Calorie requirements for a thin person vs someone who lost weight to become thin.
Replies
-
eclenden01 wrote: »You're underestimating the role of genetics. This study found that obese people burn 60 percent less calories than non obese people in response to exercise after taking into consideration body composition, just as an example. I think I remember seeing that some people burn 3 times as much per pound of resting lean muscle than others.
http://rnd.edpsciences.org/articles/rnd/abs/2005/02/r5205/r5205.htmlI would think this would have to do with the amount of lean mass the two people have. All things equal the one with the lower BF% would have higher caloric requirements. Other than that, there could be genetic reasons for the difference, though the amount should not be large, unless there is a medical/hormonal issue going on.
Was this adjusted for fitness level? I would assume the "thin" person would have been in better shape, meaning their V02 Max would be higher (moving more oxygen), which in turn burns more calories. Fitness plays a huge role in exercise calories, when it comes to BMR I would venture to guess that there is probably no more than a 10-15% difference if same weight and amount of lean body mass, assuming same age, gender, height, unless of course one has something like Hypothyroidism or Hyperthyroidism, or PCOS, etc., due to genetics alone.0 -
I think that somebody mentioned earlier about LBM after weight loss. I think too much emphasis is put on weight loss instead of fat loss, therefore when people reach their goal weight they are not aware of how much it effects their metabolism after losing so much muscle as well as fat. Think of people that are classed as skinny fat compared to people with a lower BF measurement, same clothes size but skinny fat weighs less. As their LBM is so different to the person with the lower BF will have a higher metabolism. Moral of the story is when losing weight concentrate of losing fat not muscle by strength training and feeding your muscles with enough protein. Think about what clothes size you want to be not what you want the scales to read.0
-
I guess at the end of the day, it doesn't help much to dwell on genetic/metabolic disadvantage but I think it's important to recognize that those BMR calculators don't apply accurately to everyone... Some people are going to have to eat more or less than others at equal weight and it isn't always because they don't know how to use a kitchen scale.0
-
A 15% difference is the difference between a BMR of 2149 and 1826. 325 calories a day can make a pretty big difference.eclenden01 wrote: »You're underestimating the role of genetics. This study found that obese people burn 60 percent less calories than non obese people in response to exercise after taking into consideration body composition, just as an example. I think I remember seeing that some people burn 3 times as much per pound of resting lean muscle than others.
http://rnd.edpsciences.org/articles/rnd/abs/2005/02/r5205/r5205.htmlI would think this would have to do with the amount of lean mass the two people have. All things equal the one with the lower BF% would have higher caloric requirements. Other than that, there could be genetic reasons for the difference, though the amount should not be large, unless there is a medical/hormonal issue going on.
Was this adjusted for fitness level? I would assume the "thin" person would have been in better shape, meaning their V02 Max would be higher (moving more oxygen), which in turn burns more calories. Fitness plays a huge role in exercise calories, when it comes to BMR I would venture to guess that there is probably no more than a 10-15% difference if same weight and amount of lean body mass, assuming same age, gender, height, unless of course one has something like Hypothyroidism or Hyperthyroidism, or PCOS, etc., due to genetics alone.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
eclenden01 wrote: »You're underestimating the role of genetics. This study found that obese people burn 60 percent less calories than non obese people in response to exercise after taking into consideration body composition, just as an example. I think I remember seeing that some people burn 3 times as much per pound of resting lean muscle than others.
http://rnd.edpsciences.org/articles/rnd/abs/2005/02/r5205/r5205.htmlI would think this would have to do with the amount of lean mass the two people have. All things equal the one with the lower BF% would have higher caloric requirements. Other than that, there could be genetic reasons for the difference, though the amount should not be large, unless there is a medical/hormonal issue going on.
