Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Article Is there a place for low-energy formula diets in weight management? Adrian Brown, Gary Frost, Shahrad Taheri Citation: Brown A, Frost G, Taheri S (2015) Is there a place for low-energy formula diets in weight management? British Journal of Obesity 1: 106–13 Article points 1.Low-energy (LEDs) and verylow-energy (VLEDs) formula diets are gaining popularity in clinical practice, with new EU recommendations on appropriate formulations and NICE guidelines on their use. 2.In conjunction with appropriate support and behaviour change techniques, LEDs and VLEDs can produce significant short- and long-term weight loss, and even reductions in obesity-related comorbidities. 3.Side effects are ptoentially severe, however, and clinical supervision is required throughout any programme. Key words - Low-energy formula diets - Very-low-energy formula diets Authors Adrian Brown is a Specialist Weight Management Dietitian, Imperial College London; Gary Frost is Professor of Nutrition and Dietetics, Imperial College London; Shahrad Taheri is Visiting Professor of Medicine, Imperial College London and Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, NY, USA, and Doha, Qatar. 106 While reduction in energy intake is key to weight loss, it is challenging in practice to achieve a sufficient calorie deficit to achieve clinically significant weight loss. With indicators that a greater weight loss within the first year is a good predictor of long-term weight loss maintenance, the use of dietary methods to give a substantial early energy deficit could be beneficial. Low-energy (800–1200 kcal/day) formula diets (LEDs) and very-low-energy (<800 kcal/day) formula diets (VLEDs) have recently gained popularity in clinical practice as a tool to enable patients to achieve this substantial calorie deficit and, therefore, lose a significant amount of weight, with consequent improvements in obesity-related comorbidities. This review examines the current evidence for the use of LEDs and VLEDs for weight loss and improvements in obesity-related comorbidities, while helping to inform clinicians on their potential use in clinical practice. O besity has reached epidemic proportions worldwide, necessitating effective weight loss interventions and strategies for weight loss maintenance. Evidence shows that traditional popular dietary approaches produce, at best, between 5.3 and 7.27 kg of weight loss at 12 months (Avenell et al, 2004; Johnston et al, 2014), and an even lower degree of weight loss in primary care (Jolly et al, 2011). While a 5–10% weight loss has significant health benefits, it may be insufficient to give sustained and perceptible benefits for people with greater degrees of obesity (BMI ≥35 kg/m2) complicated by serious medical complications (SIGN, 2010). Currently, bariatric surgery appears to be the most effective therapy in terms of both sustained weight loss and treatment of comorbidities in severe obesity (Buchwald et al, 2004; Sjöström, 2013). When compared with non-surgical interventions, the weight loss achieved by bariatric surgery is associated with superior weight reduction, improved sleep quality, improved quality of life, and better glycaemic control (Dixon et al, 2008; Schauer et al, 2014). However, notwithstanding the methodological issues inherent in studies of bariatric surgery, not every patient wishes to undergo these procedures and, despite guidelines from NICE and other organisations, lack of funding limits accessibility to bariatric surgery, with only 1–2% of eligible patients receiving it (Dixon et al, 2011). While the causes and pathophysiology of obesity are complex and still poorly understood (Cope and Allison, 2006), obesity primarily results from excessive calorie intake compared to calorie expenditure. With a heavier, ageing population with increased rates of osteoarthritis and limited mobility compared with the past (Leeds, 2014), effective dietary manipulation is crucial for obesity management in the vast majority of patients in clinical weight management services. Conventional dietary approaches lead to weight loss of only 0.5–1.0 kg per week, making them a daunting task for individuals who need to lose a lot of weight. Low-energy formula diets (LEDs), however, are able to create dietary energy deficits similar to those British Journal of Obesity Volume 1 No 3 2015 Is there a place for low-energy formula diets in weight management? achieved following bariatric surgery, and they have the potential to fill this therapeutic void between surgery and traditional therapy. Very-low-energy and low-energy formula diets Very-low-energy formula diets (VLEDs) are defined as hypo-calorific diets that provide 450–800 kcal (1884–3350 kJ) per day and replace the whole diet with prepared formula, usually in the form of liquid shakes, soups and bars (Atkinson et al, 1993; Codex Alimentarius, 1995; NICE, 2014). These are enriched by high-biological-value protein and provide 100% of the Dietary Reference Value for vitamins and minerals within a defined number of servings. Previously, a minimum daily energy intake of 450 kcal was suggested; this has recently been revised by the European Commission, which now recommends that a minimum of 600 kcal/day should be provided (European Food Safety Authority, 2015). In comparison, LEDs provide 800–1200 kcal (3350–5021 kJ) per day, with each meal replacement needing to provide 200–400 kcal per meal (Codex Alimentarius, 1991). Within the medical literature, the terms “verylow-calorie” and “very-low-energy” have often been used