Obesity

“I could relate to many, many, many of the experiences and emotions that Charlie, which is Brendan Fraser’s character, was portraying,” Patricia Nece recalls after watching a preview copy of the new film “The Whale.”

A24

Much of the movie “rang true and hit home for me as things that I, too, had experienced,” Ms. Nece, the board of directors’ chair of the Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) and a person living with obesity, shares with this news organization.

In theaters as of December 9, The Whale chronicles the experience of a 600-lb, middle-aged man named Charlie. Throughout the film, Charlie seeks to rebuild his relationship with his estranged teenage daughter. Charlie had left his daughter and family to pursue a relationship with a man, who eventually died. As he navigates the pain surrounding his partner’s death and his lack of community, Charlie turns to food for comfort.

When the movie premiered at the Venice Film Festival, Mr. Fraser received a 6-minute standing ovation. However, activists criticized the movie for casting Fraser over an actor with obesity as well as its depiction of people with obesity.

Representatives from the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance contend that casting an actor without obesity only contributes to ongoing bias against people of size. “Medical weight stigma and other socio-political determinants of health for people of all sizes cause far more harm to fat people than body fat does. Bias endangers fat people’s health. Anti-obesity organizations, such as those consulted with for this movie, contribute to stigma rather than reducing it as they claim,” NAAFA wrote in a statement to this news organization.

And they added that though the fat suit used in the movie may be superior to previous ones, it is still not an accurate depiction: “The creators of The Whale consider its CGI-generated fat suit to be superior to tactile fat suits, but we don’t. The issue with fat suits in Hollywood is not that they aren’t realistic enough. The issue is that they are used rather than using performers who actually live in bodies like the ones being depicted. If there is a 600-pound character in a movie, there should be a 600-pound human in that role. Rather than concentrate on the hype around the fake fat body created for The Whale, we want to see Hollywood create more opportunities for fat people across the size spectrum, both in front of the camera and behind the scenes.”
 

Prosthetics vs. reality?

Ms. Nece says she understands the controversy surrounding the use of fat suits but believes that it was not done in poor taste.

“OAC got involved with the movie after Brendan was already chosen for the part, and we never would have gotten involved with it had the prosthetics or fat suit been used to ridicule or make fun of people with obesity, which is usually the case,” she explains.

“But we knew from the start that that was never the intent of anyone involved with The Whale. And I think that’s shown by the fact that Brendan and Darren Aronofsky, the director, reached out to people who live with obesity on a daily basis to find out and learn more about it and to educate themselves about it,” Ms. Nece continues.

In a Daily Mail article, Mr. Fraser credited his son Griffin, who is autistic and obese, with helping him understand the struggles that people with obesity face.

Rachel Goldman, PhD, a clinical psychologist in private practice in New York and a professor in the psychology department at New York University, notes that there are other considerations that played into casting. “I know there was some pushback in terms of could, a say 600-lb individual, even be able to go to be on set every day and do this kind of work, and the answer is we don’t know.”

“I’m sure Darren chose Brendan for many reasons above and beyond just his body. I think that’s very important to keep in mind that just as much as representation is very important, I think it is also about finding the right person for the right role,” adds Dr. Goldman, who served as a consultant to the film.
 

Fat suits, extreme weight gains all to play a role

About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to the 2017-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, but that reality is not reflected in films or television.

A study of 1018 major television characters found that 24% of men and 14% of women had either overweight or obesity – far below the national average. And when characters with obesity are portrayed, actors often wear prosthetics, like Gwyneth Paltrow in Shallow Hal or Eddie Murphy in the Nutty Professor.

But unlike Mr. Fraser, some actors gain weight quickly instead.

This practice is unhealthy, says Jaime Almandoz, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and a nonsurgical weight management expert. In interviews, actors have shared how they increased calorie intake by drinking two milkshakes per day, going to fast food places regularly, or, in Mark Walhberg’s case, consuming 7,000 calories per day to gain 30 pounds for his role as boxer-turned-priest in the movie Father Stu.

This method provides their bodies with excess calories they are unable to burn off. “Then the amount of sugar and fat that streams into the blood as a result creates problems both directly and indirectly as your body tries to store it. It basically ends up using overflow warehouses for fat storage, like the liver for example, so we can create a condition called fatty liver, or in the muscle and other places, and this excess sugar and fat in the bloodstream cause several factors that are both insulin resistance causing,” Dr. Almandoz explains.

Though gaining weight helps the actor understand the character’s life experience, it may also be risky.

“To have an actor deliberately put his own health at risk and gain a certain amount of weight and whatever that might entail, one – that’s not necessarily the safest thing for that actor – but two, it’s also important to highlight the authentic experience of someone who has dealt with this chronic disease as well,” says Disha Narang, MD, a quadruple-board certified endocrinologist, obesity medicine, and culinary medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital, Chicago.

These extreme fluctuations in weight may create problems. “It is typically not something we recommend because there could be metabolic damages as well as health concerns when patients are trying to gain weight quickly, just as we don’t want patients to lose weight quickly,” says Kurt Hong, MD, PhD, board-certified in internal medicine and clinical nutrition at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Hong notes that it may be difficult for individuals to experience sudden weight gain because the body works hard to maintain a state of homeostasis.

“Similarly, to someone trying to gain weight you overeat, initially your body will try to again, maybe enhance its metabolic efficiency to hold the body stable,” Dr. Hong adds.

Dietary choices that may contribute to insulin resistance or promote high blood sugar can contribute to inflammation and a number of other adverse health outcomes, notes Dr. Almandoz. “The things that actors need to do in order to gain this magnitude of weight and they want to do it in the most time-effective manner is often not helpful for our bodies, it can be very problematic, the same thing goes for weight loss when actors need to lose significant amounts of weight for roles,” says Dr. Almandoz.

And Dr. Hong explained that for patients trying to lose weight, they may cut calories, but the body will try to compensate by slowing down the metabolism to keep their weight the same.
 

‘Your own worst bully’

In “The Whale,” Charlie appears to suffer from internalized weight bias, which is common to many people living with obesity, Ms. Nece says.

“Internalized weight bias is when the person of size takes all that negativity and turns it on themselves. The easiest way to describe that is to tell you that I became my own worst bully because I started believing all the negative things people said to me about my weight,” Ms. Nece adds.

Her hope is that the film will bring attention to the harm that this bias creates, especially when it derives from other people. “There’s no telling whether it will, but what Charlie experiences in bias and stigma from others clearly happens. It’s realistic. Those of us in large bodies have experienced what he is experiencing, so some people have said the movie is fat-phobic, but I see it as I can relate to those experiences because I have them too, so they are very realistic.”

Ms. Nece notes that it is important for clinicians to understand that obesity is a multifaceted and sensitive topic. “For those medical professionals who do not already know that obesity is complex, I hope the film will begin to open their eyes to the many different facets involved in obesity and their patients with obesity, I hope it will help them empathize and show compassion to their patients with obesity,” she concludes.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I could relate to many, many, many of the experiences and emotions that Charlie, which is Brendan Fraser’s character, was portraying,” Patricia Nece recalls after watching a preview copy of the new film “The Whale.”

A24

Much of the movie “rang true and hit home for me as things that I, too, had experienced,” Ms. Nece, the board of directors’ chair of the Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) and a person living with obesity, shares with this news organization.

In theaters as of December 9, The Whale chronicles the experience of a 600-lb, middle-aged man named Charlie. Throughout the film, Charlie seeks to rebuild his relationship with his estranged teenage daughter. Charlie had left his daughter and family to pursue a relationship with a man, who eventually died. As he navigates the pain surrounding his partner’s death and his lack of community, Charlie turns to food for comfort.

When the movie premiered at the Venice Film Festival, Mr. Fraser received a 6-minute standing ovation. However, activists criticized the movie for casting Fraser over an actor with obesity as well as its depiction of people with obesity.

Representatives from the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance contend that casting an actor without obesity only contributes to ongoing bias against people of size. “Medical weight stigma and other socio-political determinants of health for people of all sizes cause far more harm to fat people than body fat does. Bias endangers fat people’s health. Anti-obesity organizations, such as those consulted with for this movie, contribute to stigma rather than reducing it as they claim,” NAAFA wrote in a statement to this news organization.

And they added that though the fat suit used in the movie may be superior to previous ones, it is still not an accurate depiction: “The creators of The Whale consider its CGI-generated fat suit to be superior to tactile fat suits, but we don’t. The issue with fat suits in Hollywood is not that they aren’t realistic enough. The issue is that they are used rather than using performers who actually live in bodies like the ones being depicted. If there is a 600-pound character in a movie, there should be a 600-pound human in that role. Rather than concentrate on the hype around the fake fat body created for The Whale, we want to see Hollywood create more opportunities for fat people across the size spectrum, both in front of the camera and behind the scenes.”
 

Prosthetics vs. reality?

Ms. Nece says she understands the controversy surrounding the use of fat suits but believes that it was not done in poor taste.

“OAC got involved with the movie after Brendan was already chosen for the part, and we never would have gotten involved with it had the prosthetics or fat suit been used to ridicule or make fun of people with obesity, which is usually the case,” she explains.

“But we knew from the start that that was never the intent of anyone involved with The Whale. And I think that’s shown by the fact that Brendan and Darren Aronofsky, the director, reached out to people who live with obesity on a daily basis to find out and learn more about it and to educate themselves about it,” Ms. Nece continues.

In a Daily Mail article, Mr. Fraser credited his son Griffin, who is autistic and obese, with helping him understand the struggles that people with obesity face.

Rachel Goldman, PhD, a clinical psychologist in private practice in New York and a professor in the psychology department at New York University, notes that there are other considerations that played into casting. “I know there was some pushback in terms of could, a say 600-lb individual, even be able to go to be on set every day and do this kind of work, and the answer is we don’t know.”

“I’m sure Darren chose Brendan for many reasons above and beyond just his body. I think that’s very important to keep in mind that just as much as representation is very important, I think it is also about finding the right person for the right role,” adds Dr. Goldman, who served as a consultant to the film.
 

Fat suits, extreme weight gains all to play a role

About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to the 2017-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, but that reality is not reflected in films or television.

A study of 1018 major television characters found that 24% of men and 14% of women had either overweight or obesity – far below the national average. And when characters with obesity are portrayed, actors often wear prosthetics, like Gwyneth Paltrow in Shallow Hal or Eddie Murphy in the Nutty Professor.

But unlike Mr. Fraser, some actors gain weight quickly instead.

This practice is unhealthy, says Jaime Almandoz, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and a nonsurgical weight management expert. In interviews, actors have shared how they increased calorie intake by drinking two milkshakes per day, going to fast food places regularly, or, in Mark Walhberg’s case, consuming 7,000 calories per day to gain 30 pounds for his role as boxer-turned-priest in the movie Father Stu.

This method provides their bodies with excess calories they are unable to burn off. “Then the amount of sugar and fat that streams into the blood as a result creates problems both directly and indirectly as your body tries to store it. It basically ends up using overflow warehouses for fat storage, like the liver for example, so we can create a condition called fatty liver, or in the muscle and other places, and this excess sugar and fat in the bloodstream cause several factors that are both insulin resistance causing,” Dr. Almandoz explains.

Though gaining weight helps the actor understand the character’s life experience, it may also be risky.

“To have an actor deliberately put his own health at risk and gain a certain amount of weight and whatever that might entail, one – that’s not necessarily the safest thing for that actor – but two, it’s also important to highlight the authentic experience of someone who has dealt with this chronic disease as well,” says Disha Narang, MD, a quadruple-board certified endocrinologist, obesity medicine, and culinary medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital, Chicago.

These extreme fluctuations in weight may create problems. “It is typically not something we recommend because there could be metabolic damages as well as health concerns when patients are trying to gain weight quickly, just as we don’t want patients to lose weight quickly,” says Kurt Hong, MD, PhD, board-certified in internal medicine and clinical nutrition at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Hong notes that it may be difficult for individuals to experience sudden weight gain because the body works hard to maintain a state of homeostasis.

