Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized double-blind trial reveals that baseline reinforcement learning and working memory predict weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity, indicating neurocognitive drivers of success.
Individuals vary widely in their response to behavioral weight-loss interventions, suggesting that neurocognitive differences may influence treatment success. We examined whether baseline cognitive performance predicted percent change in body weight over 8 months in a behavioral weight-loss trial. This secondary analysis used data from the Dietary Adaptation for Weight-loss maintenance at Yale (DAWLY) trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of oleoylethanolamide (OEA) in adults with overweight or obesity. All participants completed a structured lifestyle behavioral weight-loss program (LEARN®) for four months (including dietary and physical activity guidance and behavioral strategies to achieve the lifestyle changes), followed by a four-month maintenance phase. Thirty-one participants completed the 8-month follow-up and a comprehensive neurocognitive battery. Cognitive variables were z-standardized and entered into principal component analysis; component scores were then used in regression models predicting percent weight change, adjusting for baseline weight, age, education, days tracked, sex, and treatment group. The first six components explained 73.8% of the variance in baseline cognition. Sex and PC5, characterized by strong loadings on probabilistic reinforcement learning and spatial working-memory tasks, were significantly associated with percent weight change. Individuals with higher PC5 scores and women showed greater 8-month weight loss. These results suggest that the ability to learn and update value contingencies and to use effective working-memory strategies may contribute to successful weight-loss during behavioral interventions. Clinical trial registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier: NCT04614233.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arjmand et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: