Changes in mood and health-related quality of life in Look AHEAD 6 years after termination of the lifestyle intervention.

OBJECTIVE: The Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) study previously reported that intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) reduced incident depressive symptoms and improved health-related quality of life (HRQOL) over nearly 10 years of intervention compared with a control group (the diabetes support and education group [DSE]) in participants with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity. The present study compared incident depressive symptoms and changes in HRQOL in these groups for an additional 6 years following termination of the ILI in September 2012. METHODS: A total of 1,945 ILI participants and 1,900 DSE participants completed at least one of four planned postintervention assessments at which weight, mood (via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9), antidepressant medication use, and HRQOL (via the Medical Outcomes Scale, Short Form-36) were measured. RESULTS: ILI participants and DSE participants lost 3.1 (0.3) and 3.8 (0.3) kg [represented as mean (SE); p = 0.10], respectively, during the 6-year postintervention follow-up. No significant differences were observed between groups during this time in incident mild or greater symptoms of depression, antidepressant medication use, or in changes on the physical component summary or mental component summary scores of the Short Form-36. In both groups, mental component summary scores were higher than physical component summary scores. CONCLUSIONS: Prior participation in the ILI, compared with the DSE group, did not appear to improve subsequent mood or HRQOL during 6 years of postintervention follow-up.

Strengthening national nutrition research: rationale and options for a new coordinated federal research effort and authority.

BACKGROUND: The US faces remarkable food and nutrition challenges. A new federal effort to strengthen and coordinate nutrition research could rapidly generate the evidence base needed to address these multiple national challenges. However, the relevant characteristics of such an effort have been uncertain. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to provide an objective, informative summary of 1) the mounting diet-related health burdens facing our nation and corresponding economic, health equity, national security, and sustainability implications; 2) the current federal nutrition research landscape and existing mechanisms for its coordination; 3) the opportunities for and potential impact of new fundamental, clinical, public health, food and agricultural, and translational scientific discoveries; and 4) the various options for further strengthening and coordinating federal nutrition research, including corresponding advantages, disadvantages, and potential executive and legislative considerations. METHODS: We reviewed government and other published documents on federal nutrition research; held various discussions with expert groups, advocacy organizations, and scientific societies; and held in-person or phone meetings with >50 federal staff in executive and legislative roles, as well as with a variety of other stakeholders in academic, industry, and nongovernment organizations. RESULTS: Stark national nutrition challenges were identified. More Americans are sick than are healthy, largely from rising diet-related illnesses. These conditions create tremendous strains on productivity, health care costs, health disparities, government budgets, US economic competitiveness, and military readiness. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has further laid bare these strains, including food insecurity, major diet-related comorbidities for poor outcomes from COVID-19 such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and insufficient surveillance on and coordination of our food system. More than 10 federal departments and agencies currently invest in critical nutrition research, yet with relatively flat investments over several decades. Coordination also remains suboptimal, documented by multiple governmental reports over 50 years. Greater harmonization and expansion of federal investment in nutrition science, not a silo-ing or rearrangement of existing investments, has tremendous potential to generate new discoveries to improve and sustain the health of all Americans. Two identified key strategies to achieve this were as follows: 1) a new authority for robust cross-governmental coordination of nutrition research and other nutrition-related policy and 2) strengthened authority, investment, and coordination for nutrition research within the NIH. These strategies were found to be complementary, together catalyzing important new science, partnerships, coordination, and returns on investment. Additional complementary actions to accelerate federal nutrition research were identified at the USDA. CONCLUSIONS: The need and opportunities for strengthened federal nutrition research are clear, with specific identified options to help create the new leadership, strategic planning, coordination, and investment the nation requires to address the multiple nutrition-related challenges and grasp the opportunities before us.