Author
Listed:
- Chantal Julia
- Sandrine Péneau
- Valentina A Andreeva
- Caroline Méjean
- Léopold Fezeu
- Pilar Galan
- Serge Hercberg
Abstract
Background: The rising prevalence of obesity and the social pressure for thinness increase the prevalence of dieting. However, little is known about the overall perception of dieting strategies actually used by the general population. Objectives: Our main objective was to investigate perceptions of weight-loss practices in an observational study in order to identify the most favourable strategy. Design: Adults from the ongoing Nutrinet-Santé cohort study who had reported engaging in dieting in the three previous years were included in the study. For each diet, detailed information was collected on types of diets, circumstances and perception of the diet, and outcomes. Perceptions were compared across diets using sex-specific mixed effects models. Result: Among the 48 435 subjects who had completed the respective questionnaire, 12 673 (26.7%, 87.8% of women) had followed at least one weight-loss diet in the previous three years. Diet plans prescribed by health professionals and diets conforming to official dietary recommendations were the most favourably perceived among all assessed weight-loss strategies. Alternatively, commercial diet plans and self-imposed dietary restrictions were more negatively perceived (Odds ratios (OR) for adherence difficulty 1.30 (95% confidence interval (0.99;1.7)) in men and OR 1.92 (1.76;2.10) in women compared to official nutritional guidelines; OR 1.06 (0.82;1.38) in men and OR 1.39 (1.26;1.54) in women respectively) compared to official nutritional guidelines. Conclusion: Official dietary recommendations could be useful tools for maintaining a dietary balance while following a weight-loss diet.
Suggested Citation
Chantal Julia & Sandrine Péneau & Valentina A Andreeva & Caroline Méjean & Léopold Fezeu & Pilar Galan & Serge Hercberg, 2014.
"Weight-Loss Strategies Used by the General Population: How Are They Perceived?,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-8, May.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0097834
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097834
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0097834. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.