“Similarly, to someone trying to gain weight you overeat, initially your body will try to again, maybe enhance its metabolic efficiency to hold the body stable,” Dr. Hong adds.

Dietary choices that may contribute to insulin resistance or promote high blood sugar can contribute to inflammation and a number of other adverse health outcomes, notes Dr. Almandoz. “The things that actors need to do in order to gain this magnitude of weight and they want to do it in the most time-effective manner is often not helpful for our bodies, it can be very problematic, the same thing goes for weight loss when actors need to lose significant amounts of weight for roles,” says Dr. Almandoz.

And Dr. Hong explained that for patients trying to lose weight, they may cut calories, but the body will try to compensate by slowing down the metabolism to keep their weight the same.
 

‘Your own worst bully’

In “The Whale,” Charlie appears to suffer from internalized weight bias, which is common to many people living with obesity, Ms. Nece says.

“Internalized weight bias is when the person of size takes all that negativity and turns it on themselves. The easiest way to describe that is to tell you that I became my own worst bully because I started believing all the negative things people said to me about my weight,” Ms. Nece adds.

Her hope is that the film will bring attention to the harm that this bias creates, especially when it derives from other people. “There’s no telling whether it will, but what Charlie experiences in bias and stigma from others clearly happens. It’s realistic. Those of us in large bodies have experienced what he is experiencing, so some people have said the movie is fat-phobic, but I see it as I can relate to those experiences because I have them too, so they are very realistic.”

Ms. Nece notes that it is important for clinicians to understand that obesity is a multifaceted and sensitive topic. “For those medical professionals who do not already know that obesity is complex, I hope the film will begin to open their eyes to the many different facets involved in obesity and their patients with obesity, I hope it will help them empathize and show compassion to their patients with obesity,” she concludes.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I could relate to many, many, many of the experiences and emotions that Charlie, which is Brendan Fraser’s character, was portraying,” Patricia Nece recalls after watching a preview copy of the new film “The Whale.”

A24

Much of the movie “rang true and hit home for me as things that I, too, had experienced,” Ms. Nece, the board of directors’ chair of the Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) and a person living with obesity, shares with this news organization.

In theaters as of December 9, The Whale chronicles the experience of a 600-lb, middle-aged man named Charlie. Throughout the film, Charlie seeks to rebuild his relationship with his estranged teenage daughter. Charlie had left his daughter and family to pursue a relationship with a man, who eventually died. As he navigates the pain surrounding his partner’s death and his lack of community, Charlie turns to food for comfort.

When the movie premiered at the Venice Film Festival, Mr. Fraser received a 6-minute standing ovation. However, activists criticized the movie for casting Fraser over an actor with obesity as well as its depiction of people with obesity.

Representatives from the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance contend that casting an actor without obesity only contributes to ongoing bias against people of size. “Medical weight stigma and other socio-political determinants of health for people of all sizes cause far more harm to fat people than body fat does. Bias endangers fat people’s health. Anti-obesity organizations, such as those consulted with for this movie, contribute to stigma rather than reducing it as they claim,” NAAFA wrote in a statement to this news organization.

And they added that though the fat suit used in the movie may be superior to previous ones, it is still not an accurate depiction: “The creators of The Whale consider its CGI-generated fat suit to be superior to tactile fat suits, but we don’t. The issue with fat suits in Hollywood is not that they aren’t realistic enough. The issue is that they are used rather than using performers who actually live in bodies like the ones being depicted. If there is a 600-pound character in a movie, there should be a 600-pound human in that role. Rather than concentrate on the hype around the fake fat body created for The Whale, we want to see Hollywood create more opportunities for fat people across the size spectrum, both in front of the camera and behind the scenes.”
 

Prosthetics vs. reality?

Ms. Nece says she understands the controversy surrounding the use of fat suits but believes that it was not done in poor taste.

“OAC got involved with the movie after Brendan was already chosen for the part, and we never would have gotten involved with it had the prosthetics or fat suit been used to ridicule or make fun of people with obesity, which is usually the case,” she explains.

“But we knew from the start that that was never the intent of anyone involved with The Whale. And I think that’s shown by the fact that Brendan and Darren Aronofsky, the director, reached out to people who live with obesity on a daily basis to find out and learn more about it and to educate themselves about it,” Ms. Nece continues.

In a Daily Mail article, Mr. Fraser credited his son Griffin, who is autistic and obese, with helping him understand the struggles that people with obesity face.

Rachel Goldman, PhD, a clinical psychologist in private practice in New York and a professor in the psychology department at New York University, notes that there are other considerations that played into casting. “I know there was some pushback in terms of could, a say 600-lb individual, even be able to go to be on set every day and do this kind of work, and the answer is we don’t know.”

“I’m sure Darren chose Brendan for many reasons above and beyond just his body. I think that’s very important to keep in mind that just as much as representation is very important, I think it is also about finding the right person for the right role,” adds Dr. Goldman, who served as a consultant to the film.
 

Fat suits, extreme weight gains all to play a role

About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to the 2017-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, but that reality is not reflected in films or television.

A study of 1018 major television characters found that 24% of men and 14% of women had either overweight or obesity – far below the national average. And when characters with obesity are portrayed, actors often wear prosthetics, like Gwyneth Paltrow in Shallow Hal or Eddie Murphy in the Nutty Professor.

But unlike Mr. Fraser, some actors gain weight quickly instead.

This practice is unhealthy, says Jaime Almandoz, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and a nonsurgical weight management expert. In interviews, actors have shared how they increased calorie intake by drinking two milkshakes per day, going to fast food places regularly, or, in Mark Walhberg’s case, consuming 7,000 calories per day to gain 30 pounds for his role as boxer-turned-priest in the movie Father Stu.

This method provides their bodies with excess calories they are unable to burn off. “Then the amount of sugar and fat that streams into the blood as a result creates problems both directly and indirectly as your body tries to store it. It basically ends up using overflow warehouses for fat storage, like the liver for example, so we can create a condition called fatty liver, or in the muscle and other places, and this excess sugar and fat in the bloodstream cause several factors that are both insulin resistance causing,” Dr. Almandoz explains.

Though gaining weight helps the actor understand the character’s life experience, it may also be risky.

“To have an actor deliberately put his own health at risk and gain a certain amount of weight and whatever that might entail, one – that’s not necessarily the safest thing for that actor – but two, it’s also important to highlight the authentic experience of someone who has dealt with this chronic disease as well,” says Disha Narang, MD, a quadruple-board certified endocrinologist, obesity medicine, and culinary medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital, Chicago.

These extreme fluctuations in weight may create problems. “It is typically not something we recommend because there could be metabolic damages as well as health concerns when patients are trying to gain weight quickly, just as we don’t want patients to lose weight quickly,” says Kurt Hong, MD, PhD, board-certified in internal medicine and clinical nutrition at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Hong notes that it may be difficult for individuals to experience sudden weight gain because the body works hard to maintain a state of homeostasis.

“Similarly, to someone trying to gain weight you overeat, initially your body will try to again, maybe enhance its metabolic efficiency to hold the body stable,” Dr. Hong adds.

Dietary choices that may contribute to insulin resistance or promote high blood sugar can contribute to inflammation and a number of other adverse health outcomes, notes Dr. Almandoz. “The things that actors need to do in order to gain this magnitude of weight and they want to do it in the most time-effective manner is often not helpful for our bodies, it can be very problematic, the same thing goes for weight loss when actors need to lose significant amounts of weight for roles,” says Dr. Almandoz.

And Dr. Hong explained that for patients trying to lose weight, they may cut calories, but the body will try to compensate by slowing down the metabolism to keep their weight the same.
 

‘Your own worst bully’

In “The Whale,” Charlie appears to suffer from internalized weight bias, which is common to many people living with obesity, Ms. Nece says.

“Internalized weight bias is when the person of size takes all that negativity and turns it on themselves. The easiest way to describe that is to tell you that I became my own worst bully because I started believing all the negative things people said to me about my weight,” Ms. Nece adds.

Her hope is that the film will bring attention to the harm that this bias creates, especially when it derives from other people. “There’s no telling whether it will, but what Charlie experiences in bias and stigma from others clearly happens. It’s realistic. Those of us in large bodies have experienced what he is experiencing, so some people have said the movie is fat-phobic, but I see it as I can relate to those experiences because I have them too, so they are very realistic.”

Ms. Nece notes that it is important for clinicians to understand that obesity is a multifaceted and sensitive topic. “For those medical professionals who do not already know that obesity is complex, I hope the film will begin to open their eyes to the many different facets involved in obesity and their patients with obesity, I hope it will help them empathize and show compassion to their patients with obesity,” she concludes.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Short bursts of activity are approximately as effective for general health as longer sessions, especially for those who are mainly sedentary, according to several recently published studies.

If your fitness goals are greater, and you want to build muscle strength and endurance, compete in a 5K, or just look better in your swimsuit, you will need to do more. But for basic health, it appears that short bursts can help, the new research papers and experts suggest.

“Whether you accumulate activity in many short bouts versus one extended bout, the general health benefits tend to be similar,” Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said in an interview.

Current public health recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest doing at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week for health benefits, but this activity can be accumulated in any way over the week, she noted. Previous versions of the CDC guidelines on exercise suggested that physical activity bouts should be at least 10 minutes each, but the latest version of the guidelines acknowledges that bursts of less than 10 minutes may be beneficial.

However, “the activity or fitness level at which someone starts and the specific health goals matter,” Dr. Paluch continued. “Short bouts may be particularly beneficial for those least active to get moving more to improve their general wellness.”

The current federal physical activity guidelines are still worth striving for, and patients can work their way to this goal, accumulating 150 or more minutes in a way that works best for them, she added.

“There is a lack of research directly comparing individuals who consistently accumulate their activity in many short bouts versus single bouts over an extended period of time,” Dr. Paluch noted. From a public health perspective, since both short and long bouts have health benefits, the best physical activity is what fits into your life and helps build a lifelong habit.

The benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health are well documented. A review from Circulation published in 2003 summarized the benefits of regular physical activity on measures of cardiovascular health including reduction in body weight, blood pressure, and bad cholesterol, while increasing insulin sensitivity, good cholesterol, and muscular strength and function. In that review, author Jonathan N. Myers, PhD, now of Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that “one need not be a marathon runner or an elite athlete to derive significant benefits from physical activity.” In fact, “the greatest gains in terms of mortality are achieved when an individual goes from being sedentary to becoming moderately active.”

A recent large, population-based study showed the value of short bursts of exercise for those previously sedentary. In this study, published in Nature Medicine, a team in Australia used wearable fitness trackers to measure the health benefits of what researchers have named “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” or VILPA.

Some examples of VILPA include power walking on the way to work, climbing stairs, or even running around with your kids on the playground.

Specifically, individuals who engaged in the median VILPA frequency of three bursts of vigorous activity lasting 1-2 minutes showed a 38%-40% reduction in all-cause mortality risk and cancer mortality risk, and a 48%-49% reduction in cardiovascular mortality risk.

The researchers repeated their analysis for a group of 62,344 adults from the UK Biobank who reported regular vigorous physical activity (VPA). They found similar effects on mortality, based on 1,552 deaths reported.

These results suggest that VILPA may be a reasonable physical activity target, especially for people not able or willing to exercise more formally or intensely, the researchers noted.

“We have known for a long time that leisure-time exercise often reaches vigorous intensity and has many health benefits, but we understand less about the health potential of daily movement, especially activities done as part of daily living that reach vigorous intensity,” lead author Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of physical activity, lifestyle and population health at the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre, said in an interview.

“As long as the heart rate goes up for a minute or 2 it will likely be vigorous activity,” Dr. Stamatakis said in an interview. “It is also important that clinicians effectively communicate how patients can know that they are reaching vigorous intensity,” he said.

Signs of vigorous intensity include increased heart rate and getting out of breath after about 20-40 seconds from the start of the VILPA burst. After about a minute of VILPA, the person doing it should be too out of breath to speak more than a few words comfortably, he said.
 

Data support value of any and all exercise

The Nature Medicine study supports other recent research showing the value of short, intense bursts of physical activity. A pair of recent studies also used fitness trackers to measure activity in adults and assess the benefits on outcomes including death and heart disease.

One of these studies, which was published in the European Heart Journal, also used fitness trackers to measure physical activity at moderate and vigorous levels. The researchers found that individuals who performed at least 20% of their physical activity at a moderate to high level, such as by doing brisk walking in lieu of strolling had a significantly lower risk of heart disease than those whose daily activity included less than 20% at a moderate or intense level.

In another study from the European Heart Journal, researchers found that short bursts of vigorous physical activity of 2 minutes or less adding up to 15-20 minutes per week was enough to reduce mortality by as much as 40%.

Plus, a meta-analysis published in the Lancet showed a decrease in all-cause mortality with an increase in the number of daily steps, although the impact of stepping rate on mortality was inconsistent.

“Many studies have investigated the health benefits of physical activity, but not the importance of these difficult-to-capture VILPA bouts that accrue during the course of normal activities of daily living,” Lee Stoner, PhD, an exercise physiologist and director of the Cardiometabolic Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Dr. Stoner, who was not involved in the Nature Medicine study, said he was not surprised by the overall finding that doing short bursts of activity impacted mortality and cardiovascular disease, but was slightly surprised by the strength of the evidence.

“The referent group in the Nature Medicine study were those accruing no VILPA”, likely meaning they were very inactive,” Dr. Stoner said and added that he thinks this demonstrates the value of VILPA.

Even without immediately meeting the specific numbers recommended by the CDC, “any physical activity is better than none, especially if vigorous, and VILPA can be built into normal daily routines,” Dr. Stoner added.
 

What’s missing in short bursts?

Short bursts of activity do have their limits when it comes to overall fitness, said Dr. Stoner.

“Endurance will not be improved as much through short bursts, because such activities are unlikely to be as effective at empowering the mitochondria – the batteries keeping our cells running, including skeletal muscle cells,” he said. “Additionally, the vigorous bouts are unlikely to be as effective at improving muscular strength and endurance. For this, it is recommended that we engage each muscle group in strengthening exercises two times per week.”

However, Dr. Stoner agreed that prescribing short bursts of intense activity as part of daily living may be a great way to get people started with exercise.

“The key is to remove barriers to physical activity pursuit, then focusing on long-term routine rather than short-term gain,” he said. “Individuals are better served if they focus on goals other than weight loss, for which physical activity or exercise may not be the solution. Rather, being physically active can improve vigor, make daily activities simpler, and improve cognitive abilities,” and any physical activity is one of the most effective solutions for regulating blood glucose levels and improving cardiovascular risk factors.
 

Make it routine – and fun

To benefit from physical activity, cultivating and sustaining a long-term routine is key, said Dr. Stoner, whose research has focused on sedentary behavior and cardiovascular disease. Whatever the activity is, shorter bursts, or longer bouts or both, it is essential that individuals figure out activities that they enjoy if they want to create sustained behavior, and thus health change, Gabriel Zieff, MA, a doctoral candidate in Dr. Stoner’s Cardiometabolic Lab, who conducts studies on exercise, noted in an interview.

“We exercise enthusiasts and researchers are often hyperfocused on whether this duration or that duration is better, whether this intensity or that intensity is better,” but at the end of the day, it is the enjoyment factor that often predicts sustained behavior change, and should be part of discussions with patients to help reduce sedentary behavior and promote activity, Mr. Zieff said.
 

Short bouts can encourage hesitant exercisers

“To best support health, clinicians should consider taking a few seconds to ask patients about their physical activity levels,” said Dr. Paluch, who was the lead author on the Lancet meta-analysis of daily steps. In that study, Dr. Paluch and colleagues found that taking more steps each day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, that study did not measure step rate.

Clinicians can emphasize that health benefits do not require an hour-long exercise routine and special equipment, and moving more, even in shorts bursts of activity can have meaningful associations with health, particularly for those who are less active, she said.

The recent studies on short bursts of activity agree that “some physical activity is better than none and adults should move more throughout the day in whatever way makes sense to them and fits best into their lives,” said Dr. Paluch. “For example, opting for the stairs instead of the elevator, a brisk walk to the bus stop, a short game of hide and seek with the children or grandchildren – anything that gets your body moving more, even if briefly. Making simple lifestyle changes is often easier in small bites. In time, this can grow into long-term habits, ultimately leading to an overall active lifestyle that supports living healthier for longer.”

The Nature Medicine study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Several coauthors were supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Novo Nordisk, the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, the Alan Turing Institute, the British Heart Foundation, and Health Data Research UK, an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation. Dr. Paluch and Dr. Stoner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Short bursts of activity are approximately as effective for general health as longer sessions, especially for those who are mainly sedentary, according to several recently published studies.

If your fitness goals are greater, and you want to build muscle strength and endurance, compete in a 5K, or just look better in your swimsuit, you will need to do more. But for basic health, it appears that short bursts can help, the new research papers and experts suggest.

“Whether you accumulate activity in many short bouts versus one extended bout, the general health benefits tend to be similar,” Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said in an interview.

Current public health recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest doing at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week for health benefits, but this activity can be accumulated in any way over the week, she noted. Previous versions of the CDC guidelines on exercise suggested that physical activity bouts should be at least 10 minutes each, but the latest version of the guidelines acknowledges that bursts of less than 10 minutes may be beneficial.

However, “the activity or fitness level at which someone starts and the specific health goals matter,” Dr. Paluch continued. “Short bouts may be particularly beneficial for those least active to get moving more to improve their general wellness.”

The current federal physical activity guidelines are still worth striving for, and patients can work their way to this goal, accumulating 150 or more minutes in a way that works best for them, she added.

“There is a lack of research directly comparing individuals who consistently accumulate their activity in many short bouts versus single bouts over an extended period of time,” Dr. Paluch noted. From a public health perspective, since both short and long bouts have health benefits, the best physical activity is what fits into your life and helps build a lifelong habit.

The benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health are well documented. A review from Circulation published in 2003 summarized the benefits of regular physical activity on measures of cardiovascular health including reduction in body weight, blood pressure, and bad cholesterol, while increasing insulin sensitivity, good cholesterol, and muscular strength and function. In that review, author Jonathan N. Myers, PhD, now of Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that “one need not be a marathon runner or an elite athlete to derive significant benefits from physical activity.” In fact, “the greatest gains in terms of mortality are achieved when an individual goes from being sedentary to becoming moderately active.”

A recent large, population-based study showed the value of short bursts of exercise for those previously sedentary. In this study, published in Nature Medicine, a team in Australia used wearable fitness trackers to measure the health benefits of what researchers have named “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” or VILPA.

Some examples of VILPA include power walking on the way to work, climbing stairs, or even running around with your kids on the playground.

Specifically, individuals who engaged in the median VILPA frequency of three bursts of vigorous activity lasting 1-2 minutes showed a 38%-40% reduction in all-cause mortality risk and cancer mortality risk, and a 48%-49% reduction in cardiovascular mortality risk.

The researchers repeated their analysis for a group of 62,344 adults from the UK Biobank who reported regular vigorous physical activity (VPA). They found similar effects on mortality, based on 1,552 deaths reported.

These results suggest that VILPA may be a reasonable physical activity target, especially for people not able or willing to exercise more formally or intensely, the researchers noted.

“We have known for a long time that leisure-time exercise often reaches vigorous intensity and has many health benefits, but we understand less about the health potential of daily movement, especially activities done as part of daily living that reach vigorous intensity,” lead author Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of physical activity, lifestyle and population health at the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre, said in an interview.

“As long as the heart rate goes up for a minute or 2 it will likely be vigorous activity,” Dr. Stamatakis said in an interview. “It is also important that clinicians effectively communicate how patients can know that they are reaching vigorous intensity,” he said.

Signs of vigorous intensity include increased heart rate and getting out of breath after about 20-40 seconds from the start of the VILPA burst. After about a minute of VILPA, the person doing it should be too out of breath to speak more than a few words comfortably, he said.
 

Data support value of any and all exercise

The Nature Medicine study supports other recent research showing the value of short, intense bursts of physical activity. A pair of recent studies also used fitness trackers to measure activity in adults and assess the benefits on outcomes including death and heart disease.

One of these studies, which was published in the European Heart Journal, also used fitness trackers to measure physical activity at moderate and vigorous levels. The researchers found that individuals who performed at least 20% of their physical activity at a moderate to high level, such as by doing brisk walking in lieu of strolling had a significantly lower risk of heart disease than those whose daily activity included less than 20% at a moderate or intense level.

In another study from the European Heart Journal, researchers found that short bursts of vigorous physical activity of 2 minutes or less adding up to 15-20 minutes per week was enough to reduce mortality by as much as 40%.

Plus, a meta-analysis published in the Lancet showed a decrease in all-cause mortality with an increase in the number of daily steps, although the impact of stepping rate on mortality was inconsistent.

“Many studies have investigated the health benefits of physical activity, but not the importance of these difficult-to-capture VILPA bouts that accrue during the course of normal activities of daily living,” Lee Stoner, PhD, an exercise physiologist and director of the Cardiometabolic Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Dr. Stoner, who was not involved in the Nature Medicine study, said he was not surprised by the overall finding that doing short bursts of activity impacted mortality and cardiovascular disease, but was slightly surprised by the strength of the evidence.

“The referent group in the Nature Medicine study were those accruing no VILPA”, likely meaning they were very inactive,” Dr. Stoner said and added that he thinks this demonstrates the value of VILPA.

Even without immediately meeting the specific numbers recommended by the CDC, “any physical activity is better than none, especially if vigorous, and VILPA can be built into normal daily routines,” Dr. Stoner added.
 

What’s missing in short bursts?

Short bursts of activity do have their limits when it comes to overall fitness, said Dr. Stoner.

“Endurance will not be improved as much through short bursts, because such activities are unlikely to be as effective at empowering the mitochondria – the batteries keeping our cells running, including skeletal muscle cells,” he said. “Additionally, the vigorous bouts are unlikely to be as effective at improving muscular strength and endurance. For this, it is recommended that we engage each muscle group in strengthening exercises two times per week.”

However, Dr. Stoner agreed that prescribing short bursts of intense activity as part of daily living may be a great way to get people started with exercise.

“The key is to remove barriers to physical activity pursuit, then focusing on long-term routine rather than short-term gain,” he said. “Individuals are better served if they focus on goals other than weight loss, for which physical activity or exercise may not be the solution. Rather, being physically active can improve vigor, make daily activities simpler, and improve cognitive abilities,” and any physical activity is one of the most effective solutions for regulating blood glucose levels and improving cardiovascular risk factors.
 

Make it routine – and fun

To benefit from physical activity, cultivating and sustaining a long-term routine is key, said Dr. Stoner, whose research has focused on sedentary behavior and cardiovascular disease. Whatever the activity is, shorter bursts, or longer bouts or both, it is essential that individuals figure out activities that they enjoy if they want to create sustained behavior, and thus health change, Gabriel Zieff, MA, a doctoral candidate in Dr. Stoner’s Cardiometabolic Lab, who conducts studies on exercise, noted in an interview.

“We exercise enthusiasts and researchers are often hyperfocused on whether this duration or that duration is better, whether this intensity or that intensity is better,” but at the end of the day, it is the enjoyment factor that often predicts sustained behavior change, and should be part of discussions with patients to help reduce sedentary behavior and promote activity, Mr. Zieff said.
 

Short bouts can encourage hesitant exercisers

“To best support health, clinicians should consider taking a few seconds to ask patients about their physical activity levels,” said Dr. Paluch, who was the lead author on the Lancet meta-analysis of daily steps. In that study, Dr. Paluch and colleagues found that taking more steps each day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, that study did not measure step rate.

Clinicians can emphasize that health benefits do not require an hour-long exercise routine and special equipment, and moving more, even in shorts bursts of activity can have meaningful associations with health, particularly for those who are less active, she said.

The recent studies on short bursts of activity agree that “some physical activity is better than none and adults should move more throughout the day in whatever way makes sense to them and fits best into their lives,” said Dr. Paluch. “For example, opting for the stairs instead of the elevator, a brisk walk to the bus stop, a short game of hide and seek with the children or grandchildren – anything that gets your body moving more, even if briefly. Making simple lifestyle changes is often easier in small bites. In time, this can grow into long-term habits, ultimately leading to an overall active lifestyle that supports living healthier for longer.”

The Nature Medicine study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Several coauthors were supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Novo Nordisk, the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, the Alan Turing Institute, the British Heart Foundation, and Health Data Research UK, an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation. Dr. Paluch and Dr. Stoner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Short bursts of activity are approximately as effective for general health as longer sessions, especially for those who are mainly sedentary, according to several recently published studies.

If your fitness goals are greater, and you want to build muscle strength and endurance, compete in a 5K, or just look better in your swimsuit, you will need to do more. But for basic health, it appears that short bursts can help, the new research papers and experts suggest.

“Whether you accumulate activity in many short bouts versus one extended bout, the general health benefits tend to be similar,” Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said in an interview.

Current public health recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest doing at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week for health benefits, but this activity can be accumulated in any way over the week, she noted. Previous versions of the CDC guidelines on exercise suggested that physical activity bouts should be at least 10 minutes each, but the latest version of the guidelines acknowledges that bursts of less than 10 minutes may be beneficial.

However, “the activity or fitness level at which someone starts and the specific health goals matter,” Dr. Paluch continued. “Short bouts may be particularly beneficial for those least active to get moving more to improve their general wellness.”

The current federal physical activity guidelines are still worth striving for, and patients can work their way to this goal, accumulating 150 or more minutes in a way that works best for them, she added.

“There is a lack of research directly comparing individuals who consistently accumulate their activity in many short bouts versus single bouts over an extended period of time,” Dr. Paluch noted. From a public health perspective, since both short and long bouts have health benefits, the best physical activity is what fits into your life and helps build a lifelong habit.

The benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health are well documented. A review from Circulation published in 2003 summarized the benefits of regular physical activity on measures of cardiovascular health including reduction in body weight, blood pressure, and bad cholesterol, while increasing insulin sensitivity, good cholesterol, and muscular strength and function. In that review, author Jonathan N. Myers, PhD, now of Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that “one need not be a marathon runner or an elite athlete to derive significant benefits from physical activity.” In fact, “the greatest gains in terms of mortality are achieved when an individual goes from being sedentary to becoming moderately active.”

A recent large, population-based study showed the value of short bursts of exercise for those previously sedentary. In this study, published in Nature Medicine, a team in Australia used wearable fitness trackers to measure the health benefits of what researchers have named “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” or VILPA.

Some examples of VILPA include power walking on the way to work, climbing stairs, or even running around with your kids on the playground.

Specifically, individuals who engaged in the median VILPA frequency of three bursts of vigorous activity lasting 1-2 minutes showed a 38%-40% reduction in all-cause mortality risk and cancer mortality risk, and a 48%-49% reduction in cardiovascular mortality risk.

The researchers repeated their analysis for a group of 62,344 adults from the UK Biobank who reported regular vigorous physical activity (VPA). They found similar effects on mortality, based on 1,552 deaths reported.

These results suggest that VILPA may be a reasonable physical activity target, especially for people not able or willing to exercise more formally or intensely, the researchers noted.

“We have known for a long time that leisure-time exercise often reaches vigorous intensity and has many health benefits, but we understand less about the health potential of daily movement, especially activities done as part of daily living that reach vigorous intensity,” lead author Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of physical activity, lifestyle and population health at the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre, said in an interview.

“As long as the heart rate goes up for a minute or 2 it will likely be vigorous activity,” Dr. Stamatakis said in an interview. “It is also important that clinicians effectively communicate how patients can know that they are reaching vigorous intensity,” he said.

Signs of vigorous intensity include increased heart rate and getting out of breath after about 20-40 seconds from the start of the VILPA burst. After about a minute of VILPA, the person doing it should be too out of breath to speak more than a few words comfortably, he said.
 

Data support value of any and all exercise

The Nature Medicine study supports other recent research showing the value of short, intense bursts of physical activity. A pair of recent studies also used fitness trackers to measure activity in adults and assess the benefits on outcomes including death and heart disease.

One of these studies, which was published in the European Heart Journal, also used fitness trackers to measure physical activity at moderate and vigorous levels. The researchers found that individuals who performed at least 20% of their physical activity at a moderate to high level, such as by doing brisk walking in lieu of strolling had a significantly lower risk of heart disease than those whose daily activity included less than 20% at a moderate or intense level.

In another study from the European Heart Journal, researchers found that short bursts of vigorous physical activity of 2 minutes or less adding up to 15-20 minutes per week was enough to reduce mortality by as much as 40%.

Plus, a meta-analysis published in the Lancet showed a decrease in all-cause mortality with an increase in the number of daily steps, although the impact of stepping rate on mortality was inconsistent.

“Many studies have investigated the health benefits of physical activity, but not the importance of these difficult-to-capture VILPA bouts that accrue during the course of normal activities of daily living,” Lee Stoner, PhD, an exercise physiologist and director of the Cardiometabolic Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Dr. Stoner, who was not involved in the Nature Medicine study, said he was not surprised by the overall finding that doing short bursts of activity impacted mortality and cardiovascular disease, but was slightly surprised by the strength of the evidence.

“The referent group in the Nature Medicine study were those accruing no VILPA”, likely meaning they were very inactive,” Dr. Stoner said and added that he thinks this demonstrates the value of VILPA.

Even without immediately meeting the specific numbers recommended by the CDC, “any physical activity is better than none, especially if vigorous, and VILPA can be built into normal daily routines,” Dr. Stoner added.
 

What’s missing in short bursts?

Short bursts of activity do have their limits when it comes to overall fitness, said Dr. Stoner.

“Endurance will not be improved as much through short bursts, because such activities are unlikely to be as effective at empowering the mitochondria – the batteries keeping our cells running, including skeletal muscle cells,” he said. “Additionally, the vigorous bouts are unlikely to be as effective at improving muscular strength and endurance. For this, it is recommended that we engage each muscle group in strengthening exercises two times per week.”

However, Dr. Stoner agreed that prescribing short bursts of intense activity as part of daily living may be a great way to get people started with exercise.

“The key is to remove barriers to physical activity pursuit, then focusing on long-term routine rather than short-term gain,” he said. “Individuals are better served if they focus on goals other than weight loss, for which physical activity or exercise may not be the solution. Rather, being physically active can improve vigor, make daily activities simpler, and improve cognitive abilities,” and any physical activity is one of the most effective solutions for regulating blood glucose levels and improving cardiovascular risk factors.
 

Make it routine – and fun

To benefit from physical activity, cultivating and sustaining a long-term routine is key, said Dr. Stoner, whose research has focused on sedentary behavior and cardiovascular disease. Whatever the activity is, shorter bursts, or longer bouts or both, it is essential that individuals figure out activities that they enjoy if they want to create sustained behavior, and thus health change, Gabriel Zieff, MA, a doctoral candidate in Dr. Stoner’s Cardiometabolic Lab, who conducts studies on exercise, noted in an interview.

“We exercise enthusiasts and researchers are often hyperfocused on whether this duration or that duration is better, whether this intensity or that intensity is better,” but at the end of the day, it is the enjoyment factor that often predicts sustained behavior change, and should be part of discussions with patients to help reduce sedentary behavior and promote activity, Mr. Zieff said.
 

Short bouts can encourage hesitant exercisers

“To best support health, clinicians should consider taking a few seconds to ask patients about their physical activity levels,” said Dr. Paluch, who was the lead author on the Lancet meta-analysis of daily steps. In that study, Dr. Paluch and colleagues found that taking more steps each day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, that study did not measure step rate.

Clinicians can emphasize that health benefits do not require an hour-long exercise routine and special equipment, and moving more, even in shorts bursts of activity can have meaningful associations with health, particularly for those who are less active, she said.

The recent studies on short bursts of activity agree that “some physical activity is better than none and adults should move more throughout the day in whatever way makes sense to them and fits best into their lives,” said Dr. Paluch. “For example, opting for the stairs instead of the elevator, a brisk walk to the bus stop, a short game of hide and seek with the children or grandchildren – anything that gets your body moving more, even if briefly. Making simple lifestyle changes is often easier in small bites. In time, this can grow into long-term habits, ultimately leading to an overall active lifestyle that supports living healthier for longer.”

The Nature Medicine study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Several coauthors were supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Novo Nordisk, the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, the Alan Turing Institute, the British Heart Foundation, and Health Data Research UK, an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation. Dr. Paluch and Dr. Stoner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued extended growth charts to help doctors and researchers better understand patterns of development for the most overweight children and adolescents.

In 2017-2018, more than 4.5 million U.S. youth met the criteria for severe obesity – defined as 120% of the 95th percentile, or 35 kg/m² or greater – according to the CDC.

The new growth charts will not replace the current charts but extend beyond the 97th percentile for body mass index. Formerly, data were extrapolated for anything over the 95th percentile based on evidence from 1963 to 1980, when obesity rates were lower.

The extended growth charts are based on data collected between 1988 and 2015 from young children and adolescents with obesity.

Experts said the expanded charts will allow researchers and clinicians to track the effects of interventions for obesity whether they involve an increase in physical activity, a decrease in consumption, or other interventions. The corresponding z-score charts also are provided.

Physicians should still use the CDC’s BMI-for-age growth charts from 2000 for pediatric patients with BMIs under the 95th percentile. The agency said it does not intend to update those charts.

The definitions of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity remain unchanged.
 

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued extended growth charts to help doctors and researchers better understand patterns of development for the most overweight children and adolescents.

In 2017-2018, more than 4.5 million U.S. youth met the criteria for severe obesity – defined as 120% of the 95th percentile, or 35 kg/m² or greater – according to the CDC.

The new growth charts will not replace the current charts but extend beyond the 97th percentile for body mass index. Formerly, data were extrapolated for anything over the 95th percentile based on evidence from 1963 to 1980, when obesity rates were lower.

The extended growth charts are based on data collected between 1988 and 2015 from young children and adolescents with obesity.

Experts said the expanded charts will allow researchers and clinicians to track the effects of interventions for obesity whether they involve an increase in physical activity, a decrease in consumption, or other interventions. The corresponding z-score charts also are provided.

Physicians should still use the CDC’s BMI-for-age growth charts from 2000 for pediatric patients with BMIs under the 95th percentile. The agency said it does not intend to update those charts.

The definitions of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity remain unchanged.
 

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued extended growth charts to help doctors and researchers better understand patterns of development for the most overweight children and adolescents.

In 2017-2018, more than 4.5 million U.S. youth met the criteria for severe obesity – defined as 120% of the 95th percentile, or 35 kg/m² or greater – according to the CDC.

The new growth charts will not replace the current charts but extend beyond the 97th percentile for body mass index. Formerly, data were extrapolated for anything over the 95th percentile based on evidence from 1963 to 1980, when obesity rates were lower.

The extended growth charts are based on data collected between 1988 and 2015 from young children and adolescents with obesity.

Experts said the expanded charts will allow researchers and clinicians to track the effects of interventions for obesity whether they involve an increase in physical activity, a decrease in consumption, or other interventions. The corresponding z-score charts also are provided.

Physicians should still use the CDC’s BMI-for-age growth charts from 2000 for pediatric patients with BMIs under the 95th percentile. The agency said it does not intend to update those charts.

The definitions of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity remain unchanged.
 

Obesity is not a universal phenotype in children with type 2 diabetes (T2D), a global systematic review and meta-analysis reported. In fact, the study found, as many as one in four children with T2D do not have obesity and some have normal reference-range body mass measurements. Further studies should consider other mechanisms beyond obesity in the genesis of pediatric diabetes, the authors of the international analysis concluded, writing for JAMA Network Open.

“We were aware that some children and adolescents with T2D did not have obesity, but we didn’t know the scale of obesity in T2D, or what variables may impact the occurrence of diabetes in this group,” endocrinologist M. Constantine Samaan, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. “So, the analysis did help us understand the body mass distribution of this group in more detail.”

Obesity is not a universal phenotype in children with type 2 diabetes (T2D), a global systematic review and meta-analysis reported. In fact, the study found, as many as one in four children with T2D do not have obesity and some have normal reference-range body mass measurements. Further studies should consider other mechanisms beyond obesity in the genesis of pediatric diabetes, the authors of the international analysis concluded, writing for JAMA Network Open.

“We were aware that some children and adolescents with T2D did not have obesity, but we didn’t know the scale of obesity in T2D, or what variables may impact the occurrence of diabetes in this group,” endocrinologist M. Constantine Samaan, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. “So, the analysis did help us understand the body mass distribution of this group in more detail.”

Obesity is not a universal phenotype in children with type 2 diabetes (T2D), a global systematic review and meta-analysis reported. In fact, the study found, as many as one in four children with T2D do not have obesity and some have normal reference-range body mass measurements. Further studies should consider other mechanisms beyond obesity in the genesis of pediatric diabetes, the authors of the international analysis concluded, writing for JAMA Network Open.

“We were aware that some children and adolescents with T2D did not have obesity, but we didn’t know the scale of obesity in T2D, or what variables may impact the occurrence of diabetes in this group,” endocrinologist M. Constantine Samaan, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. “So, the analysis did help us understand the body mass distribution of this group in more detail.”

A former associate professor at Purdue University faked data in two published papers and hundreds of images in 16 grant applications, according to a U.S. government research watchdog. 

Alice C. Chang, PhD, whose publications and grants listed her name as Chun-Ju Chang, received nearly $700,000 in funding from the National Institutes of Health through grant applications that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity said contained fake data. She will be banned from receiving federal grants for a decade – a more severe sanction than ORI has typically imposed in recent years.

In its findings, ORI said Dr. Chang, who was an associate professor of basic medical sciences at Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, Ind., “knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated data from the same mouse models or cell lines by reusing the data, with or without manipulation, to represent unrelated experiments from different mouse models or cell lines with different treatments in three hundred eighty-four (384) figure panels in sixteen (16) grant applications.”

Two of the grant applications were funded. Dr. Chang received $688,196 from the National Cancer Institute, a division of NIH, from 2018 to 2019 for “Targeting metformin-directed stem cell fate in triple negative breast cancer.” The other grant ORI says was submitted in 2014 and funded, “Targeting cell polarity machinery to exhaust breast cancer stem cell pool,” does not show up in NIH RePorter. The rest of the grants were not approved. 

We found a Chun-Ju Chang who is dean of the College of Life Sciences at China Medical University in Taiwan and has published papers with a group that Chun-Ju Chang at Purdue also published with. She did not immediately respond to our request for comment. 

ORI’s finding also stated Dr. Chang faked data in two papers supported by government funding by reusing figures reporting gene expression in mice and cells after drug treatments, relabeling them to say they showed the results of different experiments. According to the agency, she has agreed to request corrections for the papers: 

“Leptin–STAT3–G9a Signaling Promotes Obesity-Mediated Breast Cancer Progression,” published in May 2015 in Cancer Research and cited 83 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

“Retinoic acid directs breast cancer cell state changes through regulation of TET2-PKC-zeta pathway,” published in February 2017 in Oncogene and cited 26 times. 

Between the two papers and 15 of the grant applications, ORI said that Dr. Chang reused gene expression data, sometimes with manipulation, in 119 figure panels. She reused other types of data and images in hundreds of figures across multiple grant applications, ORI found. 

As well as correcting the two papers, Dr. Chang agreed to a 10-year ban from all federal contracting, including grant funding. She also agreed not to serve in any advisory or consulting role with the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes the NIH, for that time period.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

A former associate professor at Purdue University faked data in two published papers and hundreds of images in 16 grant applications, according to a U.S. government research watchdog. 

Alice C. Chang, PhD, whose publications and grants listed her name as Chun-Ju Chang, received nearly $700,000 in funding from the National Institutes of Health through grant applications that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity said contained fake data. She will be banned from receiving federal grants for a decade – a more severe sanction than ORI has typically imposed in recent years.

In its findings, ORI said Dr. Chang, who was an associate professor of basic medical sciences at Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, Ind., “knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated data from the same mouse models or cell lines by reusing the data, with or without manipulation, to represent unrelated experiments from different mouse models or cell lines with different treatments in three hundred eighty-four (384) figure panels in sixteen (16) grant applications.”

Two of the grant applications were funded. Dr. Chang received $688,196 from the National Cancer Institute, a division of NIH, from 2018 to 2019 for “Targeting metformin-directed stem cell fate in triple negative breast cancer.” The other grant ORI says was submitted in 2014 and funded, “Targeting cell polarity machinery to exhaust breast cancer stem cell pool,” does not show up in NIH RePorter. The rest of the grants were not approved. 

We found a Chun-Ju Chang who is dean of the College of Life Sciences at China Medical University in Taiwan and has published papers with a group that Chun-Ju Chang at Purdue also published with. She did not immediately respond to our request for comment. 

ORI’s finding also stated Dr. Chang faked data in two papers supported by government funding by reusing figures reporting gene expression in mice and cells after drug treatments, relabeling them to say they showed the results of different experiments. According to the agency, she has agreed to request corrections for the papers: 

“Leptin–STAT3–G9a Signaling Promotes Obesity-Mediated Breast Cancer Progression,” published in May 2015 in Cancer Research and cited 83 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

“Retinoic acid directs breast cancer cell state changes through regulation of TET2-PKC-zeta pathway,” published in February 2017 in Oncogene and cited 26 times. 

Between the two papers and 15 of the grant applications, ORI said that Dr. Chang reused gene expression data, sometimes with manipulation, in 119 figure panels. She reused other types of data and images in hundreds of figures across multiple grant applications, ORI found. 

As well as correcting the two papers, Dr. Chang agreed to a 10-year ban from all federal contracting, including grant funding. She also agreed not to serve in any advisory or consulting role with the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes the NIH, for that time period.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

A former associate professor at Purdue University faked data in two published papers and hundreds of images in 16 grant applications, according to a U.S. government research watchdog. 

Alice C. Chang, PhD, whose publications and grants listed her name as Chun-Ju Chang, received nearly $700,000 in funding from the National Institutes of Health through grant applications that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity said contained fake data. She will be banned from receiving federal grants for a decade – a more severe sanction than ORI has typically imposed in recent years.

In its findings, ORI said Dr. Chang, who was an associate professor of basic medical sciences at Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, Ind., “knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated data from the same mouse models or cell lines by reusing the data, with or without manipulation, to represent unrelated experiments from different mouse models or cell lines with different treatments in three hundred eighty-four (384) figure panels in sixteen (16) grant applications.”

Two of the grant applications were funded. Dr. Chang received $688,196 from the National Cancer Institute, a division of NIH, from 2018 to 2019 for “Targeting metformin-directed stem cell fate in triple negative breast cancer.” The other grant ORI says was submitted in 2014 and funded, “Targeting cell polarity machinery to exhaust breast cancer stem cell pool,” does not show up in NIH RePorter. The rest of the grants were not approved. 

We found a Chun-Ju Chang who is dean of the College of Life Sciences at China Medical University in Taiwan and has published papers with a group that Chun-Ju Chang at Purdue also published with. She did not immediately respond to our request for comment. 

ORI’s finding also stated Dr. Chang faked data in two papers supported by government funding by reusing figures reporting gene expression in mice and cells after drug treatments, relabeling them to say they showed the results of different experiments. According to the agency, she has agreed to request corrections for the papers: 

“Leptin–STAT3–G9a Signaling Promotes Obesity-Mediated Breast Cancer Progression,” published in May 2015 in Cancer Research and cited 83 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

“Retinoic acid directs breast cancer cell state changes through regulation of TET2-PKC-zeta pathway,” published in February 2017 in Oncogene and cited 26 times. 

Between the two papers and 15 of the grant applications, ORI said that Dr. Chang reused gene expression data, sometimes with manipulation, in 119 figure panels. She reused other types of data and images in hundreds of figures across multiple grant applications, ORI found. 

As well as correcting the two papers, Dr. Chang agreed to a 10-year ban from all federal contracting, including grant funding. She also agreed not to serve in any advisory or consulting role with the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes the NIH, for that time period.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

This article was originally published December 10 on Medscape editor-in-chief Eric Topol’s Substack ”Ground Truths.”

There are many holy grails in medicine, with failure after failure, like finding a way to prevent Alzheimer’s disease or a noninvasive means for accurately measuring ambulatory blood pressure. But one of the biggest and most daunting has been finding drugs that can tackle obesity – achieving a substantial amount of weight loss without serious side effects. Many attempts to get there now fill a graveyard of failed drugs, such as fen-phen in the 1990s when a single small study of this drug combination in 121 people unleashed millions of prescriptions, some leading to serious heart valve lesions that resulted in withdrawal of the drug in 1995. The drug rimonabant, an endocannabinoid receptor blocker (think of blocking the munchies after marijuana) looked encouraging in randomized trials. However, subsequently, in a trial that I led of nearly 19,000 participants in 42 countries around the world, there was a significant excess of depression, neuropsychiatric side-effects and suicidal ideation which spelled the end of that drug’s life.

In the United States, where there had not been an antiobesity drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2014, Wegovy (semaglutide), a once-weekly injection was approved in June 2021. The same drug, at a lower dose, is known as Ozempic (as in O-O-O, Ozempic, the ubiquitous commercial that you undoubtedly hear and see on TV) and had already been approved in January 2020 for improving glucose regulation in diabetes. The next drug on fast track at FDA to be imminently approved is tirzepatide (Mounjaro) following its approval for diabetes in May 2022. It is noteworthy that the discovery of these drugs for weight loss was serendipitous: they were being developed for improving glucose regulation and unexpectedly were found to achieve significant weight reduction.

Both semaglutide and tirzepatide underwent randomized, placebo-controlled trials for obesity, with marked reduction of weight as shown below. Tirzepatide at dose of 10-15 mg per week achieved greater than 20% body weight reduction. Semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg achieved about 17% reduction. These per cent changes in body weight are 7-9 fold more than seen with placebo (2%-3% reduction). Note: these levels of percent body-weight reduction resemble what is typically achieved with the different types of bariatric surgery, such as gastric bypass.

How do these drugs work?

These are peptides in the class of incretins, mimicking gut hormones that are secreted after food intake which stimulate insulin secretion.

How they are given and practical considerations

For semaglutide, which has FDA approval, the indication is a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater than 27 and a weight-related medical condition (such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes). To reduce the GI side effects, which mainly occur in the early dose escalation period, semaglutide is given in increasing doses by a prefilled pen by self-injection under the skin (abdomen, thigh, or arm) starting at 0.25 mg for a month and gradual increases each month reaching the maximum dose of 2.4 mg at month 5. The FDA label for dosing of tirzepatide has not been provided yet but in the weight loss trial there was a similar dose escalation from 2.5 mg up to 15 mg by month 5. The escalation is essential to reduce the frequent GI side effects, such as seen below in the tirzepatide trial.

What does this mean?

