Effect of a Dietary Intervention on Weight Loss in Adults with High vs Low Genetic Predisposition to Higher BMI: A Randomized Diet Intervention Trial
Rodosthenous, R. S.; Viiri, L. E.; Carson, A.; Cajuso, T.; Corbetta, A.; Jones, S.; Brenna, E.; Makkonen, E.; Virolainen, M.; Korkeala, N.; Widen, E.; Ripatti, S.; Ganna, A.
Show abstract
It is unclear whether the effectiveness of weight loss interventions differs based on genetic predisposition to higher body mass index (BMI). Genome-wide polygenic scores (PS) for BMI are the strongest genetic predictors of elevated body weight, but no prospective trials have evaluated weight loss responses based on BMI PS. To assess whether adults with high or low genetic predisposition to higher BMI experience differential weight loss during a 6-month dietary intervention, we designed the GENEROOS study, a single-site, randomised controlled trial conducted in Finland from October 2023 to November 2024. Participants (N=223), aged 30-65 years, with a BMI of 23-36 kg/m{superscript 2} and no diabetes, were recruited from 38,621 genotyped individuals in the Finnish Clinical Biobank Tampere. They were selected from the top or bottom 5th percentile of the BMI PS distribution and randomized to either a six-month dietary coaching program aimed at a 500 kcal/day energy deficit or to a control group receiving no dietary intervention. The main outcome was change in body weight (%) from baseline to 6 months and the interaction between BMI PS and intervention status. At baseline, those in the top 5% of BMI PS weighed on average 8.4 kg (95% CI, 5.1 to 11.7 kg) more than those in the bottom 5%. In the intervention group, mean weight change at 2, 4, and 6 months was -3.89%, -5.32%, and -4.70%; in the control group it was -1.10%, -0.85%, and 0.14%, respectively. No significant interaction was found between BMI PS and intervention on weight change ({beta} = 0.06 [95% CI, -1.33 to 1.44]; P = .94). In this randomised trial, genetic predisposition as measured by BMI PS did not modify response to dietary intervention, indicating that leveraging polygenic scores may not enhance the effectiveness of personalized weight loss strategies. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06092372
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Modifiable lifestyle factors and genetic risk of obesity in Indians 96%
- Environment-wide association study (EWAS) on cardiometabolic traits: A systematic assessment of the association of lifestyle variables on a longitudinal setting 93%
- A longitudinal causal graph analysis investigating modifiable risk factors and obesity in a European cohort of children and adolescents 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- The effects of time-restricted eating vs. standard dietary advice on weight, metabolic health and the consumption of processed food: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial in community-based adults 95%
- Almond Consumption Improves Inflammatory Profiles Independent of Weight Change: A 6-Week Randomized Controlled Trial in Adults with Obesity 94%
- Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on weight and BMI among UK adults: a longitudinal analysis of data from the HEBECO study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genetic Underpinnings of Regional Adiposity Distribution in African Americans: Assessments from the Jackson Heart Study 95%
- Relationships between body fat distribution and metabolic syndrome traits and outcomes: a Mendelian Randomization study 95%
- Metabolomic profiling identifies complex lipid species associated with response to weight loss interventions 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Application of n-of-1 clinical trials in personalized nutrition research: a trial protocol for Westlake N-of-1 Trials for Macronutrient Intake (WE-MACNUTR) 94%
- Erythrocyte n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, gut microbiota and incident type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study 91%
- Physical activity, metabolites, and breast cancer associations 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.