Our aim is evaluating the changes in weight and dietary habits in a sample of outpatients with obesity after 1 month of enforced lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Italy. In this observational retrospective study, the patients of our Obesity Unit were invited to answer to a 12-question multiple-choice questionnaire relative to weight changes, working activity, exercise, dietary habits, and conditions potentially impacting on nutritional choices. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to evaluate the associations among weight/BMI changes and the analyzed variables. A total of 150 subjects (91.5%) completed the questionnaire. Mean self-reported weight gain was ≈1.5 kg (p < 0.001). Lower exercise, self-reported boredom/solitude, anxiety/depression, enhanced eating, consumption of snacks, unhealthy foods, cereals, and sweets were correlated with a significantly higher weight gain. Multiple regression analyses showed that increased education (inversely, β = −1.15; 95%CI −2.13, −0.17, p = 0.022), self-reported anxiety/depression (β = 1.61; 0.53, 2.69, p = 0.004), and not consuming healthy foods (β = 1.48; 0.19, 2.77, p = 0.026) were significantly associated with increased weight gain. The estimated direct effect of self-reported anxiety/depression on weight was 2.07 kg (1.07, 3.07, p < 0.001). Individuals with obesity significantly gained weight 1 month after the beginning of the quarantine. The adverse mental burden linked to the COVID-19 pandemic was greatly associated with increased weight gain.

The links between increased participation in Physical Activity (PA) and improvements in health are well established. As this body of evidence has grown, so too has the search for measures of PA with high levels of methodological effectiveness (i.e. validity, reliability and responsiveness to change). The aim of this “review of reviews” was to provide a comprehensive overview of the methodological effectiveness of currently employed measures of PA, to aid researchers in their selection of an appropriate tool. A total of 63 review articles were included in this review, and the original articles cited by these reviews were included in order to extract detailed information on methodological effectiveness. Self-report measures of PA have been most frequently examined for methodological effectiveness, with highly variable findings identified across a broad range of behaviours. The evidence-base for the methodological effectiveness of objective monitors, particularly accelerometers/activity monitors, is increasing, with lower levels of variability observed for validity and reliability when compared to subjective measures. Unfortunately, responsiveness to change across all measures and behaviours remains under-researched, with limited information available. Other criteria beyond methodological effectiveness often influence tool selection, including cost and feasibility. However, researchers must be aware of the methodological effectiveness of any measure selected for use when examining PA. Although no “perfect” tool for the examination of PA in adults exists, it is suggested that researchers aim to incorporate appropriate objective measures, specific to the behaviours of interests, when examining PA in free-living environments.

This systematic review and meta-analysis summarized the most recent evidence on the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) versus continuous energy restriction on weight-loss, body composition, blood pressure and other cardiometabolic risk factors. Randomized controlled trials were systematically searched from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, TRIP databases, EMBASE and CINAHL until May 2018. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Eleven trials were included (duration range 8–24 weeks). All selected intermittent regimens provided ≤ 25% of daily energy needs on “fast” days but differed for type of regimen (5:2 or other regimens) and/or dietary instructions given on the “feed” days (ad libitum energy versus balanced energy consumption). The intermittent approach determined a comparable weight-loss (WMD: − 0.61 kg; 95% CI − 1.70 to 0.47; p = 0.87) or percent weight loss (WMD: − 0.38%, − 1.16 to 0.40; p = 0.34) when compared to the continuous approach. A slight reduction in fasting insulin concentrations was evident with IER regimens (WMD = − 0.89 µU/mL; − 1.56 to − 0.22; p = 0.009), but the clinical relevance of this result is uncertain. No between-arms differences in the other variables were found. Both intermittent and continuous energy restriction achieved a comparable effect in promoting weight-loss and metabolic improvements. Long-term trials are needed to draw definitive conclusions.