Was this adjusted for fitness level? I would assume the "thin" person would have been in better shape, meaning their V02 Max would be higher (moving more oxygen), which in turn burns more calories. Fitness plays a huge role in exercise calories, when it comes to BMR I would venture to guess that there is probably no more than a 10-15% difference if same weight and amount of lean body mass, assuming same age, gender, height, unless of course one has something like Hypothyroidism or Hyperthyroidism, or PCOS, etc., due to genetics alone.
Yeah, I dunno, I just pulled that study from nowhere. I agree that 15% seems realistic.0 -
Free hands for tools has generally been dismissed as putting the cart before the horse as far as I'm aware.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It wasn't all to save calories walking. You can see farther upright and you can use tools more efficiently when you aren't using your hands for locomotion.Outside of differences in lean body mass or activity level, the idea never makes a bit of evolutionary sense.
If your body can just choose to use less calories, why would it ever use more? We evolved an upright gait, with all the back problems that go with and reduced speed, all to save 4 calories per km walking, but we have an energy saver mode we only turn on after we suffer our first feast then famine cycle? What?
You have to force your body to build muscle. It's not the default. I don't think it's that outrageous that the default isn't to be hyper-efficient unless circumstances nudge you toward it. It may well not be a zero-cost adaptation, even if it is a good adaptation to deal with less access to food.
Seeing far distances wasn't a concern, the fauna at the time that walking evolved would have been relatively low, and you can't see that much further on the horizon standing a few feet higher.
It could be a combination of reasons, but the most compelling and explainable one is that 4 calories a km adds up enough to have the calories for one more child in a lifetime.
0 -
You're comparing when your calories are low to when they are high, but that isn't the comparison. It is someone who was heavy and then lost weight, being at the same calories.Outside of differences in lean body mass or activity level, the idea never makes a bit of evolutionary sense.
If your body can just choose to use less calories, why would it ever use more? We evolved an upright gait, with all the back problems that go with and reduced speed, all to save 4 calories per km walking, but we have an energy saver mode we only turn on after we suffer our first feast then famine cycle? What?
Your body adapts but either shutting functions down, slowing them down, or getting more efficient. I feel noticeably weaker when my calories are low compared to when they're high. Sure, walking around at the mall the difference is slight. Sitting at the weight bench not so much or riding my bike up a steep hill, not so slight. If your body didn't have these adaptations and you needed a set fixed amount of calories then even a relatively small deficit would kill you over time.0 -
I see nothing in that abstract that states they have evidence for a genetic component to that difference.eclenden01 wrote: »You're underestimating the role of genetics. This study found that obese people burn 60 percent less calories than non obese people in response to exercise after taking into consideration body composition, just as an example. I think I remember seeing that some people burn 3 times as much per pound of resting lean muscle than others.
http://rnd.edpsciences.org/articles/rnd/abs/2005/02/r5205/r5205.htmlI would think this would have to do with the amount of lean mass the two people have. All things equal the one with the lower BF% would have higher caloric requirements. Other than that, there could be genetic reasons for the difference, though the amount should not be large, unless there is a medical/hormonal issue going on.
0 -
I see nothing in that abstract that states they have evidence for a genetic component to that difference.eclenden01 wrote: »You're underestimating the role of genetics. This study found that obese people burn 60 percent less calories than non obese people in response to exercise after taking into consideration body composition, just as an example. I think I remember seeing that some people burn 3 times as much per pound of resting lean muscle than others.
http://rnd.edpsciences.org/articles/rnd/abs/2005/02/r5205/r5205.htmlI would think this would have to do with the amount of lean mass the two people have. All things equal the one with the lower BF% would have higher caloric requirements. Other than that, there could be genetic reasons for the difference, though the amount should not be large, unless there is a medical/hormonal issue going on.
Yeah, I def didn't pick a great example, but if they took into account body composition, what are the alternate causes for such a variation?
0 -
There was a study recently that showed that the type of bacteria colonizing someone's intestines can affect how many calories someone is able to digest from food. Someone who is overweight/obese or WAS previously have a different set of bacteria that actually cause you to extract more calories from the same food as a person who was always thin.
I can't find the study but I remember it was in mice. So....grain of salt?0 -
It's my understanding that it's not really a cart/horse issue. To the extent it facilitated advancement in the complexity of tools and their use, it would be. To the extent it gave an advantage to those who used simple weapons, it wouldn't be.
Free hands for tools has generally been dismissed as putting the cart before the horse as far as I'm aware.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It wasn't all to save calories walking. You can see farther upright and you can use tools more efficiently when you aren't using your hands for locomotion.Outside of differences in lean body mass or activity level, the idea never makes a bit of evolutionary sense.
If your body can just choose to use less calories, why would it ever use more? We evolved an upright gait, with all the back problems that go with and reduced speed, all to save 4 calories per km walking, but we have an energy saver mode we only turn on after we suffer our first feast then famine cycle? What?
You have to force your body to build muscle. It's not the default. I don't think it's that outrageous that the default isn't to be hyper-efficient unless circumstances nudge you toward it. It may well not be a zero-cost adaptation, even if it is a good adaptation to deal with less access to food.
Seeing far distances wasn't a concern, the fauna at the time that walking evolved would have been relatively low, and you can't see that much further on the horizon standing a few feet higher.
It could be a combination of reasons, but the most compelling and explainable one is that 4 calories a km adds up enough to have the calories for one more child in a lifetime.
It's not about seeing to the horizon, it's about seeing a predator before others. I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.
The "one more child in a lifetime" explanation doesn't really apply to males, does it? The energy cost for a male in that context is relatively minuscule.
0 -
We recently hashed this out in another thread. There are a couple of problems with a lot of the research on this topic relating to the methods of weight loss in the subjects.
The science of it got over my head, but if I followed things correctly enough, exercise and protein consumption while losing weight slowly mitigated the differential to a very large extent.
Paging @EvgeniZyntx
@senecarr, weren't you there too? Or am I remembering incorrectly?0 -
eclenden01 wrote: »It is based on a study that found that weight loss stimulates changes in hormones regulating hunger and metabolism, and that these changes are still seen at least a year later. Your body is constantly bringing you back to a set point, and scientists are unsure when or if your set point can be adjusted downwards.
Mind posting a link to this study? I'd like to read it.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It might not put the same pressures on a male, but it since legs aren't really dimorphic, men walking upright could be a sprandle like nipples.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's my understanding that it's not really a cart/horse issue. To the extent it facilitated advancement in the complexity of tools and their use, it would be. To the extent it gave an advantage to those who used simple weapons, it wouldn't be.
Free hands for tools has generally been dismissed as putting the cart before the horse as far as I'm aware.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It wasn't all to save calories walking. You can see farther upright and you can use tools more efficiently when you aren't using your hands for locomotion.Outside of differences in lean body mass or activity level, the idea never makes a bit of evolutionary sense.
If your body can just choose to use less calories, why would it ever use more? We evolved an upright gait, with all the back problems that go with and reduced speed, all to save 4 calories per km walking, but we have an energy saver mode we only turn on after we suffer our first feast then famine cycle? What?
You have to force your body to build muscle. It's not the default. I don't think it's that outrageous that the default isn't to be hyper-efficient unless circumstances nudge you toward it. It may well not be a zero-cost adaptation, even if it is a good adaptation to deal with less access to food.
Seeing far distances wasn't a concern, the fauna at the time that walking evolved would have been relatively low, and you can't see that much further on the horizon standing a few feet higher.
It could be a combination of reasons, but the most compelling and explainable one is that 4 calories a km adds up enough to have the calories for one more child in a lifetime.
It's not about seeing to the horizon, it's about seeing a predator before others. I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.
The "one more child in a lifetime" explanation doesn't really apply to males, does it? The energy cost for a male in that context is relatively minuscule.
0 -
Yeah, the guy with the picture in armor posted a study that showed that ONLY for low grade exercise (pedaling at 25 watts or less), there was a difference in calories used between a an overweight person of 15% between when they were overweight, and after they lost.mamapeach910 wrote: »We recently hashed this out in another thread. There are a couple of problems with a lot of the research on this topic relating to the methods of weight loss in the subjects.
The science of it got over my head, but if I followed things correctly enough, exercise and protein consumption while losing weight slowly mitigated the differential to a very large extent.
Paging @EvgeniZyntx
@senecarr, weren't you there too? Or am I remembering incorrectly?
However, the same study found that a thin person gaining weight also had their energy use GO up when they were made to gain weight, if I recall correctly.
They also found that subjects that had almost ANY level of resistance training activity didn't have these effects.
0 -
So our body has an evolutionary mechanism that activates after your first famine? Why bother? For 99% of human evolution, every human experienced multiple famines per lifetime. Why not just have energy saving mode on permanently?
Yes, from an evolutionary standpoint you're talking about a person that's been in a prolonged famine (on purpose obviously but the body doesn't know that). The body has adjusted to the new norm, that is the famine state. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the body doesn't go back to normal because it wants to put on some more fat after a prolonged famine. Sure, fat looks bad but from an evolutionary standpoint having a bit extra is a good thing. It's insurance. It comes in handy for when there's less/no food. On the opposite end of the spectrum having extra muscle can actually be a detriment. More to fuel in times of famine. That's why, if you don't lift especially, it's one of the things the body starts cutting down on. It's also why it's not exactly easy to build.
You're comparing when your calories are low to when they are high, but that isn't the comparison. It is someone who was heavy and then lost weight, being at the same calories.Outside of differences in lean body mass or activity level, the idea never makes a bit of evolutionary sense.
If your body can just choose to use less calories, why would it ever use more? We evolved an upright gait, with all the back problems that go with and reduced speed, all to save 4 calories per km walking, but we have an energy saver mode we only turn on after we suffer our first feast then famine cycle? What?
Your body adapts but either shutting functions down, slowing them down, or getting more efficient. I feel noticeably weaker when my calories are low compared to when they're high. Sure, walking around at the mall the difference is slight. Sitting at the weight bench not so much or riding my bike up a steep hill, not so slight. If your body didn't have these adaptations and you needed a set fixed amount of calories then even a relatively small deficit would kill you over time.
0 -
I wonder if there's a study on this done with identical twins? That way genetics will at least be consistent.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
It seems to be a thing, I'm just not sure how bad it is. Probably varies considerably from person to person. The only way I know to counteract it is to work out hard on a regular basis. Do cardio *and* weights.0
-
Again, because it might not be a zero-cost option. There's a reason you don't drive your car around in top gear all the time. There's a reason why CPUs don't always operate in the lowest possible power mode. There could be downsides that are outweighed under certain circumstances but not under others.
So our body has an evolutionary mechanism that activates after your first famine? Why bother? For 99% of human evolution, every human experienced multiple famines per lifetime. Why not just have energy saving mode on permanently?
Yes, from an evolutionary standpoint you're talking about a person that's been in a prolonged famine (on purpose obviously but the body doesn't know that). The body has adjusted to the new norm, that is the famine state. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the body doesn't go back to normal because it wants to put on some more fat after a prolonged famine. Sure, fat looks bad but from an evolutionary standpoint having a bit extra is a good thing. It's insurance. It comes in handy for when there's less/no food. On the opposite end of the spectrum having extra muscle can actually be a detriment. More to fuel in times of famine. That's why, if you don't lift especially, it's one of the things the body starts cutting down on. It's also why it's not exactly easy to build.
You're comparing when your calories are low to when they are high, but that isn't the comparison. It is someone who was heavy and then lost weight, being at the same calories.Outside of differences in lean body mass or activity level, the idea never makes a bit of evolutionary sense.
If your body can just choose to use less calories, why would it ever use more? We evolved an upright gait, with all the back problems that go with and reduced speed, all to save 4 calories per km walking, but we have an energy saver mode we only turn on after we suffer our first feast then famine cycle? What?
Your body adapts but either shutting functions down, slowing them down, or getting more efficient. I feel noticeably weaker when my calories are low compared to when they're high. Sure, walking around at the mall the difference is slight. Sitting at the weight bench not so much or riding my bike up a steep hill, not so slight. If your body didn't have these adaptations and you needed a set fixed amount of calories then even a relatively small deficit would kill you over time.
0 -
There was. It involved transplanting fecal matter from one twin to the other. One was overweight, the other wasn't. I can't remember which way it was (overweight to thin or thin to overweight) but the result was that the person who recieved the transplant became the body type of the twin.0
-
-
One of the studies posted here is a bit extreme and not according to MFP guidelines: "For 8 weeks, participants were instructed to replace all three of their daily meals with a very-low-energy dietary formulation (Optifast VLCD, Nestlé) and 2 cups of low-starch vegetables, according to the manufacturer's guidelines, which provided 2.1 to 2.3 MJ (500 to 550 kcal) per day. During weeks 9 and 10, participants who had lost 10% or more of their initial body weight were gradually reintroduced to ordinary foods, and weight was stabilized to avoid the potential confounding effect of active weight loss on hormone profiles. Meal replacements were stopped at the end of week 10."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1105816#t=articleMethods
0 -
I think this is the study showing how certain bacteria in overweight individuals extract more caloric value from food than others in thin people. But without the full text I'm not sure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16033867
And again...mice.
Edit: nope. it's this one. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/171833120 -
Yeah, the guy with the picture in armor posted a study that showed that ONLY for low grade exercise (pedaling at 25 watts or less), there was a difference in calories used between a an overweight person of 15% between when they were overweight, and after they lost.mamapeach910 wrote: »We recently hashed this out in another thread. There are a couple of problems with a lot of the research on this topic relating to the methods of weight loss in the subjects.
The science of it got over my head, but if I followed things correctly enough, exercise and protein consumption while losing weight slowly mitigated the differential to a very large extent.
Paging @EvgeniZyntx
@senecarr, weren't you there too? Or am I remembering incorrectly?
However, the same study found that a thin person gaining weight also had their energy use GO up when they were made to gain weight, if I recall correctly.
They also found that subjects that had almost ANY level of resistance training activity didn't have these effects.
So the advice to lose weight at a sensible rate, do resistance training, and eat adequate protein will counter these effects to a very significant extent...
AND EVERYONE IN THE THREAD IS IGNORING THIS.
Because some studies designed around people who lost weight on 800 calorie diets or diets with extremely low protein intakes showed the effect.
I want to cry sometimes.
0 -
I think this is the study showing how certain bacteria in overweight individuals extract more caloric value from food than others in thin people. But without the full text I'm not sure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16033867
And again...mice.
Mildly related. Not long ago I read an article in a magazine about a antibiotica resistant intestine bug and how doctors decided to transplanting fecal matter from (can't remember) the daughter or mother to the patient. She was healed in the end but gained weight almost uncontrollably. As the donor was overweight doctors thought her specific baceria were responsible for the patient's weight gain. Of course they could not, or chose not to look deeper in to this.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Again, because it might not be a zero-cost option. There's a reason you don't drive your car around in top gear all the time. There's a reason why CPUs don't always operate in the lowest possible power mode. There could be downsides that are outweighed under certain circumstances but not under others.
Those would imply then that people recover from "famine" mode eventually then.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
They might. It may just be a question of when and what, if anything, triggers the recovery.DeguelloTex wrote: »Again, because it might not be a zero-cost option. There's a reason you don't drive your car around in top gear all the time. There's a reason why CPUs don't always operate in the lowest possible power mode. There could be downsides that are outweighed under certain circumstances but not under others.
Those would imply then that people recover from "famine" mode eventually then.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions