Highlight
In long-term follow-up after 18-month lifestyle trials, participants regained weight but still preserved part of their earlier reductions in waist circumference and abdominal fat depots, especially visceral adipose tissue.
Among several fat depots measured by MRI, intervention-induced visceral fat loss showed the most clinically durable association with later cardiometabolic health and was the only depot independently linked to lower incident type 2 diabetes risk.
Every 10% reduction in visceral adipose tissue during the intervention was associated with a 28% lower risk of type 2 diabetes during follow-up, with a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54-0.94).
These data argue that the biological target of lifestyle treatment should extend beyond body weight to include selective reduction of metabolically harmful fat depots.
Background
Obesity management has long been framed around body weight, body mass index, and total weight loss. Yet clinicians know that patients with similar body weights can have markedly different metabolic profiles. One major reason is fat distribution. Visceral adipose tissue, located within the abdominal cavity around the internal organs, is metabolically more pathogenic than many other fat depots. It is associated with insulin resistance, systemic inflammation, dyslipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and higher cardiovascular and diabetes risk.
By contrast, weight regain after successful dieting is common, and this often leads to clinical pessimism about the long-term value of lifestyle interventions. However, whether all benefits are erased when body weight returns has remained uncertain. If certain high-risk fat depots remain partly reduced, or if early changes in depot-specific fat biology influence later disease risk, then the conventional narrative that “regained weight equals lost benefit” may be too simplistic.
The CENTRAL and DIRECT-PLUS trials previously showed that structured dietary interventions combined with physical activity can meaningfully reduce abdominal and ectopic fat. The new Circulation report addresses a clinically important question: do these favorable fat-depot changes matter years later, after the formal intervention has ended?
Study Design
Overall design
This investigation is a long-term follow-up analysis of 2 prior 18-month randomized clinical trials: CENTRAL (Effect of Weight-Loss Diet Strategies and Exercise on Dynamics of Body Fat Depots and Metabolic Rate) and DIRECT-PLUS (Effects of Green-Mediterranean Diet via the Gut-Fat-Brain Axis). The follow-up occurred 5 and 10 years after trial completion, respectively.
Population and follow-up completeness
The investigators reached 366 of 381 eligible participants, representing a 96% follow-up rate, which is a major strength for long-term lifestyle research. The original trial populations consisted mainly of adults in a workplace-based setting who underwent intensive diet and physical activity interventions. This high retention improves confidence that the long-term observations are not merely driven by severe attrition bias.
Interventions
The original trials compared structured dietary strategies, including low-fat diets, healthy dietary guideline-based approaches, Mediterranean diet variants, low-carbohydrate Mediterranean approaches, and in DIRECT-PLUS a polyphenol-enriched “green” Mediterranean diet. These interventions were paired with structured physical activity programs.
Imaging and clinical endpoints
The most distinctive feature of the study is its use of repeated magnetic resonance imaging to quantify specific fat depots rather than relying only on anthropometrics. The investigators assessed visceral adipose tissue, deep subcutaneous adipose tissue, superficial subcutaneous adipose tissue, intrahepatic fat, and intrapancreatic fat. Clinical follow-up included cardiometabolic measures such as insulin resistance-related metrics, composite risk scores, metabolic syndrome severity, and incident type 2 diabetes.
Analytic approach
The authors examined whether the magnitude of fat-depot change achieved during the intervention predicted later cardiometabolic status. Models were adjusted for potentially important postintervention factors, including weight change during follow-up, Mediterranean diet adherence, and physical activity scores, along with additional covariates. They also used false discovery rate control for multiple comparisons, which is appropriate given the number of depot-outcome relationships tested.
Key Findings
Weight regain did not mean complete reversal of body composition benefit
The first major result is clinically counterintuitive. Despite complete weight regain over time, participants did not fully lose the favorable changes in all adipose depots. Waist circumference and abdominal fat depots, including visceral adipose tissue, deep subcutaneous adipose tissue, and superficial subcutaneous adipose tissue, still showed partial preservation of intervention-induced benefit at long-term follow-up, with false discovery rate values of 0.01 or lower for all.