More than 650 million adults and 340 million children aged 5-18 are obese. The global obesity epidemic has been relentless, worsening each year, and a driver of “diabesity,” the combined dual epidemic. We now have a breakthrough class of drugs that can achieve profound weight loss equivalent to bariatric surgery, along with the side benefits of reducing cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension and hyperlipidemia), improving glucose regulation, reversing fatty liver, and the many detrimental long-term effects of obesity such as osteoarthritis and various cancers. That, in itself, is remarkable. Revolutionary.

But the downsides are also obvious. Self-injections, even though they are once a week, are not palatable for many. We have seen far more of these injectables in recent years such as the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors for hypercholesterolemia or the tumor necrosis factor blockers for autoimmune conditions. That still will not make them a popular item for such an enormous population of potential users.

That brings me to Rybelsus, the oral form of semaglutide, which is approved for glucose regulation improvement but not obesity. It effects for weight loss have been modest, compared with Wegovy (5 to 8 pounds for the 7- and 14-mg dose, respectively). But the potential for the very high efficacy of an injectable to be achievable via a pill represents an important path going forward—it could help markedly reduce the cost and uptake.

The problem of discontinuation of the drugs is big, since there are limited data and the likelihood is that the weight will be regained unless there are substantial changes in lifestyle. We know how hard it is to durably achieve such changes, along with the undesirability (and uncertainty with respect to unknown side effects) of having to take injectable drugs for many years, no less the cost of doing that.

The cost of these drugs will clearly and profoundly exacerbate inequities, since they are eminently affordable by the rich, but the need is extreme among the indigent. We’ve already seen celebrities take Wegovy for weight loss who are not obese, a window into how these drugs can and will be used without supportive data. As one physician recently observed, “Other than Viagra and Botox, I’ve seen no other medication so quickly become part of modern culture’s social vernacular.” Already there are concerns that such use is preventing access to the drugs for those who qualify and need them.

There are multiple agents in the class under development which should help increase competition and reduce cost, but they will remain expensive. There is private insurance reimbursement, often with a significant copay, for people who tightly fit the inclusion criteria. Eventual coverage by Medicare will markedly expand their use, and we can expect cost-effectiveness studies to be published showing how much saving there is for the drugs compared with bariatric surgery or not achieving the weight loss. But that doesn’t change the cost at the societal level. Even as we’ve seen with generics, which will ultimately be available, the alleviation of the cost problem isn’t what we’d hoped.

This is not unlike the recent triumphs of gene therapy, as in $3.5 million for a cure of hemophilia that just got FDA approval, but instead of a rare disease we are talking about the most common medical condition in the world. We finally get across the long sought after (what many would qualify as miraculous) goal line, but the economics collide with the uptake and real benefit.

These concerns can’t be put aside in the health inequity-laden world we live in, that will unquestionably be exacerbated. However, we cannot miss that this represents one of the most important, biggest medical breakthroughs in history. This may signify the end or marked reduction in the need for bariatric surgery. These drugs will likely become some of the most prescribed of all medications in the upcoming years. While there are many drawbacks, we shouldn’t miss such an extraordinary advance in medicine – the first real, potent and safe treatment of obesity.

Thanks for reading Ground Truths. I hope you will share these posts and subscribe, to be sure you don’t miss them.

Dr. Topol is director, Scripps Translational Science Institute; executive vice president and professor of molecular medicine at The Scripps Research Institute and senior consultant, division of cardiovascular diseases, at the Scripps Clinic, both in La Jolla, Calif. He disclosed relevant financial relationships with Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Walgreens, Quest Diagnostics, MyoKardia, and National Institutes of Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published December 10 on Medscape editor-in-chief Eric Topol’s Substack ”Ground Truths.”

There are many holy grails in medicine, with failure after failure, like finding a way to prevent Alzheimer’s disease or a noninvasive means for accurately measuring ambulatory blood pressure. But one of the biggest and most daunting has been finding drugs that can tackle obesity – achieving a substantial amount of weight loss without serious side effects. Many attempts to get there now fill a graveyard of failed drugs, such as fen-phen in the 1990s when a single small study of this drug combination in 121 people unleashed millions of prescriptions, some leading to serious heart valve lesions that resulted in withdrawal of the drug in 1995. The drug rimonabant, an endocannabinoid receptor blocker (think of blocking the munchies after marijuana) looked encouraging in randomized trials. However, subsequently, in a trial that I led of nearly 19,000 participants in 42 countries around the world, there was a significant excess of depression, neuropsychiatric side-effects and suicidal ideation which spelled the end of that drug’s life.

In the United States, where there had not been an antiobesity drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2014, Wegovy (semaglutide), a once-weekly injection was approved in June 2021. The same drug, at a lower dose, is known as Ozempic (as in O-O-O, Ozempic, the ubiquitous commercial that you undoubtedly hear and see on TV) and had already been approved in January 2020 for improving glucose regulation in diabetes. The next drug on fast track at FDA to be imminently approved is tirzepatide (Mounjaro) following its approval for diabetes in May 2022. It is noteworthy that the discovery of these drugs for weight loss was serendipitous: they were being developed for improving glucose regulation and unexpectedly were found to achieve significant weight reduction.

Both semaglutide and tirzepatide underwent randomized, placebo-controlled trials for obesity, with marked reduction of weight as shown below. Tirzepatide at dose of 10-15 mg per week achieved greater than 20% body weight reduction. Semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg achieved about 17% reduction. These per cent changes in body weight are 7-9 fold more than seen with placebo (2%-3% reduction). Note: these levels of percent body-weight reduction resemble what is typically achieved with the different types of bariatric surgery, such as gastric bypass.

How do these drugs work?

These are peptides in the class of incretins, mimicking gut hormones that are secreted after food intake which stimulate insulin secretion.

How they are given and practical considerations

For semaglutide, which has FDA approval, the indication is a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater than 27 and a weight-related medical condition (such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes). To reduce the GI side effects, which mainly occur in the early dose escalation period, semaglutide is given in increasing doses by a prefilled pen by self-injection under the skin (abdomen, thigh, or arm) starting at 0.25 mg for a month and gradual increases each month reaching the maximum dose of 2.4 mg at month 5. The FDA label for dosing of tirzepatide has not been provided yet but in the weight loss trial there was a similar dose escalation from 2.5 mg up to 15 mg by month 5. The escalation is essential to reduce the frequent GI side effects, such as seen below in the tirzepatide trial.

What does this mean?

More than 650 million adults and 340 million children aged 5-18 are obese. The global obesity epidemic has been relentless, worsening each year, and a driver of “diabesity,” the combined dual epidemic. We now have a breakthrough class of drugs that can achieve profound weight loss equivalent to bariatric surgery, along with the side benefits of reducing cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension and hyperlipidemia), improving glucose regulation, reversing fatty liver, and the many detrimental long-term effects of obesity such as osteoarthritis and various cancers. That, in itself, is remarkable. Revolutionary.

But the downsides are also obvious. Self-injections, even though they are once a week, are not palatable for many. We have seen far more of these injectables in recent years such as the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors for hypercholesterolemia or the tumor necrosis factor blockers for autoimmune conditions. That still will not make them a popular item for such an enormous population of potential users.

That brings me to Rybelsus, the oral form of semaglutide, which is approved for glucose regulation improvement but not obesity. It effects for weight loss have been modest, compared with Wegovy (5 to 8 pounds for the 7- and 14-mg dose, respectively). But the potential for the very high efficacy of an injectable to be achievable via a pill represents an important path going forward—it could help markedly reduce the cost and uptake.

The problem of discontinuation of the drugs is big, since there are limited data and the likelihood is that the weight will be regained unless there are substantial changes in lifestyle. We know how hard it is to durably achieve such changes, along with the undesirability (and uncertainty with respect to unknown side effects) of having to take injectable drugs for many years, no less the cost of doing that.

The cost of these drugs will clearly and profoundly exacerbate inequities, since they are eminently affordable by the rich, but the need is extreme among the indigent. We’ve already seen celebrities take Wegovy for weight loss who are not obese, a window into how these drugs can and will be used without supportive data. As one physician recently observed, “Other than Viagra and Botox, I’ve seen no other medication so quickly become part of modern culture’s social vernacular.” Already there are concerns that such use is preventing access to the drugs for those who qualify and need them.

There are multiple agents in the class under development which should help increase competition and reduce cost, but they will remain expensive. There is private insurance reimbursement, often with a significant copay, for people who tightly fit the inclusion criteria. Eventual coverage by Medicare will markedly expand their use, and we can expect cost-effectiveness studies to be published showing how much saving there is for the drugs compared with bariatric surgery or not achieving the weight loss. But that doesn’t change the cost at the societal level. Even as we’ve seen with generics, which will ultimately be available, the alleviation of the cost problem isn’t what we’d hoped.

This is not unlike the recent triumphs of gene therapy, as in $3.5 million for a cure of hemophilia that just got FDA approval, but instead of a rare disease we are talking about the most common medical condition in the world. We finally get across the long sought after (what many would qualify as miraculous) goal line, but the economics collide with the uptake and real benefit.

These concerns can’t be put aside in the health inequity-laden world we live in, that will unquestionably be exacerbated. However, we cannot miss that this represents one of the most important, biggest medical breakthroughs in history. This may signify the end or marked reduction in the need for bariatric surgery. These drugs will likely become some of the most prescribed of all medications in the upcoming years. While there are many drawbacks, we shouldn’t miss such an extraordinary advance in medicine – the first real, potent and safe treatment of obesity.

Thanks for reading Ground Truths. I hope you will share these posts and subscribe, to be sure you don’t miss them.

Dr. Topol is director, Scripps Translational Science Institute; executive vice president and professor of molecular medicine at The Scripps Research Institute and senior consultant, division of cardiovascular diseases, at the Scripps Clinic, both in La Jolla, Calif. He disclosed relevant financial relationships with Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Walgreens, Quest Diagnostics, MyoKardia, and National Institutes of Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published December 10 on Medscape editor-in-chief Eric Topol’s Substack ”Ground Truths.”

There are many holy grails in medicine, with failure after failure, like finding a way to prevent Alzheimer’s disease or a noninvasive means for accurately measuring ambulatory blood pressure. But one of the biggest and most daunting has been finding drugs that can tackle obesity – achieving a substantial amount of weight loss without serious side effects. Many attempts to get there now fill a graveyard of failed drugs, such as fen-phen in the 1990s when a single small study of this drug combination in 121 people unleashed millions of prescriptions, some leading to serious heart valve lesions that resulted in withdrawal of the drug in 1995. The drug rimonabant, an endocannabinoid receptor blocker (think of blocking the munchies after marijuana) looked encouraging in randomized trials. However, subsequently, in a trial that I led of nearly 19,000 participants in 42 countries around the world, there was a significant excess of depression, neuropsychiatric side-effects and suicidal ideation which spelled the end of that drug’s life.

In the United States, where there had not been an antiobesity drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2014, Wegovy (semaglutide), a once-weekly injection was approved in June 2021. The same drug, at a lower dose, is known as Ozempic (as in O-O-O, Ozempic, the ubiquitous commercial that you undoubtedly hear and see on TV) and had already been approved in January 2020 for improving glucose regulation in diabetes. The next drug on fast track at FDA to be imminently approved is tirzepatide (Mounjaro) following its approval for diabetes in May 2022. It is noteworthy that the discovery of these drugs for weight loss was serendipitous: they were being developed for improving glucose regulation and unexpectedly were found to achieve significant weight reduction.

Both semaglutide and tirzepatide underwent randomized, placebo-controlled trials for obesity, with marked reduction of weight as shown below. Tirzepatide at dose of 10-15 mg per week achieved greater than 20% body weight reduction. Semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg achieved about 17% reduction. These per cent changes in body weight are 7-9 fold more than seen with placebo (2%-3% reduction). Note: these levels of percent body-weight reduction resemble what is typically achieved with the different types of bariatric surgery, such as gastric bypass.

