|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK + PDF PAPERBACK PDF BOOK PDF CHAPTERS Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2010. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
VVEIGHT MANAGEMENT
State of the
Science and Opportunities
for Military Programs
Subcommittee on Military Weight Management
Committee on Military Nutrition Research
Foocl and Nutrition Board
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
TH E NATIONAL ACADEMI ES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Gov-
erning Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from
the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee re-
sponsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with re-
gard for appropriate balance.
Support for this project was provided by U.S. Army Medical Research and Ma-
teriel Command through contract no. DAMD17-99-1-9478. The U.S. Army
Medical Research Acquisition Activity, 820 Chandler Street, Fort Detrick, MD
21702-5014, is the awarding and administering acquisition office. The views
presented in this report are those of the Subcommittee on Military Weight Man-
agement and are not necessarily those of the funding agency.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-08996-4 (Pbk)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-52681-7 (PDF)
Library of Congress Control Number: 2003111596
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies
Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-
6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet,
http://www.nap.edu.
For more information about the Institute of Medicine, visit the IOM home page
at: www.iom.edu.
Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
The serpent has been a symbol of long life, healing, and knowledge among al-
most all cultures and religions since the beginning of recorded history. The ser-
pent adopted as a logotype by the Institute of Medicine is a relief carving from
ancient Greece, now held by the Staatliche Museen in Berlin.
OCR for page R3
"~(nowin,g is not enough; we must apply.
Willin,g is not enough; we must do."
Goethe
_--
'A
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Shaping the Future for Health
OCR for page R4
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineenng, ondMedirine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuat-
ing society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering re-
search, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use
for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the
Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the fed-
eral government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is
president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the
charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of out-
standing engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of
its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility
for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages
education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers.
Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Acad-
emy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate pro-
fessions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the pub-
lic. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government
and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and
education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of
Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology
with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal
government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the
Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in
providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engi-
neering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies
and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are
chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academ ies.org
OCR for page R5
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY WEIGHT MANAGEMENT
RICHARD L. ATKINSON, JR. (chair), Obesity Institute, MedStar Research
Institute, Washington, D.C.
JOHN E. VANDERVEEN (vice-chair), San Antonio, Texas
WILLIAM H. DIETZ, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
JOHN D. FERNSTROM, UPMC Health System Weight Management Center,
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
ARTHUR FRANK, Weight Management Program, The George Washington
University, Washington, D.C.
BARBARA C. HANSEN, Obesity and Diabetes Research Center, University of
Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore
STEVEN B. HEYMSFIELD, Human Body Composition Laboratory and
Weight Control Unit, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital, New York
ROBIN B. KANAREK, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Tufts Univer-
sity, Medford, Massachusetts.
BARBARA J. MOORE, Shape Up America!, Washington, D.C.
Staff
MARY I. POOS, Study Director
LESLIE J. VOGELSANG, Research Assistant (from October 2001)
HARLEEN K. SETHI, Senior Project Assistant (from February 2002)
TAZIMAA. DAVIS, Senior Project Assistant (through November 2001)
OCR for page R6
COMMITTEE ON MILITARY NUTRITION RESEARCH
JOHN E. VANDERVEEN (chair), San Antonio, Texas
BRUCE R. BISTRIAN, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School,
Boston, Massachusetts
JOHANNA T. DWYER, Frances Stern Nutrition Center, TuDs New England
Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
HELEN W. LANE, Johnson Space Center, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Houston, Texas
MELINDA M. MANORE, Department of Nutrition and Food Management,
Oregon State University, Corvallis
WILLIAM P. MORGAN, Sport Physiology Laboratory, University of Wis-
consin, Madison
PATRICK M. O'NEIL, Weight Management Center, Medical University of
South Carolina, Charleston
ESTHER M. STERNBERG, Neuroendocrine Immunology and Behavior
Section, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland
BEVERLY J. TEPPER, Department of Food Science, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, New Jersey
U.S. Army Grant Representative
LTC KARL E. FRIEDL, USA, Military Operational Medicine Research Pro-
gram, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Fort Detrick,
Frederick, Maryland
Stay
MARY I. POOS, Project Director
LESLIE J. VOGELSANG, Research Assistant
HARLEEN K. SETHI, Senior Project Assistant
V1
OCR for page R7
FOOD AND NUTRITION BOARD
CATHERINE E. WOTEKI (chair), College of Agriculture, Iowa State
University, Ames
ROBERT M. RUSSELL (vice chair), U.S. Department of Agriculture Jean
Mayer Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University,
Boston, Massachusetts
LARRY R. BEUCHAT, Center for Food Safety, University of Georgia, Griffin
BENJAMIN CABALLERO, Center for Human Nutrition, Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
SUSAN FERENC, SAP Risk, LC, Madison, Wisconsin
NANCY F. KREBS, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Health
Sciences Center, Denver
SHIRIKI KUMANYIKA, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics,
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia
LYNN PARKER, Child Nutrition Programs and Nutrition Policy, Food
Research and Action Center, Washington, D.C.
