Some people get more calories out of their food than others.
lithezebra
Posts: 3,670 Member
Do you think that everyone has the same metabolism, relative to body size and composition? If so, this article is for you. It is physically possible for some people to extract more nutrients out of the same food, by virtue of having longer microvilli in the small intestine, possibly because of specific gut microbiota. One such microbe, found in some obese people, was found in cold-adapted mice.
(The research was published in the December 3, 2015 issue of Cell).
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21679436-body-temperature-seems-part-be-controlled-gut-bacteria-cold-weather
(The research was published in the December 3, 2015 issue of Cell).
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21679436-body-temperature-seems-part-be-controlled-gut-bacteria-cold-weather
0
Replies
-
So presumably there are more or less nutrients evident in their poop ?0
-
-
Study is unfortunately behind a paywall.
0 -
The study was available when it was first published, however, the Economist article gives a good overview too.0
-
Probably full paper from researchgate.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yann_Seimbille/publication/285782618_Gut_Microbiota_Orchestrates_Energy_Homeostasis_during_Cold/links/5665cb0808ae15e74634ba1a.pdf
Before I'm reading: humans are pretty damn good already at absorbing nutrients and you can only get as much as is actually in the food out of it. If something like that is happening in humans too the differences are unlikely to be big enough to exclaim "Damn those gut microbes are the fault I'm fat!".0 -
Okay, but let's not pretend the average person and majority of the public didn't get fat from overeating repeatedly for years at a time.0
-
@stevencloser thanks for the full-text!0
-
So what?
Does it change the approach?
Does it make a difference?
(Interesting theoretically but another majoring in the minors and irrelevant to individuals ...as @stevencloser says it's gonna be used as an excuse)0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Okay, but let's not pretend the average person and majority of the public didn't get fat from overeating repeatedly for years at a time.
Better yet, let's not reach any conclusions at all. On a personal level, it's none of our business. On an epidemiological level, we don't know everything there is to know.0 -
This article is really hard to read. Most numbers aren't listed, only referenced as "see Figure this or that", making it really hard to see the actual difference in Energy absorption and so on. One thing that I think I saw is that the cold mice had a waaaay higher energy expenditure than the room temperature ones, it looks almost double. Which makes sense kinda, since they're so small I guess they'd cool down easier than humans so a lot of their EE goes to staying at normal temperature.
I don't think people living in cold climates have almost double the EE than people living in moderate climates.0 -
> One thing that I think I saw is that the cold mice had a waaaay higher energy expenditure than the room temperature ones, it looks almost double.
Yes, and the cold mice didn't lose weight, after an initial period of adaptation, in spite of having higher energy expenditure. It's a fascinating study. Besides the suggestion that some people could extract nutrients more efficiently than others, maybe understanding how microbiota affect the growth and health of microvilli could be useful for people who have problems absorbing nutrients.
0 -
Yes, yes, yes! It's the first study I've seen that suggests a mechanism for HOW the human microbiome can affect metabolism, after seeing many studies that suggest that it does. So, yes it could change the approach that research and treatment might take. Clinicians could consider looking at individual nutrient extraction, or microbiome sequencing, for people who have trouble losing weight on a calorie restricted diet. Some of the mice in the study got fecal transplants that altered their metabolism. That's certainly possible with humans too, when and if a substantial body research supports it.So what?
Does it change the approach?
Does it make a difference?
(Interesting theoretically but another majoring in the minors and irrelevant to individuals ...as @stevencloser says it's gonna be used as an excuse)0 -
No, no, no! As stated above, it's majoring in the minors. It might make a 25-50 calorie difference per day in someone (number pulled out of thin air) but that's just background noise compared to calories consumed and calories expended as an overall method toward weight loss.lithezebra wrote: »
Yes, yes, yes! It's the first study I've seen that suggests a mechanism for HOW the human microbiome can affect metabolism, after seeing many studies that suggest that it does. So, yes it could change the approach that research and treatment might take. Clinicians could consider looking at individual nutrient extraction, or microbiome sequencing, for people who have trouble losing weight on a calorie restricted diet. Some of the mice in the study got fecal transplants that altered their metabolism. That's certainly possible with humans too.So what?
