower.

The extended growth charts are based on data collected between 1988 and 2015 from young children and adolescents with obesity.

Experts said the expanded charts will allow researchers and clinicians to track the effects of interventions for obesity whether they involve an increase in physical activity, a decrease in consumption, or other interventions. The corresponding z-score charts also are provided.

Physicians should still use the CDC’s BMI-for-age growth charts from 2000 for pediatric patients with BMIs under the 95th percentile. The agency said it does not intend to update those charts.

The definitions of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity remain unchanged.
 

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued extended growth charts to help doctors and researchers better understand patterns of development for the most overweight children and adolescents.

In 2017-2018, more than 4.5 million U.S. youth met the criteria for severe obesity – defined as 120% of the 95th percentile, or 35 kg/m² or greater – according to the CDC.

The new growth charts will not replace the current charts but extend beyond the 97th percentile for body mass index. Formerly, data were extrapolated for anything over the 95th percentile based on evidence from 1963 to 1980, when obesity rates were lower.

The extended growth charts are based on data collected between 1988 and 2015 from young children and adolescents with obesity.

Experts said the expanded charts will allow researchers and clinicians to track the effects of interventions for obesity whether they involve an increase in physical activity, a decrease in consumption, or other interventions. The corresponding z-score charts also are provided.

Physicians should still use the CDC’s BMI-for-age growth charts from 2000 for pediatric patients with BMIs under the 95th percentile. The agency said it does not intend to update those charts.

The definitions of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity remain unchanged.
 

Obesity is not a universal phenotype in children with type 2 diabetes (T2D), a global systematic review and meta-analysis reported. In fact, the study found, as many as one in four children with T2D do not have obesity and some have normal reference-range body mass measurements. Further studies should consider other mechanisms beyond obesity in the genesis of pediatric diabetes, the authors of the international analysis concluded, writing for JAMA Network Open.

“We were aware that some children and adolescents with T2D did not have obesity, but we didn’t know the scale of obesity in T2D, or what variables may impact the occurrence of diabetes in this group,” endocrinologist M. Constantine Samaan, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. “So, the analysis did help us understand the body mass distribution of this group in more detail.”

Obesity is not a universal phenotype in children with type 2 diabetes (T2D), a global systematic review and meta-analysis reported. In fact, the study found, as many as one in four children with T2D do not have obesity and some have normal reference-range body mass measurements. Further studies should consider other mechanisms beyond obesity in the genesis of pediatric diabetes, the authors of the international analysis concluded, writing for JAMA Network Open.

“We were aware that some children and adolescents with T2D did not have obesity, but we didn’t know the scale of obesity in T2D, or what variables may impact the occurrence of diabetes in this group,” endocrinologist M. Constantine Samaan, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. “So, the analysis did help us understand the body mass distribution of this group in more detail.”

Obesity is not a universal phenotype in children with type 2 diabetes (T2D), a global systematic review and meta-analysis reported. In fact, the study found, as many as one in four children with T2D do not have obesity and some have normal reference-range body mass measurements. Further studies should consider other mechanisms beyond obesity in the genesis of pediatric diabetes, the authors of the international analysis concluded, writing for JAMA Network Open.

“We were aware that some children and adolescents with T2D did not have obesity, but we didn’t know the scale of obesity in T2D, or what variables may impact the occurrence of diabetes in this group,” endocrinologist M. Constantine Samaan, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. “So, the analysis did help us understand the body mass distribution of this group in more detail.”