Relation between holiday weight gain and total energy expenditure among 40- to 69-y-old men and women (OPEN study)

Abstract

Background: A significant proportion of the average annual body weight (BW) gain in US adults (~0.5-1 kg/y) may result from modest episodes of positive energy balance during the winter holiday season.

Objective: We tested whether holiday BW gain was reduced in participants with high baseline total energy expenditure (TEE) or whether it varied by BMI (in kg/m(2)).

Design: In a secondary analysis of previously published data, ΔBW normalized over 90 d from mid-September/mid-October 1999 to mid-January/early March 2000 was analyzed by sex, age, and BMI in 443 men and women (40-69 y of age). TEE was measured by doubly labeled water. High or low energy expenditure was assessed as residual TEE after linear adjustment for age, height, and BW.

Results: No correlations between ΔBW and TEE or TEE residuals were found. Sixty-five percent of men and 58% of women gained ≥0.5 kg BW, with ~50% of both groups gaining ≥1% of preholiday BW. Obese men (BMI ≥30) gained more BW than did obese women.

Conclusions: A high preholiday absolute TEE or residual TEE did not protect against BW gain during the winter holiday quarter. It is not known whether higher than these typical TEE levels would protect against weight gain or if the observed gain may be attributed to increased food consumption and/or reduced physical activity during the holiday quarter.

FIGURE 1.

ΔBW versus baseline absolute TEE for men (A; n = 242) and women (B; n = 201). ΔBW was linearly normalized to change over 90 d. Linear (Pearson) regression was used to compare ΔBW with TEE for both men and women. No significant relations were found. TEE, total energy expenditure; ΔBW, change in body weight.

FIGURE 2.

ΔBW versus PAL for men (A; n = 242) and women (B; n = 201). PAL = baseline absolute total energy expenditure/resting metabolic rate. Resting metabolic rate was estimated by using the Mifflin equation (14). ΔBW was linearly normalized to change over 90 d. Linear (Pearson) regression was used to compare ΔBW with PAL for both men and women. No significant relations were found. PAL, physical activity level; ΔBW, change in body weight.

FIGURE 3.

Mean (±SE) ΔBW versus quartiles of baseline absolute TEE residuals for men (A; n = 242) and women (B; n = 201). ΔBW was linearly normalized to change over 90 d. One-factor ANOVA was used to test for differences in ΔBW between quartiles of TEE residuals within sex. No significant differences were found. TEE, total energy expenditure; ΔBW, change in body weight.

FIGURE 4.

Distribution of ΔBW for men (n = 242) and women (n = 201). The average interval between BW assessments was 107 ± 7 d. To normalize for differences in individual study interval days, each subject's ΔBW was divided by their respective number of days between BW assessments and then multiplied by 90 d. ΔBW, change in body weight.

FIGURE 5.

Mean (±SE) absolute (kg) and relative (%) ΔBWs by age and BMI for men (n = 242) and women (n = 201). ΔBW was linearly normalized to change over 90 d. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to test for differences in absolute and relative (%) ΔBW between age and BMI categories within sex. Bars with different lowercase letters represent significant differences within sex between BMI categories (P < 0.05). ^*Significant difference between sexes within age or BMI category (P < 0.05). There were no significant sex-by-age or sex-by-BMI interactions. ΔBW, change in body weight.