Challenges in defining successful adherence to calorie restriction goals in humans: Results from CALERIE™ 2
- PMID: 35240264
- PMCID: PMC8976757
- DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2022.111757
Challenges in defining successful adherence to calorie restriction goals in humans: Results from CALERIE™ 2
Abstract
Background: The Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy (CALERIE™) phase 2 trial tested the effects of two years of 25% calorie restriction (CR) on aging in humans. CALERIE 2 was one of the first studies to use a graph of predicted weight loss to: 1) provide a proxy of dietary adherence, and 2) promote dietary adherence. Assuming 25% CR, each participant's weight over time was predicted, with upper and lower bounds around predicted weights. Thus, the resulting weight graph included a zone or range of body weights that reflected adherence to 25% CR, and this was named the zone of adherence. Participants were considered adherent if their weight was in this zone. It is unlikely, however, that the entire zone reflects 25% CR.
Objectives: To determine the level of CR associated with the zone of adherence and if the level of CR achieved by participants was within the zone.
Methods: Percent CR associated with the upper and lower bounds of the zone were determined via the Body Weight Planner (https://www.niddk.nih.gov/bwp) for participants in the CALERIE 2 CR group (N = 143). Percent CR achieved by participants was estimated with the intake-balance method.
Results: At month 24, the zone of adherence ranged from 10.4(0.0)% to 19.4(0.0)% CR [Mean(SEM)], and participants achieved 11.9(0.7)% CR and were in the zone.
Conclusion: The results highlight the challenges of: 1) setting a single CR goal vs. a range of acceptable values, and 2) obtaining real-time and valid measures of CR adherence to facilitate adherence.
Keywords: Adherence; Calorie restriction; Dietary adherence; Energy intake; Intensive lifestyle intervention; Lifestyle change; Weight graph; Weight loss.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures
References
-
- Beaton GH, Burema J, Ritenbaugh C. Errors in the interpretation of dietary assessments. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;65(4 Suppl):1100S–1107S. - PubMed
-
- Tran KM, Johnson RK, Soultanakis RP, Matthews DE. In-person vs telephone-administered multiple-pass 24-hour recalls in women: validation with doubly labeled water. J Am Diet Assoc. 2000;100(7):777–783. - PubMed
-
- Schoeller DA, Bandini LG, Dietz WH. Inaccuracies in self-reported intake identified by comparison with the doubly labelled water method. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1990;68(7):941–949. - PubMed
-
- Bandini LG, Schoeller DA, Cyr HN, Dietz WH. Validity of reported energy intake in obese and nonobese adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;52(3):421–425. - PubMed