How do these drugs work?

These are peptides in the class of incretins, mimicking gut hormones that are secreted after food intake which stimulate insulin secretion.

How they are given and practical considerations

For semaglutide, which has FDA approval, the indication is a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater than 27 and a weight-related medical condition (such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes). To reduce the GI side effects, which mainly occur in the early dose escalation period, semaglutide is given in increasing doses by a prefilled pen by self-injection under the skin (abdomen, thigh, or arm) starting at 0.25 mg for a month and gradual increases each month reaching the maximum dose of 2.4 mg at month 5. The FDA label for dosing of tirzepatide has not been provided yet but in the weight loss trial there was a similar dose escalation from 2.5 mg up to 15 mg by month 5. The escalation is essential to reduce the frequent GI side effects, such as seen below in the tirzepatide trial.

What does this mean?

More than 650 million adults and 340 million children aged 5-18 are obese. The global obesity epidemic has been relentless, worsening each year, and a driver of “diabesity,” the combined dual epidemic. We now have a breakthrough class of drugs that can achieve profound weight loss equivalent to bariatric surgery, along with the side benefits of reducing cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension and hyperlipidemia), improving glucose regulation, reversing fatty liver, and the many detrimental long-term effects of obesity such as osteoarthritis and various cancers. That, in itself, is remarkable. Revolutionary.

But the downsides are also obvious. Self-injections, even though they are once a week, are not palatable for many. We have seen far more of these injectables in recent years such as the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors for hypercholesterolemia or the tumor necrosis factor blockers for autoimmune conditions. That still will not make them a popular item for such an enormous population of potential users.

That brings me to Rybelsus, the oral form of semaglutide, which is approved for glucose regulation improvement but not obesity. It effects for weight loss have been modest, compared with Wegovy (5 to 8 pounds for the 7- and 14-mg dose, respectively). But the potential for the very high efficacy of an injectable to be achievable via a pill represents an important path going forward—it could help markedly reduce the cost and uptake.

The problem of discontinuation of the drugs is big, since there are limited data and the likelihood is that the weight will be regained unless there are substantial changes in lifestyle. We know how hard it is to durably achieve such changes, along with the undesirability (and uncertainty with respect to unknown side effects) of having to take injectable drugs for many years, no less the cost of doing that.

The cost of these drugs will clearly and profoundly exacerbate inequities, since they are eminently affordable by the rich, but the need is extreme among the indigent. We’ve already seen celebrities take Wegovy for weight loss who are not obese, a window into how these drugs can and will be used without supportive data. As one physician recently observed, “Other than Viagra and Botox, I’ve seen no other medication so quickly become part of modern culture’s social vernacular.” Already there are concerns that such use is preventing access to the drugs for those who qualify and need them.

There are multiple agents in the class under development which should help increase competition and reduce cost, but they will remain expensive. There is private insurance reimbursement, often with a significant copay, for people who tightly fit the inclusion criteria. Eventual coverage by Medicare will markedly expand their use, and we can expect cost-effectiveness studies to be published showing how much saving there is for the drugs compared with bariatric surgery or not achieving the weight loss. But that doesn’t change the cost at the societal level. Even as we’ve seen with generics, which will ultimately be available, the alleviation of the cost problem isn’t what we’d hoped.

This is not unlike the recent triumphs of gene therapy, as in $3.5 million for a cure of hemophilia that just got FDA approval, but instead of a rare disease we are talking about the most common medical condition in the world. We finally get across the long sought after (what many would qualify as miraculous) goal line, but the economics collide with the uptake and real benefit.

These concerns can’t be put aside in the health inequity-laden world we live in, that will unquestionably be exacerbated. However, we cannot miss that this represents one of the most important, biggest medical breakthroughs in history. This may signify the end or marked reduction in the need for bariatric surgery. These drugs will likely become some of the most prescribed of all medications in the upcoming years. While there are many drawbacks, we shouldn’t miss such an extraordinary advance in medicine – the first real, potent and safe treatment of obesity.

Thanks for reading Ground Truths. I hope you will share these posts and subscribe, to be sure you don’t miss them.

Dr. Topol is director, Scripps Translational Science Institute; executive vice president and professor of molecular medicine at The Scripps Research Institute and senior consultant, division of cardiovascular diseases, at the Scripps Clinic, both in La Jolla, Calif. He disclosed relevant financial relationships with Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Walgreens, Quest Diagnostics, MyoKardia, and National Institutes of Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The notion that the reason people with obesity are not losing weight is that they aren’t sufficiently incentivized to do so is toxic.
 

It denies the impact of the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones involved in our individual levels of hunger, cravings, and fullness. It denies the torrential current of our ultraprocessed and calorific food environment. It denies the constant push of food advertising and the role food has taken on as the star of even the smallest of events and celebrations. It denies the role of food as a seminal pleasure in a world that, even for those possessing great degrees of privilege is challenging, let alone for those facing tremendous and varied difficulties. And of course, it upholds the hateful notion that, if people just wanted it badly enough, they’d manage their weight, the corollary of which is that people with obesity are unmotivated and lazy. 

Yet the notion that, if people want it badly enough, they’d make it happen, is incredibly commonplace. It’s so commonplace that NBC aired their prime-time televised reality show The Biggest Loser from 2004 through 2016, featuring people with obesity competing for a $500,000 prize during a 30-week–long orgy of fat-shaming, victim-blaming, hugely restrictive eating, and injury. It’s also so commonplace that studies are still being conducted exploring the impact of paying people to lose weight.

The most recent of these – “Effectiveness of Goal-Directed and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives for Weight Loss in Primary Care Patients With Obesity Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Randomized Clinical Trial” – examined the effects of randomly assigning participants whose annual household incomes were less than $40,000 to either a free year of Weight Watchers and the provisions of basic weight loss advice (exercise, track your food, eat healthfully, et cetera) or to an incentivized program that would see them earning up to $750 over 6 months, with dollars being awarded for such things as attendance in education sessions, keeping a food diary, recording their weight, and obtaining a certain amount of exercise or for weight loss.

Resultswise – though you might not have gathered it from the conclusion of the paper, which states that incentives were more effective at 12 months – the average incentivized participant lost roughly 6 pounds more than those given only resources. It should also be mentioned that over half of the incentivized group did not complete the study.

That these sorts of studies are still being conducted is depressing. Medicine and academia need to actively stop promoting harmful stereotypes when it comes to the genesis of a chronic noncommunicable disease that is not caused by a lack of desire, needing the right incentive, but is rather caused by the interaction of millions of years of evolution during extreme dietary insecurity with a modern-day food environment and culture that constantly offers, provides, and encourages consumption. This is especially true now that there are effective antiobesity medications whose success underwrites the notion that it’s physiology, rather than a lack of wanting it enough, that gets in the way of sustained success.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The notion that the reason people with obesity are not losing weight is that they aren’t sufficiently incentivized to do so is toxic.
 

It denies the impact of the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones involved in our individual levels of hunger, cravings, and fullness. It denies the torrential current of our ultraprocessed and calorific food environment. It denies the constant push of food advertising and the role food has taken on as the star of even the smallest of events and celebrations. It denies the role of food as a seminal pleasure in a world that, even for those possessing great degrees of privilege is challenging, let alone for those facing tremendous and varied difficulties. And of course, it upholds the hateful notion that, if people just wanted it badly enough, they’d manage their weight, the corollary of which is that people with obesity are unmotivated and lazy. 

Yet the notion that, if people want it badly enough, they’d make it happen, is incredibly commonplace. It’s so commonplace that NBC aired their prime-time televised reality show The Biggest Loser from 2004 through 2016, featuring people with obesity competing for a $500,000 prize during a 30-week–long orgy of fat-shaming, victim-blaming, hugely restrictive eating, and injury. It’s also so commonplace that studies are still being conducted exploring the impact of paying people to lose weight.

The most recent of these – “Effectiveness of Goal-Directed and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives for Weight Loss in Primary Care Patients With Obesity Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Randomized Clinical Trial” – examined the effects of randomly assigning participants whose annual household incomes were less than $40,000 to either a free year of Weight Watchers and the provisions of basic weight loss advice (exercise, track your food, eat healthfully, et cetera) or to an incentivized program that would see them earning up to $750 over 6 months, with dollars being awarded for such things as attendance in education sessions, keeping a food diary, recording their weight, and obtaining a certain amount of exercise or for weight loss.

Resultswise – though you might not have gathered it from the conclusion of the paper, which states that incentives were more effective at 12 months – the average incentivized participant lost roughly 6 pounds more than those given only resources. It should also be mentioned that over half of the incentivized group did not complete the study.

That these sorts of studies are still being conducted is depressing. Medicine and academia need to actively stop promoting harmful stereotypes when it comes to the genesis of a chronic noncommunicable disease that is not caused by a lack of desire, needing the right incentive, but is rather caused by the interaction of millions of years of evolution during extreme dietary insecurity with a modern-day food environment and culture that constantly offers, provides, and encourages consumption. This is especially true now that there are effective antiobesity medications whose success underwrites the notion that it’s physiology, rather than a lack of wanting it enough, that gets in the way of sustained success.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The notion that the reason people with obesity are not losing weight is that they aren’t sufficiently incentivized to do so is toxic.
 

It denies the impact of the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones involved in our individual levels of hunger, cravings, and fullness. It denies the torrential current of our ultraprocessed and calorific food environment. It denies the constant push of food advertising and the role food has taken on as the star of even the smallest of events and celebrations. It denies the role of food as a seminal pleasure in a world that, even for those possessing great degrees of privilege is challenging, let alone for those facing tremendous and varied difficulties. And of course, it upholds the hateful notion that, if people just wanted it badly enough, they’d manage their weight, the corollary of which is that people with obesity are unmotivated and lazy. 

Yet the notion that, if people want it badly enough, they’d make it happen, is incredibly commonplace. It’s so commonplace that NBC aired their prime-time televised reality show The Biggest Loser from 2004 through 2016, featuring people with obesity competing for a $500,000 prize during a 30-week–long orgy of fat-shaming, victim-blaming, hugely restrictive eating, and injury. It’s also so commonplace that studies are still being conducted exploring the impact of paying people to lose weight.

The most recent of these – “Effectiveness of Goal-Directed and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives for Weight Loss in Primary Care Patients With Obesity Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Randomized Clinical Trial” – examined the effects of randomly assigning participants whose annual household incomes were less than $40,000 to either a free year of Weight Watchers and the provisions of basic weight loss advice (exercise, track your food, eat healthfully, et cetera) or to an incentivized program that would see them earning up to $750 over 6 months, with dollars being awarded for such things as attendance in education sessions, keeping a food diary, recording their weight, and obtaining a certain amount of exercise or for weight loss.

Resultswise – though you might not have gathered it from the conclusion of the paper, which states that incentives were more effective at 12 months – the average incentivized participant lost roughly 6 pounds more than those given only resources. It should also be mentioned that over half of the incentivized group did not complete the study.

That these sorts of studies are still being conducted is depressing. Medicine and academia need to actively stop promoting harmful stereotypes when it comes to the genesis of a chronic noncommunicable disease that is not caused by a lack of desire, needing the right incentive, but is rather caused by the interaction of millions of years of evolution during extreme dietary insecurity with a modern-day food environment and culture that constantly offers, provides, and encourages consumption. This is especially true now that there are effective antiobesity medications whose success underwrites the notion that it’s physiology, rather than a lack of wanting it enough, that gets in the way of sustained success.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eating a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, instead of a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF), leads to significant improvements in type 2 diabetes (T2D), a new study finds.

This was true regardless of an individual’s calorie intake, in the randomized controlled trial published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Patients with T2D who ate a low-carb, high-fat diet (LCHF) lost more weight and saw greater improvements in both glycemic control and insulin resistance than those who ate a high-carb, low-fat diet (HCLF), reported lead author Camilla Dalby Hansen, MD, of University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and colleagues, suggesting that this is an effective, nonpharmaceutical treatment option for T2D.

The trial enrolled 185 patients with T2D, for whom low-calorie diets are often recommended to induce weight loss and improve glycemic control.

The trouble with this common recommendation, the investigators wrote, is that it induces hunger, so few patients stick to it.

“Therefore, calorie-unrestricted diets may be a better alternative to achieve long-term maintenance,” Dr. Hansen and colleagues wrote, noting that this approach “is not widely investigated.”
 

Study methods and results

In the new study, participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to follow the LCHF or HCLF diet for 6 months, with no restriction on calorie intake. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months (3 months after discontinuation). Parameters included glycemic control, serum lipid levels, and metabolic markers. The final analysis included 165 patients.

While patients in both groups lost weight, those in the LCHF group lost, on average, about 8 pounds more than the HCLF group, a significant difference. While the LCHF diet was associated with greater improvements in glycemic control (HbA1c) than the HCLF diet, it also led to slightly greater increases in LDL levels. In both groups, HDL levels increased, and triglycerides decreased, without significant differences between groups.

The above changes were not sustained 3 months after finishing the diet.

“I believe we have sufficient data to include LCHF as one of the diet options for people with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Hansen said in a written comment, considering all available data.

Although the diet did lead to significant clinical benefits, she predicted that some patients would still struggle with adherence in the real world.

“The LCHF diet can be difficult for some people to follow,” Dr. Hansen said. “It is a bit more expensive, and it can be difficult to comply to in social gatherings, simply because our society is not suited for this type of diet.”
 

The magic of unrestricted calories

Jay H. Shubrook, DO, diabetologist and professor at Touro University of California, Vallejo, offered a similar view.

“When you start to fiddle with the diet, it affects not only the person, but all the people they eat with, because eating is a communal experience,” Dr. Shubrook said, in an interview.

Still, he said the present study is “a big deal,” because T2D is a “noncommunicable pandemic,” and “anything we could do that disrupts this process is very important.”

While some may struggle to follow the LCHF diet, Dr. Shubrook predicted better long-term adherence than the low-calorie diet usually recommended.

“What’s magic about this study is because it wasn’t calorie restricted, I think it made it a little bit more flexible for people to continue,” Dr. Shubrook said.

He added that he thinks patients will need a fair amount of coaching and education about food choices in order to lose weight on a diet without calorie restrictions.
 

Not the first study of its kind

In a written comment, Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, professor at the Ohio State University, Columbus, called the present study “another important piece of work, demonstrating yet again, that a low-carbohydrate eating pattern is superior to a high-carbohydrate approach in people with insulin resistance.”

Yet Dr. Volek, who has conducted numerous studies on low-carbohydrate diets, also said there is “little here that is new or surprising.”

He went on to admonish Dr. Hansen and colleagues for failing to recognize those who have already broken ground in this area.

“Unfortunately, these authors do not give credit to the many researchers who have published extensively on low-carbohydrate diets in the past, and instead make claims about being the first to study a calorie unrestricted low-carb diet in individuals with T2D, which is clearly not the case,” Dr. Volek said. “There is a large body of literature showing similar findings with better control over diet, larger cohorts, longer follow-up, and more comprehensive biomarker assessment.”

He noted that data supporting low-carb diets for T2D have been sufficient since at least 2019, when the American Diabetes Association updated their guidance on the subject.

Citing a paper published in Diabetes Care, he said, “Low-carbohydrate eating patterns, especially very-low-carbohydrate eating patterns, have been shown to reduce A1C and the need for antihyperglycemic medications.”

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Diabetes Academy, Odense University Hospital, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, UCB, and others. Dr. Shubrook disclosed relationships with Abbot, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and others.

Eating a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, instead of a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF), leads to significant improvements in type 2 diabetes (T2D), a new study finds.

This was true regardless of an individual’s calorie intake, in the randomized controlled trial published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Patients with T2D who ate a low-carb, high-fat diet (LCHF) lost more weight and saw greater improvements in both glycemic control and insulin resistance than those who ate a high-carb, low-fat diet (HCLF), reported lead author Camilla Dalby Hansen, MD, of University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and colleagues, suggesting that this is an effective, nonpharmaceutical treatment option for T2D.

The trial enrolled 185 patients with T2D, for whom low-calorie diets are often recommended to induce weight loss and improve glycemic control.

The trouble with this common recommendation, the investigators wrote, is that it induces hunger, so few patients stick to it.

“Therefore, calorie-unrestricted diets may be a better alternative to achieve long-term maintenance,” Dr. Hansen and colleagues wrote, noting that this approach “is not widely investigated.”
 

Study methods and results

In the new study, participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to follow the LCHF or HCLF diet for 6 months, with no restriction on calorie intake. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months (3 months after discontinuation). Parameters included glycemic control, serum lipid levels, and metabolic markers. The final analysis included 165 patients.

While patients in both groups lost weight, those in the LCHF group lost, on average, about 8 pounds more than the HCLF group, a significant difference. While the LCHF diet was associated with greater improvements in glycemic control (HbA1c) than the HCLF diet, it also led to slightly greater increases in LDL levels. In both groups, HDL levels increased, and triglycerides decreased, without significant differences between groups.

The above changes were not sustained 3 months after finishing the diet.

“I believe we have sufficient data to include LCHF as one of the diet options for people with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Hansen said in a written comment, considering all available data.

Although the diet did lead to significant clinical benefits, she predicted that some patients would still struggle with adherence in the real world.

“The LCHF diet can be difficult for some people to follow,” Dr. Hansen said. “It is a bit more expensive, and it can be difficult to comply to in social gatherings, simply because our society is not suited for this type of diet.”
 

The magic of unrestricted calories

Jay H. Shubrook, DO, diabetologist and professor at Touro University of California, Vallejo, offered a similar view.

“When you start to fiddle with the diet, it affects not only the person, but all the people they eat with, because eating is a communal experience,” Dr. Shubrook said, in an interview.

Still, he said the present study is “a big deal,” because T2D is a “noncommunicable pandemic,” and “anything we could do that disrupts this process is very important.”

While some may struggle to follow the LCHF diet, Dr. Shubrook predicted better long-term adherence than the low-calorie diet usually recommended.

“What’s magic about this study is because it wasn’t calorie restricted, I think it made it a little bit more flexible for people to continue,” Dr. Shubrook said.

He added that he thinks patients will need a fair amount of coaching and education about food choices in order to lose weight on a diet without calorie restrictions.
 

Not the first study of its kind

In a written comment, Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, professor at the Ohio State University, Columbus, called the present study “another important piece of work, demonstrating yet again, that a low-carbohydrate eating pattern is superior to a high-carbohydrate approach in people with insulin resistance.”

Yet Dr. Volek, who has conducted numerous studies on low-carbohydrate diets, also said there is “little here that is new or surprising.”

He went on to admonish Dr. Hansen and colleagues for failing to recognize those who have already broken ground in this area.

“Unfortunately, these authors do not give credit to the many researchers who have published extensively on low-carbohydrate diets in the past, and instead make claims about being the first to study a calorie unrestricted low-carb diet in individuals with T2D, which is clearly not the case,” Dr. Volek said. “There is a large body of literature showing similar findings with better control over diet, larger cohorts, longer follow-up, and more comprehensive biomarker assessment.”

He noted that data supporting low-carb diets for T2D have been sufficient since at least 2019, when the American Diabetes Association updated their guidance on the subject.

Citing a paper published in Diabetes Care, he said, “Low-carbohydrate eating patterns, especially very-low-carbohydrate eating patterns, have been shown to reduce A1C and the need for antihyperglycemic medications.”

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Diabetes Academy, Odense University Hospital, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, UCB, and others. Dr. Shubrook disclosed relationships with Abbot, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and others.

Eating a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, instead of a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF), leads to significant improvements in type 2 diabetes (T2D), a new study finds.

This was true regardless of an individual’s calorie intake, in the randomized controlled trial published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Patients with T2D who ate a low-carb, high-fat diet (LCHF) lost more weight and saw greater improvements in both glycemic control and insulin resistance than those who ate a high-carb, low-fat diet (HCLF), reported lead author Camilla Dalby Hansen, MD, of University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and colleagues, suggesting that this is an effective, nonpharmaceutical treatment option for T2D.

The trial enrolled 185 patients with T2D, for whom low-calorie diets are often recommended to induce weight loss and improve glycemic control.

The trouble with this common recommendation, the investigators wrote, is that it induces hunger, so few patients stick to it.

“Therefore, calorie-unrestricted diets may be a better alternative to achieve long-term maintenance,” Dr. Hansen and colleagues wrote, noting that this approach “is not widely investigated.”
 

Study methods and results

In the new study, participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to follow the LCHF or HCLF diet for 6 months, with no restriction on calorie intake. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months (3 months after discontinuation). Parameters included glycemic control, serum lipid levels, and metabolic markers. The final analysis included 165 patients.

While patients in both groups lost weight, those in the LCHF group lost, on average, about 8 pounds more than the HCLF group, a significant difference. While the LCHF diet was associated with greater improvements in glycemic control (HbA1c) than the HCLF diet, it also led to slightly greater increases in LDL levels. In both groups, HDL levels increased, and triglycerides decreased, without significant differences between groups.

The above changes were not sustained 3 months after finishing the diet.

“I believe we have sufficient data to include LCHF as one of the diet options for people with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Hansen said in a written comment, considering all available data.

Although the diet did lead to significant clinical benefits, she predicted that some patients would still struggle with adherence in the real world.

“The LCHF diet can be difficult for some people to follow,” Dr. Hansen said. “It is a bit more expensive, and it can be difficult to comply to in social gatherings, simply because our society is not suited for this type of diet.”
 

The magic of unrestricted calories

Jay H. Shubrook, DO, diabetologist and professor at Touro University of California, Vallejo, offered a similar view.

“When you start to fiddle with the diet, it affects not only the person, but all the people they eat with, because eating is a communal experience,” Dr. Shubrook said, in an interview.

Still, he said the present study is “a big deal,” because T2D is a “noncommunicable pandemic,” and “anything we could do that disrupts this process is very important.”

While some may struggle to follow the LCHF diet, Dr. Shubrook predicted better long-term adherence than the low-calorie diet usually recommended.

“What’s magic about this study is because it wasn’t calorie restricted, I think it made it a little bit more flexible for people to continue,” Dr. Shubrook said.

He added that he thinks patients will need a fair amount of coaching and education about food choices in order to lose weight on a diet without calorie restrictions.
 

Not the first study of its kind

In a written comment, Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, professor at the Ohio State University, Columbus, called the present study “another important piece of work, demonstrating yet again, that a low-carbohydrate eating pattern is superior to a high-carbohydrate approach in people with insulin resistance.”

Yet Dr. Volek, who has conducted numerous studies on low-carbohydrate diets, also said there is “little here that is new or surprising.”

He went on to admonish Dr. Hansen and colleagues for failing to recognize those who have already broken ground in this area.

“Unfortunately, these authors do not give credit to the many researchers who have published extensively on low-carbohydrate diets in the past, and instead make claims about being the first to study a calorie unrestricted low-carb diet in individuals with T2D, which is clearly not the case,” Dr. Volek said. “There is a large body of literature showing similar findings with better control over diet, larger cohorts, longer follow-up, and more comprehensive biomarker assessment.”

He noted that data supporting low-carb diets for T2D have been sufficient since at least 2019, when the American Diabetes Association updated their guidance on the subject.

Citing a paper published in Diabetes Care, he said, “Low-carbohydrate eating patterns, especially very-low-carbohydrate eating patterns, have been shown to reduce A1C and the need for antihyperglycemic medications.”

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Diabetes Academy, Odense University Hospital, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, UCB, and others. Dr. Shubrook disclosed relationships with Abbot, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and others.