PER PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York
A. CATHERINE ROSS, Nutrition Department, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park
BARBARA O. SCHNEEMAN, Department of Nutrition, University of
California at Davis
NICHOLAS J. SCHORK, Polymorphism Research Laboratory, University of
California, San Diego
JOHN W. SUTTIE, Department of Biochemistry, University of Wisconsin,
Madison
STEVE L. TAYLOR, Department of Food Science and Technology and Food
Processing Center, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
BARRY L. ZOUMAS, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural
Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Staff
ALLISON ~4. YATES, Director
LINDA MEYERS, Deputy Director
GAIL SPEARS, Staff Editor
GERALDINE KENNEDO, Administrative Assistant
GARY WALKER, Financial Associate
vii
OCR for page R8
Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their
diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures
approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this
independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist
the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure
that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and
responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript
remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish
to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Catherine M. Angotti, Occupational Health, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; George A. Brooks, Department of Integrative Biology,
University of California, Berkley; Anthony G. Comae, Department of Genet-
ics, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research; James L. Early, Depart-
ment of Preventive Medicine, University of Kansas-Wichita; Esther F. Myers,
Scientific Affairs and Research, American Dietetic Association; Janet Rankin,
Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Polytechnic In-
stitute and State University.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive
comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or
recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release.
The review of this report was overseen by Shiriki Kumanyika, Center for Clini-
cal Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medi-
cine. Appointed by the Institute of Medicine, she was responsible for making
certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accor-
dance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully
considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with
the authoring subcommittee and the institution.
. . .
vail
OCR for page R9
Preface
This publication is the latest in a series of reports based on reviews of the
scientific literature and workshops sponsored by the Committee on Military
Nutrition Research (CMNR) of the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), Institute of
Medicine, the National Academies. A subcommittee of CMNR, the Subcommit-
tee on Military Weight Management, was appointed to organize a workshop and
prepare a report based on information presented at a workshop, a review of the
scientific literature, and the subcommittee's expertise and deliberations. Other
workshops or symposia conducted by CMNR have dealt with topics such as
food components to enhance performance; nutritional needs in hot, cold, and
high-altitude environments; body composition and physical performance;
nutrition and physical performance; cognitive testing methodology; fluid
replacement and heat stress; and antioxidants and oxidative stress. These
workshops form part of the response that CMNR provides to the Commander of
the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC)
regarding issues brought to the committee through the Military Operational
Medicine Research Program at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and the Military N'utri-
tion Division of the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine at
Natick, Massachusetts.
HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE
The CMNR was established in October 1982 following a request by the As-
sistant Surgeon General of the Army that the Board on Military Supplies of the
National Academy of Sciences set up a special committee to advise'the U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD) on the need for and conduct of nutrition research
and related issues. This committee was transferred to the oversight of FNB in
1983. The committee's primary tasks are to identify factors that may critically
influence the physical and mental performance of military personnel under all
environmental extremes; to identify knowledge gaps and recommend research
1X
OCR for page R10
x
PREFACE
that would remedy these deficiencies; to recommend approaches for studying
the relationship of diet to physical and mental performance; and to review and
advise on military feeding standards.
As a standing committee of IOM, the membership of CMNR changes peri-
odically. However, the disciplines represented consistently have included human
nutrition, nutritional biochemistry, performance physiology, food science, die-
tetics, psychology, and clinical medicine. For issues that require broader exper-
tise than exists within the committee, CMNR has convened workshops, utilized
consultants, or appointed subcommittees with expertise in the desired area to
provide additional state-of-the art scientific knowledge and informed opinion to
aid in deliberations.
BACKGROUND
Following the release of the 1995 IOM report, Recommendations for
Research on the Health of Military Women, CMNR was asked to review
existing military policies governing body composition and fitness as part of the
Defense Women's Health Research Program. In particular, the committee was
asked to determine if existing body composition and appearance standards for
women were in conflict with body composition requirements for task
performance, and whether those same standards might actually interfere with
readiness by encouraging chronic dieting, inadequate nutrient intake, or
dangerous eating practices. In March 1998, the CMNR Subcommittee on Body
Composition, Nutrition, and Health of Military Women released its report,
Assessing Readiness in Military Women: The Relationship to Body Composition,
Nutrition, and Health. This report made a number of key recommendations:
.
Incorporate the use of body mass index and fitness assessment into the
current two-tiered body composition assessment procedures.
Increase emphasis on fitness for readiness in military personnel.
. Develop and validate a single service-wide circumference equation for
the assessment of women's body fat.
.
Develop task-specific, gender-neutral strength and endurance tests and
standards for use in determining placements in military occupational specialties
requiring moderate and heavy lifting.
.
Encourage military personnel to achieve and maintain healthy weights
through a continuous exercise and fitness program.
goal.
Provide nutrition education and ongoing counseling if weight loss is a
Similar recommendations had been made in a 1992 CMNR report, Body
Composition and Physical Performance, which first suggested that a military
body composition standard should be based primarily on the ability to perform
OCR for page R11
PREFACE
x
~1
required physical tasks and secondarily on long-term health implications, and
that all the services should develop job-related physical performance standards
for accession into military service.
THE COMMITTEE'S TASK
In July 1999, CMNR was requested to review existing data on (1) optimal
components of a weight-management program, (2) the role of age, gender, and
ethnicity in weight management, and (3) current DOD activities in weight
management; and to provide recommendations for military weight-management
programs. This request for a review of effective military and civilian weight-loss
and weight-management programs originated from the Director of Military
Operational Medicine Research at USAMRMC. Subsequently, a subgroup of
CMNR participated in a series of conference calls with USAMRMC and CMNR
staff to identify the key areas that should be reviewed and to solicit suggestions
for names of scientists who were active in the research fields of interest to serve
as workshop speakers or as members of the subcommittee.
The subcommittee was appointed in September 1999, and on October 24-
27, 1999, it convened a workshop in response to the request from the Army. The
purpose of this workshop was to gather a group of experts to:
.
services,
Share knowledge and experience in managing weight control within the
· Gain relevant knowledge and experience from industry and academia,
· Develop a consensus toward a more standard DOD-wide approach to
weight management that utilizes state-of-the-art knowledge and practices,
Examine current interventions and those under development, particu-
larly in the pharmaceutical industry, and
. Evaluate their appropriateness for military application or the need for
further research.
.
The subcommittee was charged to identify the most effective interventions
for weight loss and maintenance, particularly those most effective for the
nonobese overweight individuals found in the military setting. Specifically, the
subcommittee was asked to address the following questions:
1. What are the essential components of an effective weight/fat loss pro-
gram, and the most effective strategies to sustain weight loss?
2. How do age and gender influence success in weight-management pro-
grams? Should age be considered in weight/fat standards, and in weight-
management programs and interventions?
3. Which strategies would be most and least effective in a military set-
ting? Should military weight/fat loss programs involve direct participation inter-
OCR for page R12
. .
X11
PREFACE
ventions, or only monitoring and guidance? Should military programs be more
proactive in identifying and discouraging ineffective or dangerous weight-loss
practices? Is a warning or cautionary zone prior to enrollment into a weight-
control program an effective strategy? When should duty time be authorized for
participation in intervention strategies for weight/fat loss?
4. To what extent should weight-control programs/policies be standard-
ized across the services, versus tailored to the individual service, installation or
unit? What are the advantages and disadvantages of standardization? Is the pro-
vision of state-of-the-art techniques and knowledge a rationale for standardiza-
tion?
5. How can diet be effectively dealt with as a weight-management com-
ponent in the military setting? Should pharmacological treatment (anorexiants)
be considered for use in the military? In what cases? What factors bear on this
decision?