interchangeably. As calories are units of energy, however, the latter is the preferred definition (Scientific Cooperation Committee, 2002) and will be used in this review. VLEDs have been reported in the medical literature for over 85 years. Evans and Strang (1929) published data on a ketogenic diet providing 6–8 kcal/kg, with 35% and 38% of the calories coming from protein and fat, respectively. They reported on more than 100 patients, who benefited from excellent weight loss with minimal side-effects. In the 1970s, VLEDs were popularised in the publication The Last Chance Diet (Linn, 1976). Original formulations not only included low-biological-value protein (hydrolysed collagen) but were also deficient in electrolytes and minerals, and they resulted in at least 60 fatalities owing to intractable ventricular arrhythmias (Sours et al, 1981; Wadden et al, 1983a). During this same period, formulations were developed that eliminated the previously seen arrhythmias (Felig, 1984). Since then, there has been a substantial amount of research within this area regarding optimal composition to minimise protein turnover, British Journal of Obesity Volume 1 No 3 2015 maintain nitrogen balance and ensure that essential micronutrient requirements are met. Both LEDs and VLEDs are designed to produce rapid weight loss while maintaining fat-free body mass. VLEDs are designed to induce ketosis, during which controlled fasting and restriction of dietary carbohydrate causes fatty acid oxidation in the liver to form transformable energy, while also mediating suppression of ghrelin (Atkinson et al, 1993, Sumithran et al, 2013). However, owing to higher energy intakes, these effects might not be as prevalent in LEDs. LEDs are regulated in the EU by Directive 96/8/EC and by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Compositional, labelling and advertising requirements for the use of LED total meal replacements are outlined within the Directive. Remarkably, VLEDs were not included within the original EU Directive, although they were subject to regulation and recommendations within the Codex Alimentarius Standard in the UK. Recently, the European Commission requested that the EFSA provide a scientific opinion on the essential composition of total diet replacements for weight control and update the Directive to include VLEDs. The EFSA proposed several key recommendations (EFSA, 2015): lFormulations should include the following: – Between 75 g and 105 g of high-quality protein per day, to maintain protein turnover. –A minimum of 30 g of digestible carbohydrate per day. –At least 11 g of linoleic acid and 1.4 g of alpha-linolenic acid per day. – A minimum of around 20 g of total fat per day, to ensure sufficient levels of essential fatty acids. –A minimum energy content of 600 kcal (2510 kJ) per day. – Daily micronutrient intake derived from Population Reference Intakes or Adequate Intakes, based on previous opinion. l Individualised specialist medical advice is required for individuals with obesity-related comorbidities. lFluid intake during energy restriction should be 2.5 L/day for men and 2.0 L/day for women. Page points 1.A low-energy diet (LED) provides 800–1200 kcal per day, with each formula meal providing 200–400 kcal. A very-low-energy diet (VLED) provides 450–800 kcal per day. 2.Both types of diet are designed to produce rapid weight loss while maintaining fat-free body mass. However, VLEDs go further by inducing ketosis. 3.New EU recommendations state that VLED formulations should provide at least 600 kcal per day, along with sufficient levels of protein, digestible carbohydrate, fat, micronutrients, linoleic and alpha-linoleic acid per day. Owing to a lack of scientific evidence, no recommendations were made for minimum fibre intake; however, additional fibre is often provided, 107 Is there a place for low-energy formula diets in weight management? Page points 1.Both LEDs and VLEDs have been shown to produce significant weight loss over periods of 4–24 weeks, with data suggesting that greater weight loss occurs with longer diet durations. 2.Contrary to the expectation that greater energy restriction should lead to greater weight loss, there is little evidence that VLEDs produce greater weight loss than LEDs in the long term. 3.Recent evidence suggests that VLEDs can be effective in promoting long-term weight loss and maintenance, but only if supported with behaviour change techniques, especially around the time of reintroducing conventional food after the diet. with around 7–10 g advised (Saris, 2001). Notably, legislation concerning the definition, composition, labelling, directions of use and availability of LEDs varies considerable across Europe and worldwide (Scientific Cooperation Committee, 2002). Effects on weight loss Short-term weight loss Studies have shown that both VLEDs and LEDs are effective at promoting significant weight loss in the short term (up to 24 weeks), with concomitant improvements in obesity-related comorbidities (Atkinson, 1993; Johansson et al, 2009; Christensen et al, 2011; Mulholland et al, 2012). In the medical literature, the length of time on these diets varied between 4 and 24 weeks (Wadden et al, 1983b), with initial weight losses of 1.4–2.5 kg per week and suggestions that the longer the period of calorie restriction the greater the weight loss (Saris, 2001); however, prolonged calorie restriction can potentially affect compliance in the long term. Despite the theoretical idea that VLEDs should produce greater weight loss because of greater energy restriction, this has not been shown to be the