Efficacy of water preloading before main meals as a strategy for weight loss in primary care patients with obesity: RCT

Objective To investigate the efficacy of water preloading before meals as a weight loss strategy for adults with obesity. Methods A two-group randomized controlled trial was conducted in Birmingham, England. Eighty-four adults with obesity were recruited from general practices. All participants were given a face-to-face weight management consultation at baseline (30 min) and a follow-up telephone consultation at 2 weeks (10 min). At baseline, participants were randomized to either drinking 500 ml of water 30 min before their main meals or an attention control group where participants were asked to imagine their stomach was full before meals. The primary outcome was weight change at 12-week follow-up. Several measures of adherence were also used, including 24 h total urine collections. Results 41 participants were randomized to the intervention group and 43 to the comparator group. The water preloading group lost -1.3 kg (95% CI -2.4 to -0.1, P = 0.028) more than comparators at follow up. Adjusting for ethnicity, deprivation, age, and gender resulted in the intervention group losing -1.2 kg (95% CI -2.4 to 0.07, P = 0.063) more than the comparator. Conclusions There is preliminary evidence that water preloading before main meals leads to a moderate weight loss at follow up. ISRCTN3323815

Participant characteristics.

BackgroundNutritional labels aim to support people to make informed healthy food choices, but many people do not understand the meaning of calories on food labels. Another approach is to provide calorie information with an interpretation of what the calorie content of food means for energy expenditure, known as physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labelling. PACE aims to illustrate how many minutes of physical activity are equivalent to the calories contained in food/drinks. This study investigated the views of the public about the possible implementation of PACE labelling.MethodsData was obtained from a nationally representative sample of adults in the United Kingdom and collected by UK Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Panellists are recruited via a random probability unclustered address-based sampling method. 4,000 panellists were randomly invited to participate and asked to compare their views about traffic light and PACE labelling preferences and behaviour parameters.ResultsData were analysed descriptively and using logistic and multinomial regression analyses. 2,668/4,000 (67%) of those invited participated. More participants preferred traffic light (43%vs33%) than PACE labelling, but more reported PACE was easier to understand (41%vs27%) and more likely to catch their attention (49%vs31%). More participants thought PACE was more likely to help them avoid high calorie food than traffic light labelling (44%vs28%). Physically active (3–4 or 5+ days/week) respondents were more likely to report PACE would catch their attention than traffic light labelling, compared with less active participants (weighted adjusted relative risk ratio = 1.42 (1.00–2.00) and 1.45 (1.03–2.05 respectively)). Perceived overweight was the most predictive factor (weighted adjusted OR = 2.24 (1.19 to 4.20)) in whether PACE was considered useful in helping people decide what to eat/buy.ConclusionThe public identified value to their health in labelling food with PACE information. PACE labelling may be a useful approach to complement current approaches to food labelling.</div

S1 File -

BackgroundNutritional labels aim to support people to make informed healthy food choices, but many people do not understand the meaning of calories on food labels. Another approach is to provide calorie information with an interpretation of what the calorie content of food means for energy expenditure, known as physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labelling. PACE aims to illustrate how many minutes of physical activity are equivalent to the calories contained in food/drinks. This study investigated the views of the public about the possible implementation of PACE labelling.MethodsData was obtained from a nationally representative sample of adults in the United Kingdom and collected by UK Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Panellists are recruited via a random probability unclustered address-based sampling method. 4,000 panellists were randomly invited to participate and asked to compare their views about traffic light and PACE labelling preferences and behaviour parameters.ResultsData were analysed descriptively and using logistic and multinomial regression analyses. 2,668/4,000 (67%) of those invited participated. More participants preferred traffic light (43%vs33%) than PACE labelling, but more reported PACE was easier to understand (41%vs27%) and more likely to catch their attention (49%vs31%). More participants thought PACE was more likely to help them avoid high calorie food than traffic light labelling (44%vs28%). Physically active (3–4 or 5+ days/week) respondents were more likely to report PACE would catch their attention than traffic light labelling, compared with less active participants (weighted adjusted relative risk ratio = 1.42 (1.00–2.00) and 1.45 (1.03–2.05 respectively)). Perceived overweight was the most predictive factor (weighted adjusted OR = 2.24 (1.19 to 4.20)) in whether PACE was considered useful in helping people decide what to eat/buy.ConclusionThe public identified value to their health in labelling food with PACE information. PACE labelling may be a useful approach to complement current approaches to food labelling.</div

Example of PACE labelling (2).

