The relationship between sarcopenic obesity, weight-loss and maintenance outcomes during obesity management: Are additional strategies required?

5Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The lack of long-term maintenance of the weight loss achieved during weight-management programs is the major cause of failure in obesity treatments. The identification of factors related to this outcome has clinical implications. Therefore, we aimed to assess the relationship between sarcopenic obesity (SO) and the weight-loss percentage (WL%). The WL% was measured at the six-month follow-up and after more than 12 months, in 46 adult participants with obesity, during an individualized weight-management program where participants were categorized as having or not having SO at the baseline. At the six-month follow-up, participants with SO did not display a significant difference in terms of WL%, when compared to those without SO (−10.49 ± 5.75% vs. −12.73 ± 4.30%; p = 0.148). However, after a longer term (i.e., >12 months), the WL% appeared to be significantly lower in the former (SO vs. non-SO) (−7.34 ± 6.29% vs. −11.43 ± 4.31%; p = 0.024). In fact, partial correlation analysis revealed a relationship between SO at the baseline and a lower WL% after more than 12 months (ρ = −0.425, p = 0.009), after controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Participants with SO appeared to face more difficulties in maintaining the achieved WL over a longer term (>12 months follow-up) by comparison with their counterparts (i.e., non-SO). Should this finding be replicated in larger-sample studies, new strategies should be adopted for these patients in order to improve this clinical outcome, especially during the weight-maintenance phase.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Masri, D. E., Itani, L., Tannir, H., Kreidieh, D., & Ghoch, M. E. (2021). The relationship between sarcopenic obesity, weight-loss and maintenance outcomes during obesity management: Are additional strategies required? Clinics and Practice, 11(3), 525–531. https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract11030069

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