Does it change the approach?
Does it make a difference?
(Interesting theoretically but another majoring in the minors and irrelevant to individuals ...as @stevencloser says it's gonna be used as an excuse)
Someone trying to lose weight still has to consume fewer calories than their body uses no matter how efficient (or not) their body is at using the calories consumed.
ETA: People can't get more than 100% of the available calories out of the food and drink they consume. If someone is less efficient, that would mean that they would lose more weight with the same amount of calories consumed than a person who was normally efficient at extracting calories from food. People wouldn't gain weight from the same amount of calories if they were less efficient at extracting calories.0 -
Don't forget that for a tiny little thing like that, regulating its own body temperature may be a huge chunk of its total energy expenditure while it may be just an afterthought for a grown human.0
-
The thing is, even a 25 calorie difference over year is over 9000 calories. In theory, that could make the difference between someone gaining 2-3 lbs and someone else simply maintaining their weight.
No, no, no! As stated above, it's majoring in the minors. It might make a 25-50 calorie difference per day in someone (number pulled out of thin air) but that's just background noise compared to calories consumed and calories expended as an overall method toward weight loss.lithezebra wrote: »
Yes, yes, yes! It's the first study I've seen that suggests a mechanism for HOW the human microbiome can affect metabolism, after seeing many studies that suggest that it does. So, yes it could change the approach that research and treatment might take. Clinicians could consider looking at individual nutrient extraction, or microbiome sequencing, for people who have trouble losing weight on a calorie restricted diet. Some of the mice in the study got fecal transplants that altered their metabolism. That's certainly possible with humans too.So what?
Does it change the approach?
Does it make a difference?
(Interesting theoretically but another majoring in the minors and irrelevant to individuals ...as @stevencloser says it's gonna be used as an excuse)
Someone trying to lose weight still has to consume fewer calories than their body uses no matter how efficient (or not) their body is at using the calories consumed.
ETA: People can't get more that 100% of the available calories in the food and drink they consume. If someone is less efficient, that would mean that they would lose more weight with the same amount of calories consumed than a person who was normally efficient at extracting calories from food. People wouldn't gain weight from the same amount of calories if they were less efficient at extracting calories.
0 -
It would be a 25-50 calorie difference in their daily goal. As we all know, the goal given by MFP and other NEAT/TDEE calculators are estimates and we need to look at our data over time to see what our actual NEAT/TDEE numbers are.ForecasterJason wrote: »
The thing is, even a 25 calorie difference over year is over 9000 calories. In theory, that could make the difference between someone gaining 2-3 lbs and someone else simply maintaining their weight.
No, no, no! As stated above, it's majoring in the minors. It might make a 25-50 calorie difference per day in someone (number pulled out of thin air) but that's just background noise compared to calories consumed and calories expended as an overall method toward weight loss.lithezebra wrote: »
Yes, yes, yes! It's the first study I've seen that suggests a mechanism for HOW the human microbiome can affect metabolism, after seeing many studies that suggest that it does. So, yes it could change the approach that research and treatment might take. Clinicians could consider looking at individual nutrient extraction, or microbiome sequencing, for people who have trouble losing weight on a calorie restricted diet. Some of the mice in the study got fecal transplants that altered their metabolism. That's certainly possible with humans too.So what?
Does it change the approach?
Does it make a difference?
(Interesting theoretically but another majoring in the minors and irrelevant to individuals ...as @stevencloser says it's gonna be used as an excuse)
Someone trying to lose weight still has to consume fewer calories than their body uses no matter how efficient (or not) their body is at using the calories consumed.
