Assessment of obesity management in medical examination

Obesity is a growing international health problem that has already reached epidemic proportions, particularly within the United States where a majority of the population is overweight or obese. Effective methods of treatment are needed, and should be taught to physicians by efficient means. There exists a disconnect between the rising obesity prevalence with its high toll on medical resources, and the lack of obesity education provided to practitioners in the course of their training. One particular shortfall is the lack of representation of obesity on standardized medical examinations. Physician attitudes toward obesity are influenced by their lack of familiarity with the management of the disease. This may include dietary restriction, increasing physical activity, behavior modification, pharmacotherapy, and surgical interventions. Thus, curricular changes in the medical education of obesity could help reduce morbidity and mortality associated with this disease

Protein-enriched meal replacements do not adversely affect liver, kidney or bone density: an outpatient randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is concern that recommending protein-enriched meal replacements as part of a weight management program could lead to changes in biomarkers of liver or renal function and reductions in bone density. This study was designed as a placebo-controlled clinical trial utilizing two isocaloric meal plans utilizing either a high protein-enriched (HP) or a standard protein (SP) meal replacement in an outpatient weight loss program.</p> <p>Subjects/methods</p> <p>100 obese men and women over 30 years of age with a body mass index (BMI) between 27 to 40 kg/m²were randomized to one of two isocaloric weight loss meal plans 1). HP group: providing 2.2 g protein/kg of lean body mass (LBM)/day or 2). SP group: providing 1.1 g protein/kg LBM/day. Meal replacement (MR) was used twice daily (one meal, one snack) for 3 months and then once a day for 9 months. Body weight, lipid profiles, liver function, renal function and bone density were measured at baseline and 12 months.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventy subjects completed the study. Both groups lost weight (HP -4.29 ± 5.90 kg vs. SP -4.66 ± 6.91 kg, p < 0.01) and there was no difference in weight loss observed between the groups at one year. There was no significant change noted in liver function [AST (HP -2.07 ± 10.32 U/L, p = 0.28; SP 0.27 ± 6.67 U/L, p = 0.820), ALT (HP -1.03 ± 10.08 U/L, p = 0.34; SP -2.6 ± 12.51 U/L, p = 0.24), bilirubin (HP 0.007 ± 0.33, U/L, p = 0.91; SP 0.07 ± 0.24 U/L, p = 0.120), alkaline phosphatase (HP 2.00 ± 9.07 U/L, p = 0.240; SP -2.12 ± 11.01 U/L, p = 0.280)], renal function [serum creatinine (HP 0.31 ± 1.89 mg/dL, p = 0.380; SP -0.05 ± 0.15 mg/dL, p = 0.060), urea nitrogen (HP 1.33 ± 4.68 mg/dL, p = 0.130; SP -0.24 ± 3.03 mg/dL, p = 0.650), 24 hour urine creatinine clearance (HP -0.02 ± 0.16 mL/min, p = 0.480; SP 1.18 ± 7.53 mL/min, p = 0.400), and calcium excretion (HP -0.41 ± 9.48 mg/24 hours, p = 0.830; SP -0.007 ± 6.76 mg/24 hours, p = 0.990)] or in bone mineral density by DEXA (HP 0.04 ± 0.19 g/cm², p = 0.210; SP -0.03 ± 0.17 g/cm², p = 0.320) in either group over one year.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These studies demonstrate that protein-enriched meals replacements as compared to standard meal replacements recommended for weight management do not have adverse effects on routine measures of liver function, renal function or bone density at one year. Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT01030354.</p

A controlled trial of protein enrichment of meal replacements for weight reduction with retention of lean body mass

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While high protein diets have been shown to improve satiety and retention of lean body mass (LBM), this study was designed to determine effects of a protein-enriched meal replacement (MR) on weight loss and LBM retention by comparison to an isocaloric carbohydrate-enriched MR within customized diet plans utilizing MR to achieve high protein or standard protein intakes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Single blind, placebo-controlled, randomized outpatient weight loss trial in 100 obese men and women comparing two isocaloric meal plans utilizing a standard MR to which was added supplementary protein or carbohydrate powder. MR was used twice daily (one meal, one snack). One additional meal was included in the meal plan designed to achieve individualized protein intakes of either 1) 2.2 g protein/kg of LBM per day [high protein diet (HP)] or 2) 1.1 g protein/kg LBM/day standard protein diet (SP). LBM was determined using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Body weight, body composition, and lipid profiles were measured at baseline and 12 weeks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eighty-five subjects completed the study. Both HP and SP MR were well tolerated, with no adverse effects. There were no differences in weight loss at 12 weeks (-4.19 ± 0.5 kg for HP group and -3.72 ± 0.7 kg for SP group, p > 0.1). Subjects in the HP group lost significantly more fat weight than the SP group (HP = -1.65 ± 0.63 kg; SP = -0.64 ± 0.79 kg, P = 0.05) as estimated by BIA. There were no significant differences in lipids nor fasting blood glucose between groups, but within the HP group a significant decrease in cholesterol and LDL cholesterol was noted at 12 weeks. This was not seen in the SP group.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Higher protein MR within a higher protein diet resulted in similar overall weight loss as the standard protein MR plan over 12 weeks. However, there was significantly more fat loss in the HP group but no significant difference in lean body mass. In this trial, subject compliance with both the standard and protein-enriched MR strategy for weight loss may have obscured any effect of increased protein on weight loss demonstrated in prior weight loss studies using whole food diets.</p