Weight loss in Weight Watchers Online with and without an activity tracking device compared to control: A randomized trial

88Citations
Citations of this article
190Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate a commercial online weight loss program and activity tracker, which are popular but have unknown efficacy. Methods: Two hundred seventy-nine participants with BMI 27 to 40 kg/m2 were randomized to 12 months of the Weight Watchers Online program alone (WWO) or with the ActiveLink® activity tracking device (WWO+AL) or an online newsletter (Control). Results: Weight losses at 3 months were significantly greater in WWO (2.7 kg [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0-3.5 kg] than Control (1.3 kg [95% CI, 0.5-2.0 kg]; P = 0.01); neither differed from WWO+AL (2.0 kg [95% CI, 1.3-2.7 kg]; Ps > 0.56). Significantly more WWO participants (24.5%) achieved ≥ 5% weight loss at 3 months than Control (9.4%) (P = 0.01); neither differed from WWO+AL (17.6%) (Ps = 0.13-0.28). At 12 months, there were no significant differences between groups in weight loss (Ps > 0.52). WWO (25.5%) continued to have a higher proportion of participants achieving ≥ 5% weight loss than Control (12.9%) (P = 0.04); neither differed from WWO+AL (14.3%) (Ps > 0.10). There were no significant between-group differences in change in physical activity (Ps > 0.17). Conclusions: WWO produced significantly more weight loss at 3 months relative to Control, but not at 12 months. Significantly more WWO than Control participants lost ≥ 5% at both 3 and 12 months. Participants receiving an activity tracking device did not achieve greater weight loss or physical activity increases than those in a Control condition.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Thomas, J. G., Raynor, H. A., Bond, D. S., Luke, A. K., Cardoso, C. C., Foster, G. D., & Wing, R. R. (2017). Weight loss in Weight Watchers Online with and without an activity tracking device compared to control: A randomized trial. Obesity, 25(6), 1014–1021. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.21846

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free