ETA: People can't get more that 100% of the available calories in the food and drink they consume. If someone is less efficient, that would mean that they would lose more weight with the same amount of calories consumed than a person who was normally efficient at extracting calories from food. People wouldn't gain weight from the same amount of calories if they were less efficient at extracting calories.
I need to eat about 75 calories under my MFP goal per day in order to get the predicted weight loss rate. If I ate what MFP gave me, I wouldn't lose weight as quickly.
The person with a 25 calorie difference should notice that they are slowly gaining and adjust rather than just throwing up their hands and saying that their body is getting more calories out of their food than "normal" and there's nothing they can do but keep gaining weight.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
The thing is, even a 25 calorie difference over year is over 9000 calories. In theory, that could make the difference between someone gaining 2-3 lbs and someone else simply maintaining their weight.
No, no, no! As stated above, it's majoring in the minors. It might make a 25-50 calorie difference per day in someone (number pulled out of thin air) but that's just background noise compared to calories consumed and calories expended as an overall method toward weight loss.lithezebra wrote: »
Yes, yes, yes! It's the first study I've seen that suggests a mechanism for HOW the human microbiome can affect metabolism, after seeing many studies that suggest that it does. So, yes it could change the approach that research and treatment might take. Clinicians could consider looking at individual nutrient extraction, or microbiome sequencing, for people who have trouble losing weight on a calorie restricted diet. Some of the mice in the study got fecal transplants that altered their metabolism. That's certainly possible with humans too.So what?
Does it change the approach?
Does it make a difference?
(Interesting theoretically but another majoring in the minors and irrelevant to individuals ...as @stevencloser says it's gonna be used as an excuse)
Someone trying to lose weight still has to consume fewer calories than their body uses no matter how efficient (or not) their body is at using the calories consumed.
ETA: People can't get more that 100% of the available calories in the food and drink they consume. If someone is less efficient, that would mean that they would lose more weight with the same amount of calories consumed than a person who was normally efficient at extracting calories from food. People wouldn't gain weight from the same amount of calories if they were less efficient at extracting calories.
There's hundreds to thousands of little things that burn 5 more here, 10 less there, then your body up- and downregulates your metabolism too, it's unlikely that even a consistent 25 extra daily (which is unlikely to begin with), would result in any noticable weight gain. 25 falls into the "noise" category. It can't be measured or accounted for and a few days where you're unlucky with the average of calories in your food intakes make it go poof into thin air.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
The thing is, even a 25 calorie difference over year is over 9000 calories. In theory, that could make the difference between someone gaining 2-3 lbs and someone else simply maintaining their weight.
No, no, no! As stated above, it's majoring in the minors. It might make a 25-50 calorie difference per day in someone (number pulled out of thin air) but that's just background noise compared to calories consumed and calories expended as an overall method toward weight loss.lithezebra wrote: »
Yes, yes, yes! It's the first study I've seen that suggests a mechanism for HOW the human microbiome can affect metabolism, after seeing many studies that suggest that it does. So, yes it could change the approach that research and treatment might take. Clinicians could consider looking at individual nutrient extraction, or microbiome sequencing, for people who have trouble losing weight on a calorie restricted diet. Some of the mice in the study got fecal transplants that altered their metabolism. That's certainly possible with humans too.So what?
Does it change the approach?
Does it make a difference?
(Interesting theoretically but another majoring in the minors and irrelevant to individuals ...as @stevencloser says it's gonna be used as an excuse)
Someone trying to lose weight still has to consume fewer calories than their body uses no matter how efficient (or not) their body is at using the calories consumed.
ETA: People can't get more that 100% of the available calories in the food and drink they consume. If someone is less efficient, that would mean that they would lose more weight with the same amount of calories consumed than a person who was normally efficient at extracting calories from food. People wouldn't gain weight from the same amount of calories if they were less efficient at extracting calories.
Exactly. This is one factor, and there could certainly be others, which I won't speculate upon. Small differences can add up to large differences, especially if the effects of some of those differences are synergistic.0 -
They can't pull more calories out of food than are actually present in the food they eat, though. Eating fewer calories will result in lower weight no matter how efficient or inefficient they are, right?lithezebra wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The thing is, even a 25 calorie difference over year is over 9000 calories. In theory, that could make the difference between someone gaining 2-3 lbs and someone else simply maintaining their weight.
No, no, no! As stated above, it's majoring in the minors. It might make a 25-50 calorie difference per day in someone (number pulled out of thin air) but that's just background noise compared to calories consumed and calories expended as an overall method toward weight loss.lithezebra wrote: »
Yes, yes, yes! It's the first study I've seen that suggests a mechanism for HOW the human microbiome can affect metabolism, after seeing many studies that suggest that it does. So, yes it could change the approach that research and treatment might take. Clinicians could consider looking at individual nutrient extraction, or microbiome sequencing, for people who have trouble losing weight on a calorie restricted diet. Some of the mice in the study got fecal transplants that altered their metabolism. That's certainly possible with humans too.So what?
Does it change the approach?
Does it make a difference?
(Interesting theoretically but another majoring in the minors and irrelevant to individuals ...as @stevencloser says it's gonna be used as an excuse)
Someone trying to lose weight still has to consume fewer calories than their body uses no matter how efficient (or not) their body is at using the calories consumed.
ETA: People can't get more that 100% of the available calories in the food and drink they consume. If someone is less efficient, that would mean that they would lose more weight with the same amount of calories consumed than a person who was normally efficient at extracting calories from food. People wouldn't gain weight from the same amount of calories if they were less efficient at extracting calories.
Exactly. This is one factor, and there could certainly be others, which I won't speculate upon. Small differences can add up to large differences, especially if the effects of some of those differences are synergistic.0 -
Interesting study!
Things like this are considered majoring in the minors here, but not weighing every bite of fruit to the exact gram is so often given as the reason someone has plateaued. I find that amusing!
But the studies like this point to remedies that would be scientifically manipulated, and that's another thing to re-emphasize, imho. If the mechanism is fully understood, we don't usually have to just go with the level nature does it. We try to ramp that up if it's possible to do so (like concentrating active ingredients found in order to make an effective drug, for instance).0 -
They can't pull more calories out of food than are actually present in the food they eat, though. Eating fewer calories will result in lower weight no matter how efficient or inefficient they are, right?
not if they slow down processes and uprate efficiency enough to compensate for reduced intake (haven't read it yet, but in principle)0 -
And in everyone's stockings next year... A fecal transplant for an extra 25 calories per day! Merry Christmas!
0 -
Calorie uptake :
Average REE (per gram of mouse) and poop calories with and without antibiotic treatment :
so poop losses rise from 5 to 10 kcal per day with antibiotics taking out the gut flora.
[Human comparison "The calorific content of feces had a median value
(n = 14) of 132 kcal/cap/day (range: 49–347 kcal/cap/day)."]
Body weight increase and food intake per two mice ( 3.64 kcal per gram ) -
Bit of an eyesight and comprehension test this paper.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »And in everyone's stockings next year... A fecal transplant for an extra 25 calories per day! Merry Christmas!
I know patients who have actually had to have this procedure for C-dif. I think they will skip Christmas next year!0 -
Well yes, I agree that in this case adjustments would need to be made. But obviously, in the real world this doesn't happen as much as it should, since many people gain a lot of weight before deciding to lose it.
It would be a 25-50 calorie difference in their daily goal. As we all know, the goal given by MFP and other NEAT/TDEE calculators are estimates and we need to look at our data over time to see what our actual NEAT/TDEE numbers are.ForecasterJason wrote: »
The thing is, even a 25 calorie difference over year is over 9000 calories. In theory, that could make the difference between someone gaining 2-3 lbs and someone else simply maintaining their weight.
