Calorie requirements for a thin person vs someone who lost weight to become thin.

Azdak

One study suggested that adaptive thermogenesis might be a main culprit:

Declines in energy expenditure favoring the regain of lost weight persist well beyond the period of dynamic weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;88:906–12.

This would fit in with the data in the weight loss registry which shows that most successful wt loss maintainers exercise vigorously 60 Min/day, 6 days/wk.

This study from 1997 disagreed with the idea that leptin is the main factor:
J Clin
Endocrinol Metab 82: 3647±3654, 1997)

senecarr

BFDeal wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

Annie_01 wrote: »

This is an interesting article on this subject...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=0

Whether I agree with all of it not it certainly gives you something to think about.

This talks about changes in behavior signaling hormones. Looking at the study, I'm seeing a slurry of chemical changes that have to do with behavioral signaling, but none that have to do with actual metabolic rate change. I've never seen anything that says that somehow, altered ghrelin or leptin will actually change BMR.

I looked at the actual Melbourne linked study. Didn't read the whole NY article because stuff like below makes reading not worth my time.

BFDeal wrote: »

It specifically addresses this in the article several times...

"The research shows that the changes that occur after weight loss translate to a huge caloric disadvantage of about 250 to 400 calories. For instance, one woman who entered the Columbia studies at 230 pounds was eating about 3,000 calories to maintain that weight. Once she dropped to 190 pounds, losing 17 percent of her body weight, metabolic studies determined that she needed about 2,300 daily calories to maintain the new lower weight. That may sound like plenty, but the typical 30-year-old 190-pound woman can consume about 2,600 calories to maintain her weight — 300 more calories than the woman who dieted to get there.

And this is why I try to skip to the actual studies. I have no clue from this blurb what a metabolic study means in their context. Chances are her NEAT went down. That's a known outcome. Going to look up the actual study.

BFDeal wrote: »

Scientists are still learning why a weight-reduced body behaves so differently from a similar-size body that has not dieted. Muscle biopsies taken before, during and after weight loss show that once a person drops weight, their muscle fibers undergo a transformation, making them more like highly efficient “slow twitch” muscle fibers. A result is that after losing weight, your muscles burn 20 to 25 percent fewer calories during everyday activity and moderate aerobic exercise than those of a person who is naturally at the same weight. That means a dieter who thinks she is burning 200 calories during a brisk half-hour walk is probably using closer to 150 to 160 calories."

and

"Eventually, the Columbia subjects are placed on liquid diets of 800 calories a day until they lose 10 percent of their body weight. Once they reach the goal, they are subjected to another round of intensive testing as they try to maintain the new weight. The data generated by these experiments suggest that once a person loses about 10 percent of body weight, he or she is metabolically different than a similar-size person who is naturally the same weight."

Guessing this is the study I've seen that did a bike test. Going to look it up as well.