For the nerdy, curious folks: "Metabolic Determinants of Weight Gain in Humans"

Maxxitt
Maxxitt Posts: 1,281 Member
in Goal: Maintaining Weight
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1002/oby.22456

"One of the fundamental challenges in obesity research is to identify subjects prone to weight gain so that obesity and its comorbidities can be promptly prevented or treated. The principles of thermodynamics as applied to human body energetics demonstrate that susceptibility to weight gain varies among individuals as a result of interindividual differences in energy expenditure and energy intake, two factors that counterbalance one another and determine daily energy balance and, ultimately, body weight change. This review focuses on the variability among individuals in human metabolism that determines weight change"

Piaggi, P. (2019). Metabolic Determinants of Weight Gain in Humans. Obesity, 27(5), 691–699. doi:10.1002/oby.22456

Replies

  • reversemigration
    reversemigration Posts: 168 Member
    It's an interesting article that digs into identifying individual variability in metabolism, rather than repeating CICO - in other words, it focuses on the CO portion, and determining identifying markers for variability in that CO portion. As many posters have said in the forums, they've identified over time that their balance is more or less than would be assumed under MFP (or other TDEE) calculations. This article simply dips into ways to figure out of that's the case for any particular person.

    "By studying the EE response to acute, short-term changes in energy intake such as fasting or overfeeding, it is possible to uncover and quantify individual inclination or resistance to obesity." Being able to tailor weight-loss (or prevention of weight gain) to an individual's metabolism would be useful information. Yes, it shouldn't be used as an excuse, but having more data to work with is seldom a bad idea.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    The variation of instrumentation error exceeds the output variation - resulting in null hypothesis.

    Move along....nothing to see here.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    "the predictive power of these metabolic parameters in relation to future weight change ranges
    from 0.35 to 0.84 (absolute values of the Pearson correlation coefficient), thus explaining more than 10% of the interindividual variance in body weight change"

    So 12.5 out of my 125lbs may have been worthy of a great explanation.

    Is comparing how easy or difficult our path is to that of others a great boost to our chance for success and happiness?

    Let's take it as a given that anyone who shows up on MFP needing to lose weight has a 10% harder task in front of them when it comes to managing their weight as compared to people who don't need to lose any weight!!!

    Personally I would estimate that weight management for people showing up on MFP would be much more than 10% harder as compared to those who will never need to lose weight! :wink:

    Love your dry Canadian sarcastic comments! Lol
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,953 Member
    reversemigration wrote: »
    It's an interesting article that digs into identifying individual variability in metabolism, rather than repeating CICO - in other words, it focuses on the CO portion, and determining identifying markers for variability in that CO portion. As many posters have said in the forums, they've identified over time that their balance is more or less than would be assumed under MFP (or other TDEE) calculations. This article simply dips into ways to figure out of that's the case for any particular person.

    "By studying the EE response to acute, short-term changes in energy intake such as fasting or overfeeding, it is possible to uncover and quantify individual inclination or resistance to obesity." Being able to tailor weight-loss (or prevention of weight gain) to an individual's metabolism would be useful information. Yes, it shouldn't be used as an excuse, but having more data to work with is seldom a bad idea.

    Isn't that exactly what we do/recommend, on an N=1 basis, for those using MFP?

    Set the goal to a sensible weight loss rate, try it for 4-6 weeks, then adjust; exercise if you enjoy it, but not so much that fatigue bleeds calories out of daily life activity; notice your energy level and eat more if weak or fatigued; increase your NEAT by moving more in daily life; hit your protein goal; find your personal satiation formula; limit carbs if they make you crave-y, but not if limiting them kills your energy level; and so on?

    I think the article is interesting and possibly theoretically worthwhile (subject to CSARdiver's caveat ;) ), but I don't see a practical utility for the N=1 case, while calorie counting, that adds much to the standard "how to succeed with calorie counting" rules of thumb that are the common recommendations around here.
  • reversemigration
    reversemigration Posts: 168 Member
    edited April 2019
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Isn't that exactly what we do/recommend, on an N=1 basis, for those using MFP?

    I absolutely agree. I wasn't proposing it as something that needed to be incorporated in anyone's life, just that it was an interesting article. It's aimed at clinicians/researchers, not the lay public, and as a way of possibly accounting for a client's difficulty that might not otherwise be evident.

    The initial reaction was that it was simply restating CICO; I just wanted to note that wasn't the case.


  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,540 Member
    edited April 2019
    . sorry . :blush:
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    reversemigration wrote: »
    It's an interesting article that digs into identifying individual variability in metabolism, rather than repeating CICO - in other words, it focuses on the CO portion, and determining identifying markers for variability in that CO portion.

    Biggest potential difference in CO, keeping size and weight equal, is movement.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I think the article is interesting and possibly theoretically worthwhile (subject to CSARdiver's caveat ;) ), but I don't see a practical utility for the N=1 case, while calorie counting, that adds much to the standard "how to succeed with calorie counting" rules of thumb that are the common recommendations around here.

    Perhaps, but it strikes me as so badly written (written to sound more complicated vs. to be more clear) that it's hard to tell. It rivals some of the worst examples in the humanities that often get mocked.

    See also: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Most-Academics-Will-Always/237077
    For at least a generation, academics have elaborately and publicly denounced the ponderous pedantry of academic prose. So why haven’t these ponderous pedants improved, already?

    The critics would say the ponderous pedants are doing it on purpose. Academics supposedly indulge in pettifogging to obscure their own muddled thinking. Or, in a more generous reading, professors write obscurely because they know obscurity is expected of them, and they fear for their jobs if they phrase their insights with populist clarity. In either case, these critics say, a clotted style is a sign of a clotted soul. Didn’t Orwell link "staleness of imagery" and "lack of precision" to cultural decadence and Communism? Likewise, Pinker warns of "relativist academic ideologies such as postmodernism, poststructuralism, and literary Marxism" that reject, with convoluted fervor, both objective truth and beautiful prose.

    and

    http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm
  • reversemigration
    reversemigration Posts: 168 Member
    edited April 2019
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Biggest potential difference in CO, keeping size and weight equal, is movement.

    This is true, though not the subject of the article.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    reversemigration wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Biggest potential difference in CO, keeping size and weight equal, is movement.

    This is true, though not the subject of the article.

    True, but it's why I think overfocusing on metabolic differences is probably not all that useful for most people in practice, although it can be an interesting research topic. The pragmatic approach is what Ann described, and realizing that the number one determination of the variability in our TDEEs is how much we choose to move.

    I found it frustrating that the article only talked about reactions to over- and under-feeding and not varying activity, and suggested that if you are someone who has more of a drop in metabolism than average when cutting calories that the only answer would have to be things like medication.
  • reversemigration
    reversemigration Posts: 168 Member
    No argument from me when it comes to real-world application, and that people ought not sabotage themselves by using it as an excuse as to why they're not able to lose weight.

    I think the reason why the article focuses only on what it did is because it's one with a purposefully narrow scope. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - it's not a general literature review on mechanisms of weight loss, of which there are tons. I also agree that the only answer for those who are obese with "thrifty metabolism" shouldn't be medication, and that categorically saying that weight loss isn't possible in these individuals through caloric restriction alone isn't supported by the evidence.

    Apologies for making a mountain out of this molehill. :smile:

Categories