There is no doubt that bariatric surgery is currently the most effective long-term treatment for severe obesity, however, there is also some evidence to suggest that patients seeking bariatric surgery (or for that matter any kind of weight loss) are more likely to have accompanying mental issues that individuals with obesity who don’t and that such issues may affect the outcomes of surgery.
Now, a paper by Aaron Dawes and colleagues from Los Angeles, CA, published in JAMA presents a meta-analysis of mental health conditions among patients seeking and undergoing bariatric surgery.
They identified 68 publications meeting inclusion criteria: 59 reporting the prevalence of preoperative mental health conditions (65,363 patients) and 27 reporting associations between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative outcomes (50,182 patients).
Among patients seeking and undergoing bariatric surgery, the most common mental health conditions, each affecting about one-in-five patients were depression and binge eating disorder.
However, neither condition was consistently associated with differences in post-surgical weight outcomes. Nor was there a consistent relationship between other mental health conditions including PTSD or bipolar disease and post-surgical outcomes.
Interestingly, bariatric surgery was consistently associated with a significant decrease in the prevalence and/or severity of depressive symptoms.
So what do these findings mean for clinical practice?
As the authors note,
“Guidelines from the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense recommend routine preoperative health assessments, including a review of patients’ mental health conditions. Other groups advocate for a more comprehensive, preoperative mental health examination in addition to the general evaluation currently performed by medical and surgical teams. The results of our study do not defend or rebut such a recommendation.”
So why are these data not clearer than they should be? Here is what the authors have to offer:
“Much of the difficulty in determining the effectiveness of preoperative mental health screening is due to the limitations of current screening strategies, which use a variety of scales and focus on mental health diagnoses rather than psychosocial factors. Previous reviews have suggested that self-esteem, mental image, cognitive function, temperament, support networks, and socioeconomic stability play major roles in determining outcomes after bariatric surgery. Future studies would benefit from including these characteristics as well as having clear eligibility criteria, standardized instruments, regular measurement intervals, and transparency with respect to time-specific follow-up rates. By addressing these methodological issues, future work can help to identify the optimal strategy for evaluating patients’ mental health prior to bariatric surgery.”
At this time, perhaps to err on the side of caution, our centre (like many others) continues to screen for and address any relevant mental health issues in patients wishing to undergo bariatric surgery.
Yesterday’s guest post on the issue of food addiction (as expected) garnered a lively response from readers who come down on either side of the discussion – those, who vehemently oppose the idea and those, who report success.
Fact is, that we can discuss the pros and cons of this till the cows come home, because the simple truth is that the whole notion lacks what my evidence-based colleagues would consider “strong evidence”.
Indeed, I did try to find at least one high-quality randomized controlled study on using an addictions approach to obesity vs. “usual” care (or for that matter anything else) and must admit that I came up short. The best evidence I could find comes from a few case series – no controls, one observer, nothing that would compel anyone to believe that this approach has more than anecdotal merit.
Yet, the biology (and perhaps even the psychology) of the idea is appealing. Self-proclaimed “food addicts” that I have spoken to readily identify with the addiction model and describe their relationship to “trigger foods” as an uncontrollable factor in their lives that calls for complete abstinence. Animal studies confirm that foods do indeed stimulate the same parts of the brain that are sensitive to other hedonic pleasures and substances.
So why the lack of good data? After all, the idea is hardly new – intervention programs for “food addicts” using the 12 steps or other approaches have been around for decades.
Can it be simply the lack of academic interest in this issue? I find that hard to imagine – but nothing would surprise me.
Is it perhaps because addiction researchers do not take obesity seriously and obesity researchers don’t like the addiction model?
I certainly don’t buy the argument that there is no commercial interest in such an approach – if there were strong and irrefutable evidence, I’m sure someone would figure out how to monetize it.
So again, I wonder, why the lack of good data?
Honestly, I don’t know.
I’m open to any views on this (especially if substantiated by actual evidence).
Today’s guest post is a response to my recent post about Oprah and her weight-loss struggles. The post comes from Dr Vera Tarman, MD, FCFP, ABAM, and author of Food Junkies: The Truth About Food Addiction and Mike MacKinnon a fitness trainer (Fit in 20).
Oprah’s experience of losing and regaining her weight on a regular basis, alongside Sarah, the Duchess of York and Kristie Allie – all spokespersons for weight loss programs ‐ certainly send us a dismal message. Sure, weight loss can occur but keeping it off is the challenge that trips up 90% of people who have tried these and other programs. So, isn’t it more compassionate to dissuade people from the inevitable yo‐ yo lifestyle and accept their current obese weight?
But … what if there are actually many success stores that we are not hearing about?
As an addictions physician I witnessed patients who have lost an average of 60 to 100 pounds and have kept that weight off for years. They are food addicts in recovery from their addiction. They have adopted a radical diversion from the traditional bariatric or eating disorder menu recommendations: Rather than ‘learning’ how to eat all foods in moderation, these people have identified and abstained from the trigger foods that spur their addictive eating. Sobriety, food serenity and long term weight loss result – on a consistent basis.
Look to the recovery circles and addiction treatment programs. Here you will unearth people who have succeeded where Oprah has not. We don’t hear about these victories because many have pledged anonymity in the church basements where they meet, strategize and buffer the messages that we are saturated with by our food‐obsessed culture. Because there is no money to be made with the simple abstinence of sugar, flour or processed foods, and no drugs, herbs or patented food packages to sell – no one is advertising or promoting this approach. Abstinence.
Here is the story of one clinician who has found long ‐ term weight loss. His is a case in point: Weight loss for 13 years and counting. He is not a “rare’” individual who has achieved the impossible. He and his clients have simply applied the solution to the underlying problem of their obesity – an undiagnosed food addiction.
I’m a strength and nutrition coach who specializes in helping people lose weight. My typical clients are female, age 35 and up, who have tried EVERYTHING under the sun, to no avail. Most have had some success, but usually they have lost their weight and gained back even more.
Often, by the time they get to me, they’re frustrated, angry and feel hopelessness.
Over the course of two years, I lost 95 lbs of body fat. I have maintained my weight loss for almost 13 years. I have also helped many others maintain similar weight loss. Last week I interviewed an ex‐client of mine ‐ a doctor ‐ who lost almost 50 lbs six years ago. How did we both do it?
How did we maintain our loss in the face of those who would tell us that it’s not possible, that most can’t?
We addressed the problem, not the symptom. The symptom is excess body fat. The problem however is multi‐factorial:
1) It is mental in that overweight people greatly misunderstand what healthy eating and healthy exercising looks like.
2) It is emotional. Overweight people tend to turn to food instead of healthier coping mechanisms when they experience stress or overwhelming emotions.
3) It is physical: they eat too much of the wrong stuff, and end up eating it compulsively.
I work with people to re‐program their thinking, so they learn to have a better relationship with food. I teach them reality‐based therapies (CBT, DBT, ACT, REBT) that help them deal with harmful thinking and negative emotions more constructively.
Mainly, I teach them what to eat, what foods are healthy versus which lead to addictive eating. Clients learn the tools they need to stay on track so that they don’t relapse back to compulsive eating. The truth is, for some, there are foods they must avoid permanently. This approach is not popular. But, I have found that some people treat certain foods the same way a drug addict treats their drug of choice. Once they start, they cannot stop.
Not everyone fits this category, but some do. When these people agree to give up the foods that are causing them trouble, they succeed.
So, when I hear someone say that most who are overweight are doomed to never lose their weight, my first thought is “nonsense”. What I suggest to my clients is a paradigm shift in thinking. We, who are led by the diet industry, misunderstand the nature of the problem. It is not a simple matter of eating less and excising more. People must accept that an equal portion of mental, emotional and physical work needs to be done AND they may also have to accept that there are certain foods they can never eat again.
Are you a food addict?
If you are, you may have to identify and abstain from your favorite foods in order to achieve long‐term weight loss. Those processed savory or sugary ‘drugs’ that comprise our daily snacks and fast food meals.
Is there good news? There are plenty of people out there who have sustained weight loss, but we have yet to capture them in our studies. They will tell you: You can, you can, you can.
Thus, a study by Miram Salama and colleagues from Laval University, QC, published in Physiology and Behavior, shows that mental work may very much influence food preferences and satiety.
Using a cross-over design, 35 healthy young adults were randomly assigned the one of the two following conditions: mental work (reading a document and writing a summary of 350 words with the use of a computer) or control (rest in seated position).
After 45 mins of each condition, participant were offered a standardized ad libitum buffet-type meal. Appetite sensations (desire to eat, feeling of hunger, fullness level and estimated amount of food that can be consumed) were measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS).
While women not only had a higher caloric intake after the mental work (by about 100 extra Cal), men reduced their caloric intake (by about 200Cal).
While women selectively increased their preference for carbs, men reduced their intakes of dessert.
In both men and women, participants with the highest waist circumference also had the lowest satiety efficiency in response to mental work.
These results suggest that mental work can change energy intake and preferences in both men and women, albeit in different directions.
Why this would be is anyone’s guess – it is also not clear exactly how this mechanism works. One speculation would be that there are differences in how men and women respond to mental stress – but that is certainly work for a future study.
As Canada’s national representative in the World Obesity Federation (formerly IASO), the Canadian Obesity Network is proud to co-host the 13th International Congress on Obesity in Vancouver, 1-4 May 2016.
The comprehensive scientific program will span 6 topic areas:
Track 1: From genes to cells
- For example: genetics, metagenomics, epigenetics, regulation of mRNA and non–coding RNA, inflammation, lipids, mitochondria and cellular organelles, stem cells, signal transduction, white, brite and brown adipocytes
Track 2: From cells to integrative biology
- For example: neurobiology, appetite and feeding, energy balance, thermogenesis, inflammation and immunity, adipokines, hormones, circadian rhythms, crosstalk, nutrient sensing, signal transduction, tissue plasticity, fetal programming, metabolism, gut microbiome
Track 3: Determinants, assessments and consequences
- For example: assessment and measurement issues, nutrition, physical activity, modifiable risk behaviours, sleep, DoHAD, gut microbiome, Healthy obese, gender differences, biomarkers, body composition, fat distribution, diabetes, cancer, NAFLD, OSA, cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, mental health, stigma
Track 4: Clinical management
- For example: diet, exercise, behaviour therapies, psychology, sleep, VLEDs, pharmacotherapy, multidisciplinary therapy, bariatric surgery, new devices, e-technology, biomarkers, cost effectiveness, health services delivery, equity, personalised medicine
Track 5: Populations and population health
- For example: equity, pre natal and early nutrition, epidemiology, inequalities, marketing, workplace, school, role of industry, social determinants, population assessments, regional and ethnic differences, built environment, food environment, economics
Track 6: Actions, interventions and policies
- For example: health promotion, primary prevention, interventions in different settings, health systems and services, e-technology, marketing, economics (pricing, taxation, distribution, subsidy), environmental issues, government actions, stakeholder and industry issues, ethical issues
Early-bird registration is now open – click here
Abstract submission deadline is November 30, 2015 – click here
For more information including sponsorship and exhibiting at ICO 2016 – click here
I look forward to welcoming you to Vancouver next year.