According to the CONSORT statement, significance testing of baseline differences in randomized controlled trials should not be performed. In fact, this practice has been discouraged by numerous authors throughout the last forty years. During that time span, reporting of baseline differences has substantially decreased in the leading general medical journals. Our own experience in the field of nutrition behavior research however, is that co-authors, reviewers and even editors are still very persistent in their demand for these tests. The aim of this paper is therefore to negate this demand by providing clear evidence as to why testing for baseline differences between intervention groups statistically is superfluous and why such results should not be published. Testing for baseline differences is often propagated because of the belief that it shows whether randomization was successful and it identifies real or important differences between treatment arms that should be accounted for in the statistical analyses. Especially the latter argument is flawed, because it ignores the fact that the prognostic strength of a variable is also important when the interest is in adjustment for confounding. In addition, including prognostic variables as covariates can increase the precision of the effect estimate. This means that choosing covariates based on significance tests for baseline differences might lead to omissions of important covariates and, less importantly, to inclusion of irrelevant covariates in the analysis. We used data from four supermarket trials on the effects of pricing strategies on fruit and vegetables purchases, to show that results from fully adjusted analyses sometimes do appreciably differ from results from analyses adjusted for significant baseline differences only. We propose to adjust for known or anticipated important prognostic variables. These could or should be pre-specified in trial protocols. Subsequently, authors should report results from the fully adjusted as well as crude analyses, especially for dichotomous and time to event data. Based on our arguments, which were illustrated by our findings, we propose that journals in and outside the field of nutrition behavior actively adopt the CONSORT 2010 statement on this topic by not publishing significance tests for baseline differences anymore.

Summary: Background: Discerning the determinants of weight loss maintenance is important in the planning of future interventions and policies regarding overweight and obesity. We have therefore systematically synthesized recent literature on determinants of weight loss maintenance for individuals with overweight and obesity.Methods: With the use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement, prospective studies were identified from searches in PubMed and PsycINFO from 2006 to 2016. We included articles investigating adults with overweight and obesity undergoing weight loss without surgery or medication. Included articles were scored on their methodological quality, and a best‐evidence synthesis was applied to summarize the results.Results: Our search resulted in 8,222 articles of which 67 articles were selected. In total, 124 determinants were identified of which 5 were demographic, 59 were behavioural, 51 were psychological/cognitive and 9 were social and physical environmental determinants. We found consistent evidence that demographic determinants were not predictive of weight loss maintenance. Behavioural and cognitive determinants that promote a reduction in energy intake, an increase in energy expenditure and monitoring of this balance are predictive determinants.Conclusion: This review identifies key determinants in weight loss maintenance. However, more research regarding cognitive and environmental determinants of weight loss maintenance is needed to advance our knowledge on determinants of weight loss maintenance.

In addition to helping consumers make healthier food choices, front-of-pack nutrition labels could encourage companies to reformulate existing products and develop new ones with a healthier product composition. This is the largest study to date to investigate the effect of a nutrition logo on the development of healthier products by food manufacturers. A total of 47 food manufacturers joining the Choices Foundation in the Netherlands (response: 39.5%) indicated whether their Choices products were newly developed, reformulated or already complied with the Choices criteria and provided nutrient composition data for their products (n = 821; 23.5% of the available Choices products in August 2009). Most products carrying the logo as a result of reformulation and new product development were soups and snacks. Sodium reduction was the most common change found in processed meats, sandwiches, soups and sandwich fillings. Dietary fiber was significantly increased in most newly developed Choices product groups; for example, in fruit juices, processed meats, dairy products, sandwiches and soups. Saturated fatty acids (SAFA) and added sugar were significantly decreased both in reformulated and newly developed dairy products. Caloric content was significantly decreased only in reformulated dairy products, sandwich fillings and in some newly developed snacks. The results indicate that the Choices logo has motivated food manufacturers to reformulate existing products and develop new products with a healthier product composition, especially where sodium and dietary fiber are concerned.

Objective: To study differences in the role of price and value in food choice between low-income and higher-income consumers and to study the perception of consumers about pricing strategies that are of relevance during grocery shopping.Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted using structured, written questionnaires. Food choice motives as well as price perceptions and opinion on pricing strategies were measured.Setting: The study was carried out in point-of-purchase settings, i.e. supermarkets, fast-food restaurants and sports canteens.Subjects: Adults (n 159) visiting a point-of-purchase setting were included.Results: Price is an important factor in food choice, especially for low-income consumers. Low-income consumers were significantly more conscious of value and price than higher-income consumers. The most attractive strategies, according to the consumers, were discounting healthy food more often and applying a lower VAT (Value Added Tax) rate on healthy food. Low-income consumers differ in their preferences for pricing strategies.Conclusions: Since price is more important for low-income consumers we recommend mainly focusing on their preferences and needs.

The prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased. A strong environmental factor contributing to the obesity epidemic is food portion size. This review of studies into the effects of portion size on energy intake shows that increased food portion sizes lead to increased energy intake levels. Important mechanisms explaining why larger portions are attractive and lead to higher intake levels are value for money and portion distortion. This review also shows that few intervention studies aiming to reverse the negative influence of portion size have been conducted thus far, and the ones that have been conducted show mixed effects. More intervention studies targeted at portion size are urgently needed. Opportunities for further interventions are identified and a framework for portion size interventions is proposed. Opportunities for intervention include those targeted at the individual as well as those targeted at the physical, economic, political and socio-cultural environment.