6. How should resistiveness for weight/fat control be dealt with?
7. What are the knowledge gaps in weight-management programs relative
to the military? What research is needed?
To accomplish this task, the subcommittee's workshop brought together the
personnel responsible for both DOD-wide and service-specific weight-control
program policies; a representation of military weight-control program leaders
and innovators; and key military, academic, and industry researchers.
The subcommittee reviewed the workshop presentations and the relevant
scientific literature and developed a consensus statement on the optimal content
for a weight-control program that could be utilized across the services. In the
extensive interval since the workshop, the subcommittee has updated their
report, incorporating recent references and military data where they were
available. In November 2002, DOD released its revised Instruction 1308.3,
DOD Physical Fitness and Body Fat Program Procedures, and has made some
important changes, which the subcommittee applauds. These new guidelines are
noted throughout the report as appropriate.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Chapter 1 of this report provides background information on the current
demographics of the U.S. population. It then describes the military's interest in
body-weight and body-fat standards and the implications of these standards for
health, performance, fitness, and appearance. Weight standards and weight-
management programs currently provided by each of the services and issues of
concern related to these programs are described in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 briefly
reviews the factors that affect body weight, and Chapter 4 reviews the strategies
for weight management. Chapter 5 provides the subcommittee's specific
responses to the military's questions; Chapter 6 presents the subcommittee's
OCR for page R13
PREFACE
. . .
X111
conclusions and recommendations and identifies research needs. The workshop
agenda and speaker abstracts are presented in Appendix A, and the biographical
sketches of the speakers and subcommittee members appear in Appendixes B
and C, respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is my pleasure as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Weight
Management to acknowledge the contributions of the ENB staff. Their
dedication in the planning and organization of the workshop and the editing of
this report made it possible for the subcommittee to respond to the Army's
request. In particular, I wish to acknowledge the extensive efforts of Mary I.
Poos, the senior staff officer for CMNR. She worked diligently with the
subcommittee members in securing the expert panel of speakers and organizing
the program for the workshop into coherent sessions, and she contributed
substantially to the writing and final updating of the report in response to
review. I also wish to acknowledge Ms. Leslie Vogelsang, research assistant to
CMNR, for her diligence in checking references and finding missing references;
and Ms. Harleen Sethi and Ms. Tazima Davis, senior project assistants to
CMNR, and Ms. Gail Spears, staff editor to FNB, for their work in preparing the
report drafts and final manuscript.
I wish to commend the workshop speakers for their excellent contributions
to the workshop: their abstracts, participation in discussions, and their
willingness to take time from very busy schedules to prepare and deliver
outstanding presentations made it possible for the subcommittee to conduct a
review of the topic area and prepare this report. Their thoughtful responses to
questions posed by subcommittee members and workshop participants also
contributed immeasurably to the quality of the review. It would be neglectful not
to mention the many experts who attended this open meeting at their own
initiative and expense. Their questions and comments contributed in no small
measure to broadening the exchange of scientific information.
I express my deepest appreciation to the members of the subcommittee who
participated extensively during the workshop and in discussions and preparation
of the summary and recommendations in this report.
RICHARD L. ATKINSON, Chair
Subcommittee on Military Weight Management
OCR for page R14
available. In November 2002, DOD released its revised Instruction ~ 308.3, DOD Physical
Fitness and Body Fat Program Procedures, and has made some important changes, which the
subcommittee applauds. These new guidelines are noted throughout the report as appropriate.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Chapter ~ of this report provides background information on the current demographics of the
U.S. population. It then describes the military s interest in body-weight and body-fat standards
and the implications of these standards for health, performance, fitness, and appearance. Weight
standards and weight-management programs currently provided by each of the services and
issues of concern related to these programs are described in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 briefly reviews
the factors that affect body weight, and Chapter 4 reviews the strategies for weight management.
Chapter 5 provides the subcommittee's specific responses to the military's questions; Chapter 6
presents the Subcommittee's conclusions and recommendations and identifies research needs.
The workshop agenda and speaker abstracts are presented in Appendix A, and the biographical
sketches of the speakers and subcommittee members appear in Appendixes B and C,
respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is my pleasure as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Weight Management to
acknowledge the contributions of the FNB staff. Their dedication in the planning and
organization of the workshop and the editing of this report made it possible for the subcommittee
to respond to the Army's request. in particular, ~ wish to acknowledge the extensive efforts of
~ ~ T To . ~ · . ^— —~ ~ ¢_ I_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · ~ · . ~ · . ~ . ~ ~ · . .
Mary 1. Loos, the senior stall officer tor INK. fine worked ulllgently With the subcommittee
members in securing the expert pane} of speakers and organizing the program for the workshop
---Cal --- - - r - ~ 1 - - c;J---~ --I ~-- - r - - no- ----- - ~ - --- - - - ~ ------ - r
· . . , · . . . ·. , . . . . ~ .. . .. · . ~ . ~ . . . ~ ~ ..
mto coherent sessions, and she contnoutec sunstantla11y to the writing and ilna1 updating ot the
report in response to review. ~ also wish to acknowledge Ms. Leslie Vogelsang, research
assistant to CM~K, for her diligence in checking references and finding missing references; and
Ms. Harieen Sethi and Ms. Tazima Davis, senior project assistants to CMNR, and Ms. Gail
Spears, staff editor to FNB, for their work in preparing the report drafts and final manuscript.
~ wish to commend the workshop speakers for their excellent contributions to the workshop:
their abstracts, participation in discussions, and their willingness to take time from very busy
schedules to prepare and deliver outstanding presentations made it possible for the subcommittee
to conduct a review of the topic area and prepare this report. Their thoughtful responses to
questions posed by subcommittee members and workshop participants also contributed
immeasurably to the quality of the review. It would be neglectful not to mention the many
experts who attended this open meeting at their own initiative and expense. Their questions and
comments contributed in no small measure to broadening the exchange of scientific information.
~ express my deepest appreciation to the members of the subcommittee who participated
extensively during the workshop and in discussions and preparation of the summary and
recommendations in this report.
RICHARD L. ATKINSON, Chair
Subcommittee on Military Weight Management
x~v
OCR for page R15
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF THE OVERWEIGHT
PROBLEM ~ 17
The Current National Situation, 17
Uniqueness of the Military Environment, 20
Previous Recommendations on Body Fat and Fitness, 25
The Current Task, 26
Summary, 28
2 MILITARY STANDARDS FOR FITNESS, WEIGHT, AND
BODY COMPOSITION
Introduction, 29
Fitness versus Fatness, 30
Weight Standards for Accession and Retention, 32
The Impact of Weight and Body-Fat Standards, 38
Meeting the Weight and Body-Fat Standards, 41
Weight-Management Programs, 43
Summary, 55
3 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE BODY WEIGHT
Developmental Determinants, 57
Genetic Determinants, 60
Age, 63
Race/Ethnicity, 65
Physical Activity, 67
Food, 69
Physiological Factors, 74
Environmental Factors, 75
Social Factors, 76
Summary, 78
xv
.29
OCR for page R16
xvl
4 WEIGHT-LOSS AND MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES
Introduction, 79
Physical Activity, 80
Behavior and Lifestyle Modification, 82
Diet, 86
Support Systems, 93
Prescription and Over-the-Counter Drugs and Supplements, 96
Future Drugs for the Treatment of Obesity, 103
Surgery, 106
The Use of Structured Maintenance Programs, 107
Public Policy Measures, 1 10
Summary, 1 1 1
RESPONSE TO THE MILITARY'S QUESTIONS.
Question 1, 1 13
Question 2, 1 17
Question 3, 1 18
Question 4, 121
Question 5, 123
Question 6, 124
Question 7, 124
6
113
PROGRAMMATIC AND RESEARCH
RECOMMENDATIONS 125
Prevention, 125
Assessment, 130
Treatment, 133
Program Evaluation, 138
Training, 138
Research Recommendations, 139
Other Areas for Research, 140
REFERENCES
APPENDIXES
CONTENTS
.79
........... 143
A Workshop Agenda and Abstracts, 179
B Biographical Sketches ofthe Workshop Speakers, 241
C Biographical Sketches of the Subcommittee on Military Weight Man-
agement, 249
D Acronyms, 255
OCR for page R17
WIGS MELEE
State of the
Sclence and Opportunldes
for ~llltary Programs
OCR for page R18
