3.9 Article

Unrealistic Weight-Loss Goals among Obese Patients Are Associated with Age and Causal Attributions

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
Volume 109, Issue 11, Pages 1903-1908

Publisher

AMER DIETETIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.08.012

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Dutch Network for Registration of Home Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition
  2. Dutch Dietetic Association

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Unrealistic weight-loss goals may impede the success of weight-loss attempts. The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of unrealistic goals and their association with other patient characteristics at the start of a weight-loss program. For patients with a body mass index (calculated as kg/m(2)) of 30 to 35, 35 to 40, or 40 to 50, medically advised weight-loss goals were set at 10%, 15%, and 20% of current weight, respectively. Personal weight-loss goals exceeding the medically advised goal by >50% were considered unrealistic. Obesity-related beliefs were measured by the Obesity Cognition Questionnaire and the eating-behavior self-efficacy scale of the Obesity Psychosocial State Questionnaire. From September 2003 until March 2006, 90 patients were enrolled in the study, 26 men and 64 women, with a mean age of 43 years (range=18 to 68 years) and body mass indexes ranging from 30 to 50. Unrealistic goals were observed in 49% of the patients and were more frequent in younger patients (P=0.03), in patients attributing their obesity to physical causes (r=0.35, P=0.001), and in patients not attributing their obesity to behavioral causes (r=-0.28, P=0.008). This study confirms that discrepancies in weight-loss goals between obese patients and professionals occur frequently. Because unrealistic goals can hamper long-term outcomes of weight-loss programs, better outcomes could possibly be achieved by addressing unrealistic weight-loss goals before treatment. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109:1903-1908.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available