This suggests that body weight alone understated the residual physiological impact of the original intervention. For clinicians, the practical implication is important: patients who appear to have “failed” because the scale returned to baseline may still carry forward a more favorable abdominal fat pattern than before treatment.
Ectopic fat behaved differently from abdominal fat depots
Not all fat depots showed durability. Reductions in intrahepatic fat were fully regained, and reductions in intrapancreatic fat were excessively regained during follow-up, both with false discovery rate values of 0.01 or lower. This finding is notable because ectopic fat in liver and pancreas is strongly linked to insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction. The data indicate that these depots may be particularly vulnerable to relapse once the structured intervention ends.
The liver and pancreas therefore may require more sustained behavioral or possibly pharmacologic support than abdominal fat depots if long-term ectopic fat suppression is a treatment goal.
Visceral fat loss was the strongest durable metabolic signal
Each 10% intervention-induced reduction in visceral adipose tissue, superficial subcutaneous adipose tissue, and intrapancreatic fat was associated with long-term postintervention improvement in Metabolic Score for Insulin Resistance, composite cardiometabolic risk score, and Metabolic Syndrome Severity Score. These relationships remained significant after adjustment for weight change and lifestyle behaviors at follow-up.
However, visceral adipose tissue stood out from the rest. It was the only fat depot for which a 10% intervention-induced loss independently predicted lower future type 2 diabetes risk. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54-0.94), indicating an approximately 28% lower risk of incident diabetes during follow-up.
That magnitude is clinically meaningful. It suggests that, even if overall weight loss is not maintained, an earlier reduction in visceral fat may mark or mediate a lasting improvement in metabolic resilience.
Why this result matters clinically
In daily practice, obesity counseling is often dominated by kilograms lost and regained. This study supports a more nuanced interpretation. Lifestyle intervention may create lasting changes in the most harmful fat compartment, and that depot-specific response appears more informative than body weight for long-term diabetes prevention.
For patients, this can be reframed as a message of partial success rather than all-or-nothing failure. For clinicians, it supports the use of waist circumference and metabolic biomarkers as more informative follow-up tools than body weight alone, especially when advanced imaging is not practical.
Expert Commentary
Biological plausibility
The biological rationale for the primacy of visceral adipose tissue is strong. Visceral fat is more lipolytically active than many subcutaneous stores and drains into the portal circulation, delivering free fatty acids and inflammatory mediators directly to the liver. This contributes to hepatic insulin resistance, increased very-low-density lipoprotein production, dysglycemia, and broader cardiometabolic dysfunction. Reduction in visceral fat can therefore plausibly improve several pathways at once, including glucose homeostasis, lipid metabolism, and inflammatory tone.
In contrast, total body weight is a composite measure that does not distinguish harmful from less harmful tissue compartments. A modest body-weight response accompanied by a substantial visceral fat reduction may have more metabolic value than a larger total-weight change with limited visceral fat remodeling.
Strengths of the study
The study has several notable strengths. First, the imaging-based phenotyping is unusually detailed for long-term lifestyle research. Second, the follow-up rate of 96% is excellent. Third, the analysis spans two randomized intervention cohorts with different but related dietary strategies, strengthening the general inference that the signal is not tied to a single diet pattern alone. Fourth, the investigators adjusted for posttrial lifestyle behaviors, helping separate the prognostic value of earlier fat-depot change from later behavioral drift.
Limitations and caution in interpretation
Several limitations deserve attention. This was a follow-up analysis after completion of randomized interventions, not a new randomized comparison of long-term maintenance strategies. Therefore, associations between initial fat-depot change and later outcomes, while compelling, cannot be interpreted as fully causal.
Generalizability may also be limited. The original cohorts came from structured trial environments and may not reflect broader community populations with more heterogeneous socioeconomic, ethnic, or clinical backgrounds. The article summary also does not provide full subgroup detail, so it remains uncertain whether the effect of visceral fat loss differs by sex, baseline diabetes risk, age, or degree of obesity.
Another practical limitation is feasibility. MRI-based fat-depot quantification is not available for routine obesity care in most settings. Translation to practice will therefore depend on lower-cost surrogates, such as waist circumference, waist-to-height ratio, triglyceride-to-HDL patterns, insulin resistance metrics, or emerging imaging alternatives.
Implications for practice and policy
This study reinforces the idea that lifestyle treatment should not be judged solely by the bathroom scale. In clinical cardiometabolic prevention, the therapeutic target should be framed more explicitly around visceral fat reduction, insulin resistance improvement, and diabetes prevention.
For health systems, this has implications for outcome measurement. Programs that improve abdominal adiposity and metabolic risk but do not sustain large weight losses may still deliver important long-term value. Reimbursement and quality metrics that focus narrowly on total weight loss may underestimate clinically meaningful benefit.
How This Fits With Existing Evidence
Prior work from the DIRECT and CENTRAL research programs has shown that Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate dietary strategies can differentially affect fat depots and metabolic risk. Broader literature also supports the pathogenic role of visceral fat and ectopic fat in cardiometabolic disease. Current obesity and diabetes guidelines increasingly recognize waist circumference and metabolic complications as important complements to body mass index, although most still rely heavily on weight-centered framing.
The present study adds something distinct: it links depot-specific fat loss during a defined lifestyle intervention with outcomes measured 5 to 10 years later. In doing so, it helps bridge mechanistic obesity research and real-world chronic disease prevention.
Practical Clinical Takeaways
First, clinicians should continue to prescribe diet and physical activity interventions even when long-term weight maintenance appears uncertain. Important benefit may persist below the surface.
Second, waist circumference should be tracked more consistently in primary care, endocrinology, and cardiometabolic clinics. It is an imperfect but practical surrogate for harmful central adiposity.
Third, patients should be told that losing abdominal fat can matter even if some or all body weight returns. This may improve adherence and reduce the demoralization that often accompanies weight regain.
Fourth, patients with marked hepatic or pancreatic fat at baseline may need longer-term maintenance strategies, given the apparent tendency of ectopic fat reduction to be fully lost over time.
Finally, future intervention trials should consider visceral fat change, not just weight loss, as a core endpoint. Combining lifestyle therapy with pharmacologic approaches that target adiposity and insulin resistance may be especially relevant for maintaining benefit in high-risk individuals.
Conclusion
This 5- and 10-year follow-up of the CENTRAL and DIRECT-PLUS trials challenges the simplistic view that weight regain nullifies the value of lifestyle intervention. Although participants regained body weight, some favorable changes in abdominal fat depots persisted. More importantly, the magnitude of visceral fat reduction achieved during the intervention predicted better long-term cardiometabolic status and a substantially lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes.
The central message is clinically actionable: for durable cardiometabolic health, the target should not be weight loss alone. Visceral fat loss appears to be the more meaningful therapeutic objective. Future care pathways, trial designs, and prevention policies should increasingly align with that biology.
Funding and ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01530724 and NCT03020186.
The abstract provided does not detail full funding sources. Readers should consult the final Circulation publication for complete funding, sponsor, and disclosure statements.
References
1. Klein H, Alufer L, Goldberg Toren DT, Pachter D, Kamer O, Ebstein Karamani N, Chassidim Y, Shelef I, Rudich A, Yoel U, Ben-Arie G, Zelicha H, Yaskolka Meir A, Tsaban G, Bartal C, Blüher M, Stumvoll M, Ceglarek U, Isermann B, Qi L, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB, Shai I. Lifestyle-Induced Visceral Fat Loss as a Key Target for Durable Cardiometabolic Health: MRI-Assessed 5- and 10-Year Follow-Up After 2 Clinical Trials. Circulation. 2026-06-02. PMID: 42227111.
2. Gepner Y, Shelef I, Schwarzfuchs D, et al. Effect of distinct lifestyle interventions on mobilization of fat storage pools: CENTRAL magnetic resonance imaging randomized controlled trial. Circulation. 2018;137(11):1143-1157.
3. Tsaban G, Yaskolka Meir A, Rinott E, et al. The effect of green Mediterranean diet on cardiometabolic risk; a randomised controlled trial. Heart. 2021;107(13):1054-1061.
4. Neeland IJ, Ross R, Després JP, et al. Visceral and ectopic fat, atherosclerosis, and cardiometabolic disease: a position statement. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7(9):715-725.
5. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025. Diabetes Care. 2025;48(Suppl 1).