case over the long term (Saris, 2001; Norris et al, 2005; Lin et al, 2009; Christensen et al, 2011). In a metaanalysis of six randomised controlled trials, initial short-term weight loss was significantly greater following VLEDs compared to LEDs (16.1% vs. 9.7% of initial weight; Tsai and Wadden, 2006). This difference, however, was not sustained over time. A concern is that only one of the studies used an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, whereas the others biased the results by only analysing completers. The lack of short-term difference was further demonstrated by a randomised controlled trial (Christensen et al, 2011). Here, at both 8 weeks and 16 weeks, there was no significant difference in weight loss between participants who used a VLED (420–554 kcal/day) and those who used an LED (810 kcal/day). In clinical practice, if rapid weight loss is required (e.g. for a total knee replacement), using a formula diet for a period of 8–12 weeks has clear benefits (Leeds, 2014; NICE, 2014). Long-term weight loss and maintenance In the long term, weight loss with VLEDs and 108 LEDs has been shown to be similar, owing to greater weight regain following cessation of a VLED. In Tsai and Wadden’s (2006) systematic review, over a mean follow-up of 1.9 years, the mean long-term weight loss was 6.3±3.2% and 5.0±4.0% in the VLED and LED groups, respectively, with the VLED group having regained 62% of the weight loss compared to 41% in the LED group. Often the challenge with weight maintenance begins during the reintroduction of conventional food after the diet, especially if the individuals have not addressed the reasons for their initial weight gain. The use of behavioural techniques alongside formula diets are essential to aid weight loss maintenance and help the participants address their relationship with food, while also losing weight. Three recent studies, including two systematic reviews, have shown that long-term weight loss maintenance is possible following a VLED with the addition of weight loss maintenance strategies (Mulholland et al, 2012; Christensen et al, 2014; Johansson et al, 2014). Exercise, behaviour change therapy, medication and a longer reintroduction phase post-VLED all helped people to maintain greater weight loss (Mulholland et al, 2012). These observations are further supported by studies showing that anti-obesity drugs, extended use of low-energy meal replacements (one per day) and high-protein diets are associated with improved weight loss maintenance (Christensen et al, 2014; Johansson et al, 2014). Interestingly, in these studies, exercise did not result in significant improvements (Johansson et al, 2014). It must be noted that two of the three drug studies reviewed by Johansson and colleagues involved sibutramine, a drug that was withdrawn in 2010. The commonly held belief that slow weight loss is better preserved than more rapid loss is in contrast to recent evidence, which shows a positive correlation between larger initial weight loss and long-term weight maintenance (Astrup and Rössner, 2000; Wadden et al, 2011; Rolland et al, 2014). The Look AHEAD study, which compared an intensive lifestyle intervention with conventional education and diabetes support in over 5000 people with type 2 diabetes, showed that the greatest determinant of weight maintenance at 4 years was the loss of ≥10% of baseline weight within the first year (Wadden et al, 2011). More British Journal of Obesity Volume 1 No 3 2015 Is there a place for low-energy formula diets in weight management? support for this position comes from a randomised trial of 204 participants comparing rates of weight regain following a weight loss of ≥12.5% using either a rapid (12-week) or gradual (36-week) weight loss programme (Purcell et al, 2014). The rate of weight loss did not affect the degree of weight regain over a 144-week period, with both groups regaining 76.3% of the weight loss in the ITT analysis. Therefore, interventions that enable a greater initial weight loss could be more effective in terms of long-term weight maintenance. The place of low-energy formula diets in clinical practice At present, the use of VLEDs and LEDs within clinical practice remains a rarity amongst healthcare professionals. The belief that the high rate of weight loss and the regain of weight following cessation are detrimental remains a concern (NICE, 2014); however, this position has started to be challenged (Christensen et al, 2014; Johansson et al, 2014; Rolland et al, 2014). Furthermore, the vast majority of research for formula diets has been in people with a BMI between 30 and 40 kg/m2, while the evidence for their use within the extreme obese population (BMI >40 kg/m2) remains sparse (Leeds, 2014; NICE, 2014). Much of the evidence in the latter population comes from people using VLEDs for 2–6 weeks prior to bariatric surgery to help rapidly reduce liver fat and volume – the so-called “liver shrinkage diet” (Fris, 2004; Colles et al, 2006; Lewis et al, 2006). Despite this, within clinical practice in the UK, 49 preoperative diets have been observed in current use (Baldry et al, 2014), which raises the question of whether bariatric services should continue using preoperative diets that have no evidence base behind them. The latest update of the NICE obesity guidelines (CG189; NICE, 2014) reviewed the evidence for using VLCDs in people with a BMI >40 kg/m2, which was only briefly addressed in the original 2006 guidelines. NICE now recommends that VLEDs should not routinely be used within clinical practice to manage obesity (defined as BMI >30 kg/m2) and only in people with a clinically assessed need to rapidly lose weight, such as those who are seeking fertility services. Additionally, VLEDs should be used in conjunction with a longterm, multicomponent weight management service, British Journal of Obesity Volume 1 No 3 2015 including psychological assessment and discussion regarding risks, benefits and possible weight regain after reintroduction of food. VLEDs should only be followed for a maximum of 12 weeks, continuously or intermittently. Interestingly, LEDs (>800 kcal/day) were only briefly mentioned in the 2014 update and were not included in the above review. Other position statements from the National Obesity Forum (NOF, 2010) and the British Dietetic Association’s obesity special interest group, Dietitians in Obesity Management UK (DOM UK, 2007) further add to these recommendations, although neither statement currently supports every recommendation made by NICE. Within both statements, VLEDs can be considered for people with a BMI ≥30 kg/m2, and medical supervision is needed for those with obesity-related comorbidities. In addition, NOF suggest no time limit or age limit, as long as monitoring and medical supervision are included, and they suggest that GP approval is not required for all patients, provided that adequately trained staff delivers the programme. The issue of weight cycling was highlighted in the NICE guidelines, as epidemiological studies indicate that this increases the risk of morbidity and mortality (Lissner et al, 1991), as was the potential psychological effect of weight regain. However, identifying the difference between intentional and unintentional weight loss is difficult, and in a recent systematic review it was concluded that there was no causal association of weight cycling with early mortality or morbidity, with evidence being sparse regarding any negative impact (Mehta et al, 2014). As studies are often conducted in diverse populations and countries, the implementation of weight loss interventions, including those utilising LEDs, within clinical practice can be challenging. Two UK studies observing the use of VLEDs and LEDs in commercial and clinical environments have recently been published. In a feasibility study conducted within primary care, investigators from the Counterweight Programme used an LED in patients with a BMI of ≥40 kg/m2 (Lean et al, 2013). With structured food reintroduction and weight maintenance, with optional orlistat in the first year of treatment, the participants (68 completers, out of 91 enrolled) recorded mean weight losses of 12.4±11.4 kg, with 30% achieving ≥15 kg of weight loss at 12 months. Importantly, it was also observed Page points 1.VLEDs are not recommended for use in routine practice in the current NICE guidelines; rather, they are recommended only for people with a clinical need for rapid weight loss and in conjunction with a long-term weight management programme. 2.The National Obesity Forum and Dietitians in Obesity Management UK both have their own recommendations to supplement the NICE guidelines. 3.While there is concern over epidemiological studies showing that weight cycling increases morbidity and mortality, such studies cannot distinguish between unintentional and intentional weight loss, and a recent meta-analysis concluded that there was no causal link. 109 Is there a place for low-energy formula diets in weight management? Page points 1.Significant long-term improvements in weight-related comorbidities have been observed following VLEDs, and there is growing evidence that VLEDs can improve or even reverse type 2 diabetes. 2.In addition to improving insulin resistance and lipid profiles, VLEDs have been shown to improve cardiac function, psoriasis, osteoarthritis and obstructive sleep apnoea; however, the evidence for these outcomes is conflicting. 3.The evidence base for the effects of LEDs on type 2 diabetes is less solid, with study limitations and biases reducing the generalisability of the findings. that the programme might be cost-effective within the primary care setting. In further support of this, a retrospective analysis between 2007 and 2010 of 5965 participants commencing a commercial VLED programme, with additional behaviour change therapy, demonstrated a mean weight loss of 18±11.4 kg and 12.9±10 kg after 1 year and 3 years, respectively (Rolland et al, 2014). While both of these studies had limitations, including the lack of randomisation, selection bias, and significant dropout rates, they show that, in motivated patients, an LED approach combined with behaviour change therapy can successfully achieve clinically significant, maintainable weight loss. Another clear advantage of formula diets is their ability to remove food from the daily decisionmaking process (Leeds, 2014) while providing a person with a known amount of calories (Purcell et al, 2014). This can allow participtants to focus on introspectively looking at their relationship with food, identifying the difference between emotional and physical hunger and gaining skills to aid longterm weight maintenance. Low-energy formula diets in people with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other obesity-related comorbidities Significant long-term improvements in weightrelated comorbidities have been seen following VLEDs (Tsai and Wadden, 2006). Current evidence with a minimum follow-up of 12 months suggests that weight loss and improvements in waist circumference, blood pressure and lipid profiles occur following a VLED (Mulholland et al, 2012). With evidence that the calorie restriction