MNT: Weight Management (2015)
Citation:
Chaput J, Tremblay A. Sleeping habits predict the magnitude of fat loss in adults exposed to moderate caloric restriction. Obesity Facts, 2012; 5: 561-566.
PubMed ID: 22854682
Study Design:
Retrospective Cohort Study
Class:
B - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
- To verify whether sleeping habits affect the magnitude of fat loss in overweight and obese adults subjected to moderate caloric restriction
- Hypothesis: Both sleep quantity and quality at baseline predict the success of a weight-reducing program in adults.
Inclusion Criteria:
- Healthy
- Overweight and obese
- Men and women
- Aged between 25 years and 50 years
- Absence of menopause for women (cessation of menstruation)
- Stable body weight (body weight change of less than three kg for two months before intervention)
- Fewer than three periods of 20 minutes of physical activity per week
- No use of medication that could affect body weight
- No smoking
- Normal BP values (less than 140/90)
- Consumption of no more than 10 alcoholic beverages per week
- Consumption of no more than five cups of coffee per day.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Unhealthy
- Normal weight
- Menopause
- Unstable body weight
- Three or more periods of 20 minutes of physical activity per week
- Use of medication that could affect body weight
- Smoking
- High BP values
- Consumption of more than 10 alcoholic beverages per week
- Consumption of more than five cups of coffee per day.
Description of Study Protocol:
Recruitment
Recruitment methods were not reported.
Design
- For this study, three previously-published weight loss studies have been pooled together. Only individuals involved in the control groups of these studies were used for statistical analysis in the present study.
- Participants were subjected to moderate caloric restriction for 15 to 24 weeks, depending on the study
- Data was collected at baseline and at the end of the study.
Intervention
- Participants were subjected to a 600kcal to 700kcal-per-day decrease in energy intake for 15 to 24 weeks, depending on the study
- Each participant met with the assigned dietitian every two weeks until the completion of the study.
Statistical Analysis
- Multiple linear regression analysis was used, adjusting for age, sex, baseline BMI, length of intervention and change in energy intake as covariates.
- A two-tailed P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Data Collection Summary:
Timing of Measurements
Baseline and at the end of the weight loss program (between 15 weeks and 24 weeks, depending on each of the three programs).Dependent Variables
- Sleep quality and sleep duration, measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and assessed only at baseline
- Body fat mass, measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
- Waist cirumference, measured at the line between the lower border of the last rib and the upper border of the ileac crest
- Dietary intake, measured by a three-day food record (two weekdays and one weekend day) and estimated by a dietitian using a computerized version of the Canadian Nutrient File.
Independent Variables
Energy restriction (600kcal- to 700kcal-per-day decrease in energy intake supervised by a dietitian) diet and time (zero week baseline to 15 to 24 weeks post-test).Control Variables
Age, sex, BMI, length of intervention and can change in daily energy intake (kJ per day) was used as a covariates.Description of Actual Data Sample:
- Initial N: 123 (70 male, 53 female)
- Attrition (final N): 123
- Age: 41.1±6.0 years
- Ethnicity: Not described
- Other relevant demographics: Not described.
Anthropometrics
- Body weight: 94.7±14.5kg
- BMI: 33.2±3.6kg/m2
- Waist circumference: 106.4±10.1cm
- Fat mass: 35.7±8.3kg
- Fat mass: 38.1±7.1%
- Sleep duration: 7.1±1.0 hours
- PSQI (total score): 4.8±2.9
- Energy intake: 5,242±2,031kJ per day.
Location
Quebec, Canada.
Summary of Results:
Key Findings
- Mean weight loss of all participants over the dietary intervention was 4.5±3.9kg, 76% of which came from fat stores
- A significant positive relationship between sleep duration and loss of body fat was observed, both in absolute (adjusted beta, 0.72kg per hour; P<0.05) and relative terms (adjusted beta, 0.77% per hour; P<0.01), after adjusting for covariates
- Sleep quality was inversely related to both fat mass loss (adjusted beta, -0.19; P<0.05) and percentage body fat loss (adjusted beta, -0.21; P<0.01) after adjusting for covariates, suggesting that a better sleep quality was associated with greater fat mass loss.
Author Conclusion:
- Both sleep quantity and quality at baseline can predict the magnitude of fat loss in adults exposed to moderate caloric restriction
- Adequate sleep might influence the success of a weight loss intervention and perhaps sleep should be included as part of the lifestyle package that traditionally has focused on diet and exercise.
Funding Source:
Government: | Canadian Institutes of Health Research | |||
Industry: |
|
|||
Not-for-profit |
|
Reviewer Comments:
Limitations
- Small sample size
- Questionnaire-based measurements (sleep duration and diet assessment)
- Residual confounding (other factors, such as personality traits, education factors or other lifestyle qualities, may affect sleeping habits and adherence to dietary intervention)
- Study is well suited for the identification of associations and does not permit causal inferences.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | |
4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | |
1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | Yes | |
1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
1.3. | Were the target population and setting specified? | Yes | |
2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | Yes | |
2.1. | Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? | Yes | |
2.2. | Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? | N/A | |
2.3. | Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? | Yes | |
2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | Yes | |
3. | Were study groups comparable? | Yes | |
3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | N/A | |
3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | N/A | |
3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | N/A | |
3.4. | If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? | Yes | |
3.5. | If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) | N/A | |
3.6. | If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? | N/A | |
4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | N/A | |
4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | N/A | |
4.2. | Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) | N/A | |
4.3. | Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? | N/A | |
4.4. | Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? | N/A | |
4.5. | If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? | N/A | |
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | Yes | |
5.1. | In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? | N/A | |
5.2. | Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) | Yes | |
5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | Yes | |
5.4. | In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? | N/A | |
5.5. | In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? | N/A | |
6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | ??? | |
6.1. | In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? | N/A | |
6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | No | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | Yes | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | Yes | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | ??? | |
6.6. | Were extra or unplanned treatments described? | ??? | |
6.7. | Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? | N/A | |
6.8. | In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? | N/A | |
7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | |
7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | Yes | |
7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | Yes | |
7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | Yes | |
7.4. | Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? | Yes | |
7.5. | Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? | Yes | |
7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | Yes | |
7.7. | Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? | Yes | |
8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | |
8.1. | Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? | Yes | |
8.2. | Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? | Yes | |
8.3. | Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? | Yes | |
8.4. | Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? | N/A | |
8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | Yes | |
8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | Yes | |
8.7. | If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? | N/A | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | |
9.1. | Is there a discussion of findings? | Yes | |
9.2. | Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? | Yes | |
10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |
10.1. | Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? | Yes | |
10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | Yes | |