BackgroundNutritional labels aim to support people to make informed healthy food choices, but many people do not understand the meaning of calories on food labels. Another approach is to provide calorie information with an interpretation of what the calorie content of food means for energy expenditure, known as physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labelling. PACE aims to illustrate how many minutes of physical activity are equivalent to the calories contained in food/drinks. This study investigated the views of the public about the possible implementation of PACE labelling.MethodsData was obtained from a nationally representative sample of adults in the United Kingdom and collected by UK Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Panellists are recruited via a random probability unclustered address-based sampling method. 4,000 panellists were randomly invited to participate and asked to compare their views about traffic light and PACE labelling preferences and behaviour parameters.ResultsData were analysed descriptively and using logistic and multinomial regression analyses. 2,668/4,000 (67%) of those invited participated. More participants preferred traffic light (43%vs33%) than PACE labelling, but more reported PACE was easier to understand (41%vs27%) and more likely to catch their attention (49%vs31%). More participants thought PACE was more likely to help them avoid high calorie food than traffic light labelling (44%vs28%). Physically active (3–4 or 5+ days/week) respondents were more likely to report PACE would catch their attention than traffic light labelling, compared with less active participants (weighted adjusted relative risk ratio = 1.42 (1.00–2.00) and 1.45 (1.03–2.05 respectively)). Perceived overweight was the most predictive factor (weighted adjusted OR = 2.24 (1.19 to 4.20)) in whether PACE was considered useful in helping people decide what to eat/buy.ConclusionThe public identified value to their health in labelling food with PACE information. PACE labelling may be a useful approach to complement current approaches to food labelling.</div

Example of PACE labelling (1).

BackgroundNutritional labels aim to support people to make informed healthy food choices, but many people do not understand the meaning of calories on food labels. Another approach is to provide calorie information with an interpretation of what the calorie content of food means for energy expenditure, known as physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labelling. PACE aims to illustrate how many minutes of physical activity are equivalent to the calories contained in food/drinks. This study investigated the views of the public about the possible implementation of PACE labelling.MethodsData was obtained from a nationally representative sample of adults in the United Kingdom and collected by UK Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Panellists are recruited via a random probability unclustered address-based sampling method. 4,000 panellists were randomly invited to participate and asked to compare their views about traffic light and PACE labelling preferences and behaviour parameters.ResultsData were analysed descriptively and using logistic and multinomial regression analyses. 2,668/4,000 (67%) of those invited participated. More participants preferred traffic light (43%vs33%) than PACE labelling, but more reported PACE was easier to understand (41%vs27%) and more likely to catch their attention (49%vs31%). More participants thought PACE was more likely to help them avoid high calorie food than traffic light labelling (44%vs28%). Physically active (3–4 or 5+ days/week) respondents were more likely to report PACE would catch their attention than traffic light labelling, compared with less active participants (weighted adjusted relative risk ratio = 1.42 (1.00–2.00) and 1.45 (1.03–2.05 respectively)). Perceived overweight was the most predictive factor (weighted adjusted OR = 2.24 (1.19 to 4.20)) in whether PACE was considered useful in helping people decide what to eat/buy.ConclusionThe public identified value to their health in labelling food with PACE information. PACE labelling may be a useful approach to complement current approaches to food labelling.</div

Weighted logistic regression models for individual traffic light/PACE labelling questions.

Weighted logistic regression models for individual traffic light/PACE labelling questions.</p

Comparison of preferences for different types of food labels.

Comparison of preferences for different types of food labels.</p

Resource use categories and associated unit costs (£, 2013/2014 prices).

<p>Resource use categories and associated unit costs (£, 2013/2014 prices).</p

Can drinking water before main meals help adults with obesity lose weight?

Can drinking water before main meals help adults with obesity lose weight

Cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF) showing the probability of the optimal intervention being cost-effective at 12 months from a NHS/PSS perspective across different willingness-to-pay values per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

<p>Cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF) showing the probability of the optimal intervention being cost-effective at 12 months from a NHS/PSS perspective across different willingness-to-pay values per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).</p