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

Options
1235»

Replies

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    mamapeach910 wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    BFDeal 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.

    Thanks for posting this. This might as well be my biography LOL. It at least makes me feel better I'm not the only one. It's something people who've only lost small amounts of weight will never really understand.
    Do you consider 112 pounds a small amount of weight to lose?

    Trust me. Save yourself the pain.
    I'm just killing time before I take my daughter to her weightlifting class.

  • barbecuesauce
    barbecuesauce Posts: 1,771 Member
    Options
    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.

    “After you’ve lost weight, your brain has a greater emotional response to food,” Rosenbaum says. “You want it more, but the areas of the brain involved in restraint are less active.” Combine that with a body that is now burning fewer calories than expected, he says, “and you’ve created the perfect storm for weight regain.” How long this state lasts isn’t known, but preliminary research at Columbia suggests that for as many as six years after weight loss, the body continues to defend the old, higher weight by burning off far fewer calories than would be expected. The problem could persist indefinitely. (The same phenomenon occurs when a thin person tries to drop about 10 percent of his or her body weight — the body defends the higher weight.) This doesn’t mean it’s impossible to lose weight and keep it off; it just means it’s really, really difficult.

    After losing about 56 pounds, I started to feel like my willpower receded. I've lost 4 pounds in the last 5 weeks but I want to eat all of the time. I can't do 16:8 most days and I eat at maintenance pretty frequently. I'm eating things like Twizzlers because someone offers them to me (they are definitely not my favorite candy). I'm fighting against it and it seems like I'm winning more than I'm losing, but I'm also pretty resigned to having to start recomping before I hit my goal weight.
  • vypressme
    vypressme Posts: 228 Member
    Options
    It still depends a lot on body comp, activity level etc.

    I've lost 100 lbs and currently am eating about 2800 kcal per day. Can't say how much a person with similar stats who's never been overweight has, but if not for a high activity level, I would doubt they'd be maintaining at that.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    I believe this is generally true.
  • jaga13
    jaga13 Posts: 1,149 Member
    Options
    Interesting thoughts! Well, I suppose if age changes things, then former fatness could, too. Who knows. But it is a little sad to think that simply experimenting with MFP goals to imagine what my maintenance calories will be may be an overestimation. Very sad.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Annie_01
    Annie_01 Posts: 3,096 Member
    Options
    jaga13 wrote: »
    Interesting thoughts! Well, I suppose if age changes things, then former fatness could, too. Who knows. But it is a little sad to think that simply experimenting with MFP goals to imagine what my maintenance calories will be may be an overestimation. Very sad.

    I think that it might depend on the amount of weight that someone has to lose...most testing that I have seen has been on those that have a significant amount to lose. Where the cut off is...I have no idea.

    Regardless the maintenance calories that the calculators give you is just a general number based on averages.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    SideSteel wrote: »
    I believe this is generally true.

    @SideSteel, in your experience with clients, is this true to the extent found in studies done on people who lost weight on VLCD, though?

    Can this whole effect be mitigated, as other research shows, by losing weight slowly, strength training, and adequate protein intake?

  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    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
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories