Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:

Response to Segal and Dalziel

International Journal of Obesity volume 31, page 1185 (2007)Cite this article

We thank Segal and Dalziel for their interest in our work. They are correct in their assessment that the ACE approach to priority setting endeavours to utilise the ‘best available evidence’ and to inform policy development in public health. We are pleased to share our reasoning for our optimistic assumption about the maintenance of benefit through time, which includes both policy and technical elements.

At the policy level, our rationale has been to provide the best possible estimates for the potential contribution of the selected interventions to controlling the obesity epidemic. Yet, even with the most optimistic assumption about maintenance of effect through time, the conclusion is that these interventions alone are unlikely to be sufficient to control, let alone reverse, the obesity epidemic. We have tried to keep this optimistic assumption in perspective by clearly noting it is a critical assumption almost linearly related to size of health outcomes. For example, if attenuation of the impact over time is 50%, health gain is approximately halved.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Anderson JW, Konz EC, Frederich RC, Wood CL . Long-term weight-loss maintenance: a meta-analysis of US studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2001; 74: 579–584.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program Evaluation Unit, School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

    M M Haby, R Carter, M Moodie & K-S Tay-Teo

  2. School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia

    T Vos

  3. Department of Human Services, Chronic Disease Surveillance and Epidemiology, Public Health Branch, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    T Vos, A Markwick & A Magnus

  4. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    B Swinburn

Authors
  1. M M Haby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T Vos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M Moodie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A Markwick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A Magnus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. K-S Tay-Teo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. B Swinburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haby, M., Vos, T., Carter, R. et al. Response to Segal and Dalziel. Int J Obes 31, 1185 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803617

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803617

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links