immediately following bariatric surgery is pivotal to the observed improvements in glucose homeostasis (Lips et al, 2014; Plourde et al, 2014), and that ectopic fat (particularly within the liver and pancreas) is a key part of the aetiology of type 2 diabetes (Taylor, 2013), there is now mounting evidence for the effective use of LEDs in people with type 2 diabetes. This was supported by a small pilot study of 11 people with type 2 diabetes who underwent a VLED for 8 weeks (Lim et al, 2011). These participants showed normalised hepatic insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, which was directly associated with reduced triacylglycerol levels in the liver and pancreas, respectively. Moreover, in 110 another study of the same diet in 29 people with type 2 diabetes, of the 14 participants with longduration diabetes (>8 years), fasting plasma glucose levels normalised in 50% (Steven and Taylor, 2015). These findings suggest that acute energy restriction could reverse the abnormalities typical to type 2 diabetes. Further studies have looked at LEDs in people with type 2 diabetes receiving either oral hypoglycaemic agents or insulin, showing significant improvements in weight, glycaemic control, cardiovascular disease and quality of life (Paisey et al, 2002; Dhindsa et al, 2003; Snel et al, 2012a; 2012b; 2012c). However, methodological limitations, including lack of control groups, selection bias and only reporting completers, affect the generalisability of these findings and hamper translation to best clinical practice. Oral hypoglycaemic medications and insulin require significant dose reductions following initiation of an LED or VLED, in order to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia. Haslam et al (2010) recommend gradual titration of dietary energy intakes down to the target intake, in order to avoid rapid changes in insulin dose, and a possible pre-emptive reduction of insulin by 25% at commencement of an LED (Haslam et al, 2010). It should also be noted that people with advanced stages of type 2 diabetes might be at risk of hyperglycaemia if all diabetes medications are ceased. Weight loss has been shown to improve not only insulin resistance but also cardiac function, with the degree of weight loss being key to these improvements (Rider et al, 2009; Jonker et al, 2014). VLEDs reduce both cardiovascular risk and its associated surrogate markers (Mulholland et al, 2012), with a 16-week VLED being associated with decreased myocardial triglyceride content and improved diastolic function (Hammer et al, 2008). Other benefits of formula diets include improvements in psoriasis (Jensen et al, 2014), osteoarthritis (Christensen et al, 2011; 2014) and obstructive sleep apnoea (Johansson et al, 2011). However, it must be appreciated that non-favourable evidence is also present within the literature (Tsai and Wadden, 2006; Mulholland et al, 2012). Clearly, further high-quality research is still required to confirm findings and translate them British Journal of Obesity Volume 1 No 3 2015 Is there a place for low-energy formula diets in weight management? into everyday clinical practice, particularly in those areas in which evidence is currently lacking, such as liver and kidney disease and the use of these diets within intermittent fasting regimens. Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of low-energy and very-low-energy formula diets within clinical practice. Advantages Disadvantages Attrition Accurate calorie management Constipation The perceived rate of attrition is a significant deterrent for people considering LEDs. Attrition rates vary depending on the initial intervention and follow-up, with figures ranging between 0% and 52%, and there is very little difference between VLEDs and LEDs (Tsai and Wadden, 2006; Christensen et al, 2011). Drop-outs occur throughout the patient journey, albeit more frequently during the follow-up period (Mulholland et al, 2012), when people potentially regain some of the weight lost. Within the actual diet period, poor compliance, work schedules and dislike of the products commonly feature as reasons for dropping out, while younger participants and those with a higher BMI more often drop out during followup (Mulholland et al, 2012). Interestingly, when compared with conventional dietary approaches, meal replacements can aid both compliance and perceived convenience (Noakes et al, 2004). Nutritionally complete Flatulence Significant weight loss Feeling the cold Improvement in glycaemic control Dizziness and hypotension Reduced cardiovascular risk markers Nausea Improvement in sleep apnoea Diarrhoea Improvement in general quality of life Gallstones Benefits for osteoarthritis Headache Improvement in psoriasis Acute gout Benefits for mood Halitosis Removal of food from the daily decision-making process Sleep disturbance Side-effects Table 1 shows the advantages and disadvantages of LEDs. During the initial stages of rapid weight loss with these diets, individuals may experience side-effects such as hair loss, fatigue, dizziness, constipation, acute gout, cold intolerance, headaches, muscle cramps and gallstones (Wadden et al, 1983b; Saris, 2001). In a recent randomized controlled trial, at 8 weeks, compared with LED users, VLED users had a significantly higher incidence of bad breath (35% vs. 22%), intolerance to cold (41% vs. 18%) and flatulence (45% vs. 28%; P<0.05 for all comparisons), with trends towards greater risk of hair loss and dry skin (Christensen et al, 2011). Mirroring previous findings, this study suggested that LEDs have fewer adverse effects than VLEDs, and this should be considered when choosing between the two diets (Rössner and Flaten, 1997). Patients should also be made aware that acute gallstone events and gout have been reported following significant weight loss (Christensen et al, 2011; Johansson et al, 2011). However, incidences British Journal of Obesity Volume 1 No 3 2015 of gallstone disease have mostly been reported in the US, where formula diets contain lower levels of essential fatty acids than in the EU (Saris, 2001). Side-effects with formula diets are generally mild and easily managed, although, if VLEDs are used unsupervised in high-risk individuals, they may result in serious complications (Wadden et al, 1983b). VLEDs cannot be used with every patient and there are currently several contraindications to their use, including pregnancy, acute kidney disease and gout (Box 1). The loss of excess lean body mass following LEDs poses several risks (Heymsfield et al, 2014), and lean tissue losses of 14–30% have been reported, depending on the patient population and the inclusion of physical activity in the regimen (Christensen et al, 2011; Snel et al, 2012a). Sufficient amounts of protein and associated carbohydrate are essential to minimise protein turnover and maintain nitrogen balance. Hopefully, with the new EU regulations, loss of lean body mass will continue to be minimised. Research has suggested that poor diet quality and micronutrient deficiencies are more common in obese individuals compared to normal-weight people (Kimmons et al, 2006; Damms-Machado et al, 2012). With evidence that traditional popular 111 Is there a place for low-energy formula diets in weight management? “The use of lowenergy diets has been shown to be effective in producing clinically significant weight loss and, with the addition of weightloss maintenance strategies, can produce a long-term body weight loss of around 10%, combined with improvements in obesity-related comorbidities.” Box 1. Contraindications for the use of very-low-energy diets. • Infants and children. • Pregnancy and lactating women. • Unstable cardiac or cerebrovascular disease. • Acute and chronic renal failure. • Severe or end-stage liver failure. • Acute psychiatric disorder. •Gout. weight loss diets have a high likelihood of being micronutrient-deficient (Calton, 2010), theoretically, formula diets that provide 100% of the Daily Reference Intake for healthy adults could help to improve these deficiencies during weight loss. Evidence is variable, suggesting both improvements and further deteriorations in nutritional status in obese individuals who follow a formula diet (Damms-Machado et al, 2012; Christensen et al, 2013). Undoubtedly, further evidence is required. Conclusion The use of LEDs has been shown to be effective in producing clinically significant weight loss and, with the addition of weight-loss maintenance strategies, can produce a long-term body weight loss of around 10%, combined with improvements in obesityrelated comorbidities. Evidence is now growing for the use of VLEDs within both diabetes and osteoarthritis. Furthermore, the erroneous beliefs that LEDs are unsafe and that the rapid weight loss is not maintained are increasingly being challenged. At present, it is difficult to recommend best practice regarding LEDs (Mulholland et al, 2012; Johansson et al, 2014). Although higher-quality data have been published more recently, previous papers often only reported data on completers and had significant methodological heterogeneity. This has been reflected by the differing statements from the professional bodies and the fact that NICE (2014) does not yet recommend VLEDs in routine care. From the current scientific evidence, it appears that LEDs may have a place within weight management and clinical practice; however, if clinicians are to consider them, it is important that the right infrastructure be in place to support the patient, in order to ensure both safety and weight maintenance. With research in this area gaining 112 momentum, the use of LEDs in routine care may indeed change in the future. n Conflicts of interest The authors have received funding for investigatorinitiated research through an educational grant from Cambridge Weight Plan Ltd. Acknowledgement Shahrad Taheri receives funding from the Biomedical Research Program (BMRP) at Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, supported by the Qatar Foundation, and from the Qatar National Research Fund National Priorities Research Programme (NPRP), grant no. NPRP 8-912-3-192. Astrup A, Rössner S (2000) Lessons from obesity management programmes: greater initial weight loss improves long-term maintenance. Obes Rev 1: 17–9 Atkinson RL, Dietz WH, Foreyt JP et al (1993) Very low-calorie diets. National Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity, National Institutes of Health. JAMA 270: 967–74 Avenell A, Broom J, Brown TJ et al (2004) Systematic review of the long-term effects and economic consequences of treatments for obesity and implications for health improvement. Health Technol Assess 8: 1–182 Baldry EL, Leeder PC, Idris IR (2014) Pre-operative dietary restriction for patients undergoing bariatric surgery in the UK: observational study of current practice and dietary effects. Obes Surg 24: 416–21 Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E et al (2004) Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 292: 1724–37 Calton JB (2010) Prevalence of micronutrient deficiency in popular diet plans. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 7: 24 Christensen P, Bliddal H, Riecke BF et al (2011) Comparison of a low-energy diet and a very low-energy diet in sedentary obese individuals: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Clin Obes 1: 31–40 Christensen P, Frederiksen R, Bliddal H et al (2013) Comparison of three weight maintenance programs on cardiovascular risk, bone and vitamins in sedentary older adults. Obesity (Silver Spring) 21: 1982–90 Christensen P, Bliddal H, Bartels EM et al (2014) Long-term intervention with weight loss in patients with concomitant obesity and knee osteoarthritis: the LIGHT study – a randomised clinical trial. Obesity Reviews 15(Suppl 2): 152 (abstract T5: S25.54) Codex Alimentarius (1991) Codex Standard for Formula Foods for use in Weight Control Diets (Codex Stan 181-1991). WHO/FAO, Italy. Codex Alimentarius (1995) Codex Standard for Formula Foods for use in Very Low Energy Diets for Weight Reduction (Codex Stan 203-1995). WHO/FAO, Italy Colles SL, Dixon JB, Marks P et al (2006) Preoperative weight loss with a very-low-energy diet: quantitation of changes in liver and abdominal fat by serial imaging. Am J Clin Nutr 84: 304–11 Cope MB, Allison DB (2006) Obesity: person and population. Obesity (Silver Spring) 14(Suppl 4): 156–9 Damms-Machado A, Weser G, Bischoff SC (2012) Micronutrient deficiency in obese subjects undergoing low calorie diet. Nutr J 11: 34 Dhindsa P, Scott AR, Donnelly R (2003) Metabolic and cardiovascular effects of very-low-calorie diet therapy in obese patients with type 2 diabetes in secondary failure: outcomes after 1 year. Diabet Med 20: 319–24 Dietitians in Obesity Management UK (2007) The Dietetic Weight Management Intervention for Adults in the One to One Setting: Is it Time for a Radical Rethink? DOM UK, Birmingham. Dixon JB, O’Brien PE, Playfair J et al (2008) Adjustable gastric banding and conventional therapy for type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 299: 316–23 Dixon JB, Zimmet P, Alberti KG et al (2011) Bariatric surgery: an IDF statement for obese type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med 28: 628–42 British Journal of Obesity Volume 1 No 3 2015 Is there a place for low-energy formula diets in weight management? European Food Safety Authority (2015) Scientific opinion on the essential composition of total diet replacements for weight control. EFSA Journal 13: 3957 Evans FA, Strang JM (1929) A departure from the usual methods in treating obesity. Am J Med Sci 177: 339–47 Felig P (1984) Very-low-calorie protein diets. N Engl J Med 310: 589–91 Fris RJ (2004) Preoperative low energy diet diminishes liver size. Obes Surg 14: 1165–70 Hammer S, Snel M, Lamb HJ et al (2008) Prolonged caloric restriction in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus decreases myocardial triglyceride content and improves myocardial function. J Am Coll Cardiol 52: 1006–12 Haslam DW, Waine C, Leeds AR (2010) Medical Management During Effective Weight-Loss. NOF, London. Available at: http://bit.ly/1JiFP83 (accessed 17.08.15) Heymsfield SB, Gonzalez MC, Shen W et al (2014) Weight loss composition is one-fourth fat-free mass: a critical review and critique of this widely cited rule. Obes Rev 15: 310–21 Jensen P, Zachariae C, Christensen R et al (2014) Effect of weight loss on the cardiovascular risk profile of obese patients with psoriasis. Acta Derm Venereol 94: 691–4 Johansson K, Neovius M, Lagerros YT et al (2009) Effect of a very low energy diet on moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea in obese men: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 339: b4609 Johansson K, Hemmingsson E, Harlid R et al (2011) Longer term effects of very low energy diet on obstructive sleep apnoea in cohort derived from randomised controlled trial: prospective observational follow-up study. BMJ 342: d3017 Johansson K, Neovius M, Hemmingsson E et al (2014) Effects of antiobesity drugs, diet, and exercise on weight-loss maintenance after a very-low-calorie diet or low-calorie diet: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr 99: 14–23 Johnston BC, Kanters S, Bandayrel K et al (2014) Comparison of weight loss among named diet programs in overweight and obese adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA 312: 923–33 Jolly K, Lewis A, Beach J et al (2011) Comparison of range of commercial or primary care led weight reduction programmes with minimal intervention control for weight loss in obesity: Lighten Up randomised controlled trial. BMJ 343: d6500 Jonker JT, Snel M, Hammer S et al (2014) Sustained cardiac remodeling after a short-term very low calorie diet in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 30: 121–7 Kimmons JE, Blanck HM, Tohill BC et al (2006) Associations between body mass index and the prevalence of low micronutrient levels among US adults. MedGenMed 8: 59 Lean M, Brosnahan N, McLoone P et al (2013) Feasibility and indicative results from a 12-month low-energy liquid diet treatment and maintenance programme for severe obesity. Br J Gen Pract 63: e115–24 Leeds AR (2014) Formula food-reducing diets: a new evidence-based addition to the weight management tool box. Nutr Bull 39: 238–46 Lewis MC, Phillips ML, Slavotinek JP et al (2006) Change in liver size and fat content after treatment with Optifast very low calorie diet. Obes Surg 16: 697–701 Lim EL, Hollingsworth KG, Aribisala BS et al (2011) Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalisation of beta cell function in association with decreased pancreas and liver triacylglycerol. Diabetologia 54: 2506–14 Lin WY, Wu CH, Chu NF, Chang CJ (2009) Efficacy and safety of very-low-calorie diet in Taiwanese: a multicenter randomized, controlled trial. Nutrition 25: 1129–36 Linn R (1976) The Last Chance Diet – When Everything Else Has Failed. Lyle Stuart, Secaucus, NJ, USA Lips MA, de Groot GH, van Klinken JB et al (2014) Calorie restriction is a major determinant of the short-term metabolic effects of gastric bypass surgery in obese type 2 diabetic patients. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 80: 834–42 Lissner L, Odell PM, D’Agostino RB (1991) Variability of body weight and health outcomes in the Framingham population. N Engl J Med 324: 1839–44 Mehta T, Smith DL, Muhammad J, Casazza K (2014) Impact of weight cycling on risk of morbidity and mortality. Obes Rev 15: 870–81 Mulholland Y, Nicokavoura E, Broom J, Rolland C (2012) Very-lowenergy diets and morbidity: a systematic review of longer-term evidence. Br J Nutr 108: 832–51 British Journal of Obesity Volume 1 No 3 2015 National Obesity Forum (2010) Position Statement on the Application of Very Low Energy Diets in Achieving Weight Loss in the Management of Obesity. NOF, London. Available at: http://bit.ly/1Nh65SR (accessed 17.08.15) NICE (2014) Obesity: Identification, Assessment and Management of Overweight and Obesity in Children, Young People and Adults (CG189). NICE, London. Available at: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ cg189 (accessed 17.08.15) Noakes M, Foster PR, Keogh JB, Clifton PM (2004) Meal replacements are as effective as structured weight-loss diets for treating obesity in adults with features of metabolic syndrome. J Nutr 134: 1894–9 Norris SL, Zhang X, Avenell A et al (2005) Long-term nonpharmacologic weight loss interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005: CD004095 Paisey RB, Frost J, Harvey P et al (2002) Five year results of a prospective very low calorie diet or conventional weight loss programme in type 2 diabetes. J Hum Nutr Diet 15: 121–7 Plourde CE, Grenier-Larouche T, Caron-Dorval D (2014) Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch improves insulin sensitivity and secretion through caloric restriction. Obesity (Silver Spring) 22: 1838–46 Purcell K, Sumithran P, Prendergast LA et al (2014) The effect of rate of weight loss on long-term weight management: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2: 954–62 Rider OJ, Francis JM, Ali MK et al (2009) Beneficial cardiovascular effects of bariatric surgical and dietary weight loss in obesity. J Am Coll Cardiol 54: 718–26 Rolland C, Johnston KL, Lula S et al (2014) Long-term weight loss maintenance and management following a VLCD: a 3-year outcome. Int J Clin Pract 68: 379–87 Rössner S, Flaten H (1997) VLCD versus LCD in long-term treatment of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 21: 22–6 Saris WH (2001) Very-low-calorie diets and sustained weight loss. Obes Res 9(Suppl 4): 295–301 Schauer PR, Bhatt DL, Kirwan JP et al (2014) Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy for diabetes – 3-year outcomes. N Engl J Med 370: 2002–13 Scientific Cooperation Committee (2002) Collection of Data on Products Intended for use in Very-Low-Calorie-Diets (SCOOP Task 7.3). European Commission, Brussels. Available at: http://bit.ly/1HRYsKK (accessed 17.08.15) SIGN (2010) SIGN 115: Management of Obesity: A National Clinical Guideline. SIGN, Edinburgh. Available at: http://www.sign.ac.uk/ pdf/sign115.pdf (accessed 17.08.15) Sjöström L (2013) Review of the key results from the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) trial – a prospective controlled intervention study of bariatric surgery. J Intern Med 273: 219–34 Snel M, Gastaldelli A, Ouwens DM et al (2012a) Effects of adding exercise to a 16-week very low-calorie diet in obese, insulindependent type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97: 2512–20 Snel M, Jonker JT, Hammer S et al (2012b) Long-term beneficial effect of a 16-week very low calorie diet on pericardial fat in obese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Obesity (Silver Spring) 20: 1572–6 Snel M, Sleddering MA, Vd Peijl ID et al (2012c) Quality of life in type 2 diabetes mellitus after a very low calorie diet and exercise. Eur J Intern Med 23: 143–9 Sours HE, Frattali VP, Brand CD et al (1981) Sudden death associated with very low calorie weight reduction regimens. Am J Clin Nutr 34: 453–61 Steven S, Taylor R (2015) Restoring normoglycaemia by use of a very low calorie diet in long- and short-duration type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med 32: 1149–55 Sumithran P, Prendergast LA, Delbridge E et al (2013) Ketosis and appetite-mediating nutrients and hormones after weight loss. Eur J Clin Nutr 67: 759–64 Taylor R (2013) Type 2 diabetes: etiology and reversibility. Diabetes Care 36: 1047–55 Tsai AG, Wadden TA (2006) The evolution of very-low-calorie diets: an update and meta-analysis. Obesity (Silver Spring) 14: 1283–93 Wadden TA, Stunkard AJ, Brownell KD, Van Itallie TB (1983a) The Cambridge diet. More mayhem? JAMA 250: 2833–4 Wadden TA, Stunkard AJ, Brownell KD (1983b) Very low calorie diets: their efficacy, safety, and future. Ann Intern Med 99: 675–84 Wadden TA, Neiberg RH, Wing RR et al (2011) Four-year weight losses in the Look AHEAD study: factors associated with long-term success. Obesity (Silver Spring) 19: 1987–98 “From the current scientific evidence, it appears that lowenergy diets may have a place within weight management and clinical practice; however, if clinicians are to consider them, it is important that the right infrastructure be in place to support the patient, in order to ensure both safety and weight maintenance.” 113