Five insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a rules-based synthesis of the available evidence on levels and trends in health outcomes, a diverse set of risk factors, and health system responses. GBD 2019 covered 204 countries and territories, as well as first administrative level disaggregations for 22 countries, from 1990 to 2019. Because GBD is highly standardised and comprehensive, spanning both fatal and non-fatal outcomes, and uses a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of hierarchical disease and injury causes, the study provides a powerful basis for detailed and broad insights on global health trends and emerging challenges. GBD 2019 incorporates data from 281 586 sources and provides more than 3.5 billion estimates of health outcome and health system measures of interest for global, national, and subnational policy dialogue. All GBD estimates are publicly available and adhere to the Guidelines on Accurate and Transparent Health Estimate Reporting. From this vast amount of information, five key insights that are important for health, social, and economic development strategies have been distilled. These insights are subject to the many limitations outlined in each of the component GBD capstone papers.Peer reviewe

Does metabolic compensation explain the majority of less-than-expected weight loss in obese adults during a short-term severe diet and exercise intervention?

Objective: We investigated to what extent changes in metabolic rate and composition of weight loss explained the less-than-expected weight loss in obese men and women during a diet-plus-exercise intervention. Design: 16 obese men and women (41 ± 9 years; BMI 39 ± 6 kg/m2) were investigated in energy balance before, after and twice during a 12-week VLED (565–650 kcal/day) plus exercise (aerobic plus resistance training) intervention. The relative energy deficit (EDef) from baseline requirements was severe (74-87%). Body composition was measured by deuterium dilution and DXA and resting metabolic rate (RMR) by indirect calorimetry. Fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) were converted into energy equivalents using constants: 9.45 kcal/gFM and 1.13 kcal/gFFM. Predicted weight loss was calculated from the energy deficit using the '7700 kcal/kg rule'. Results: Changes in weight (-18.6 ± 5.0 kg), FM (-15.5 ± 4.3 kg), and FFM (-3.1 ± 1.9 kg) did not differ between genders. Measured weight loss was on average 67% of the predicted value, but ranged from 39 to 94%. Relative EDef was correlated with the decrease in RMR (R=0.70, P<0.01) and the decrease in RMR correlated with the difference between actual and expected weight loss (R=0.51, P<0.01). Changes in metabolic rate explained on average 67% of the less-than-expected weight loss, and variability in the proportion of weight lost as FM accounted for a further 5%. On average, after adjustment for changes in metabolic rate and body composition of weight lost, actual weight loss reached 90% of predicted values. Conclusion: Although weight loss was 33% lower than predicted at baseline from standard energy equivalents, the majority of this differential was explained by physiological variables. While lower-than-expected weight loss is often attributed to incomplete adherence to prescribed interventions, the influence of baseline calculation errors and metabolic down-regulation should not be discounted