No, no, no! As stated above, it's majoring in the minors. It might make a 25-50 calorie difference per day in someone (number pulled out of thin air) but that's just background noise compared to calories consumed and calories expended as an overall method toward weight loss.lithezebra wrote: »
Yes, yes, yes! It's the first study I've seen that suggests a mechanism for HOW the human microbiome can affect metabolism, after seeing many studies that suggest that it does. So, yes it could change the approach that research and treatment might take. Clinicians could consider looking at individual nutrient extraction, or microbiome sequencing, for people who have trouble losing weight on a calorie restricted diet. Some of the mice in the study got fecal transplants that altered their metabolism. That's certainly possible with humans too.So what?
Does it change the approach?
Does it make a difference?
(Interesting theoretically but another majoring in the minors and irrelevant to individuals ...as @stevencloser says it's gonna be used as an excuse)
Someone trying to lose weight still has to consume fewer calories than their body uses no matter how efficient (or not) their body is at using the calories consumed.
ETA: People can't get more that 100% of the available calories in the food and drink they consume. If someone is less efficient, that would mean that they would lose more weight with the same amount of calories consumed than a person who was normally efficient at extracting calories from food. People wouldn't gain weight from the same amount of calories if they were less efficient at extracting calories.
I need to eat about 75 calories under my MFP goal per day in order to get the predicted weight loss rate. If I ate what MFP gave me, I wouldn't lose weight as quickly.
The person with a 25 calorie difference should notice that they are slowly gaining and adjust rather than just throwing up their hands and saying that their body is getting more calories out of their food than "normal" and there's nothing they can do but keep gaining weight.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
blankiefinder wrote: »And in everyone's stockings next year... A fecal transplant for an extra 25 calories per day! Merry Christmas!
Compared to gastric bypass, if a new gut microbiome could fix obesity, it would be the safer option by far.
0 -
But it can't
It is at best an infinitesimal drop in the ocean of overeating and not moving enough
But it will spawn media headlines and new fads no doubt, more focus on "things outside my control" and "I can't help it"
0 -
As a professional who has read hundreds of similar research reports, I'm impressed by the thoroughness of this article. It's quite plainly laid out, the only issue people are running into is not being the intended audience. The abundance of graphs actually increases transparency a lot. I'm also impressed by the author's total restraint in making leaps to extrapolate their findings to the general public's utility type language.
Was that a 1 or 2 standard deviation range? At any rate, on the upper end that's actually very significant, and it's relevant even at the lower end.Human comparison "The calorific content of feces had a median value
(n = 14) of 132 kcal/cap/day (range: 49–347 kcal/cap/day)."
This is probably the most important takeaway paragraph for a general audience.Mice exposed to the cold, they discovered, became 50% more efficient over the course of the study at absorbing nutrients from their food. Those held at room temperature, by contrast, showed no change in their digestive efficiency. The cold-dwelling mice also became 40% more sensitive to insulin, while those in the room-temperature enclosures did not. That suggested the mice in the chiller cabinets were not only extracting more value from their food, they were also becoming better at burning it, and thus generating heat. The Economist review
Obviously nothing about this negates "calories in /calories out" but it really does suggest that we're full of hubris if we think we are actually quantifying our actual metabolism with our scales and cup; and rather arrogant if we ascribe people's variability in weight management merely to being weak-willed, lazy, or dishonest about their intake. Both practically and psychologically, 132 calories a day (and on the end of the deviation, almost 350!) can make a significant impact in a person's experience with things like hunger and the feeling of deprivation or satiation.0 -
But it can't
It is at best an infinitesimal drop in the ocean of overeating and not moving enough
But it will spawn media headlines and new fads no doubt, more focus on "things outside my control" and "I can't help it"
We don't understand the human microbiome well enough, yet, to know if a transplant of organisms could help with obesity or not. I wouldn't call 132 calories a day "an infinitesimal drop," though. That's a little more than a pound a month.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions