Some people lose weight faster than others
AlabasterVerve
Posts: 3,171 Member
Here's a few articles about this study, A Human Thrifty Phenotype Associated With Less Weight Loss During Caloric Restriction:
And
"The 12 participants, with an average weight of 237 pounds, first spent three in-patient weeks maintaining their weight with a strictly regulated diet (50% carbs, 30% fat, 20% protein). Then they spent the next six weeks consuming only a liquid diet of Ensure that contained 50 percent of of the calories required to maintain their weight (individualized to each person) and not exercising. Contrary to the popular idea that cutting 3,500 calories equates to losing a pound, the researchers found the loss of one pound equated to anywhere from 1,560 to 3,000 calories depending on the person.
“We all have our own internal fuel efficiencies when it comes to our bodies’ abilities to handle calories,” Freedhoff said. “This isn’t in and of itself news, of course. Ten different people with the same degree of caloric excess or restriction will vary in the amount of weight they’ll gain or lose as a consequence.”
But what does the study’s findings actually mean for people with obesity who are trying to lose weight? Not much. There is no easy way for the average person to learn whether they have a “thrifty” or “spendthrift” metabolism – only a few of those metabolic research chambers exist in the world – and it’s not clear that knowing would make a difference in terms of a weight loss strategy." --Why You Can't Lose Weight -- But Your Best Friend Can -- On The Same Diet, Forbes
And
"When people who are obese decrease the amount of food they eat, metabolic responses vary greatly, with a 'thrifty' metabolism possibly contributing to less weight lost," said Susanne Votruba, Ph.D., study author and PECRB clinical investigator. "While behavioral factors such as adherence to diet affect weight loss to an extent, our study suggests we should consider a larger picture that includes individual physiology - and that weight loss is one situation where being thrifty doesn't pay."
Researchers do not know whether the biological differences are innate or develop over time. Further research is needed to determine whether individual responses to calorie reduction can be used to prevent weight gain.
"The results corroborate the idea that some people who are obese may have to work harder to lose weight due to metabolic differences," said Martin Reinhardt, M.D., lead author and PECRB postdoctoral fellow. "But biology is not destiny. Balanced diet and regular physical activity over a long period can be very effective for weight loss." --Ease of weight loss influenced by individual biology, EurekaAlert
0
Replies
-
okay...is there a point to this.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/calories/art-200480650 -
-
but basically it's saying 1lb of fat <>3500 calories...correct me if I am wrong...
Over long term you will find that all those people would even out and it would in fact be equal weight lost over a given period of time.0 -
I think the point is to validate the fact that the math isn't as simple as some people on MFP want it to seem. There are biological differences in the way that different people process calories that can impact how much (or even if) they lose weight. It is easier for some people and harder for others.
With that said, each person does have the ability to still lose weight, it's just harder and slower for some. I think this is an important point to reiterate because MFPers are often married to the notion that 3500 calories reduced from a diet will always equal 1 pound lost and if that doesn't seem to be happening for an individual then they must be doing something wrong (underestimating calorie intake, etc.). I think this study shows that it's important to validate that they might be doing what they say they're doing and just not getting the expected results. The reason it's important to validate that experience is because just telling them they're doing it wrong can be incredibly demotivating and may lead to a lot of people just giving up, when what they need to do is work a bit harder and be a bit more patient.
Thank you for sharing this, Alabasterverve!0 -
but basically it's saying 1lb of fat <>3500 calories...correct me if I am wrong...
Over long term you will find that all those people would even out and it would in fact be equal weight lost over a given period of time.
No, it's saying that 1 lb of fat is equal to different amounts of calories for different people, not that it fluctuates within the same person (which is how it would even out over a period of time).0 -
Trying to measure calories consumed and calories burned is always an approximation anyway. Of course people won't always get perfectly identical results-- there are way too many variables. Practically speaking though, you still need to eat less than you burn to lose weight, and TDEE estimates and 3500cals/lb is a good place to start. As is stated often on here: start with basic guidelines, give it some time, reevaluate, tweak if you're not happy.0
-
1lb of fat = ~3500 calories
1lb of lean muscle = ~600 calories
Almost everyone who loses weight loses some combination of fat and muscle. Most people try to lose as much fat as possible and as little muscle as possible. But depending on how much body fat you have to start with, how overweight you are, whether or not you strength train while losing weight, and other factors, you are going to lose some small amounts of muscle along with your fat.
So, let's say, for example, that someone loses 100 pounds, of which 75% was fat and 25% was lean muscle. That person would have required a deficit of (3500x0.75)+(600x0.25)= 2775 calories to lose a pound.
In another example, let's say this person loses 100 pounds and is lucky enough to lose 90% fat, 10% muscle. (Maybe a bit unrealistic, but hey.) In this example, they would've required a deficit of (3500x0.9)+(600x0.1) = 3210 calories to lose a pound.
Most of us reverse-calculate our observed TDEE by assuming we're losing 100% body fat and no muscle. For almost all of us, this is wishful thinking. In reality, most of us have a true TDEE that's a bit lower than we think, because of the muscle mass included in our weight loss. That's why when we move to maintenance and try to find our maintenance calories, it's good to be conservative in our estimates.
But yes, this could account for why most people in this study required fewer calories to lose a pound. Someone consuming nothing but Ensure and not exercising is probably going to lose a higher percentage of muscle and a lower percentage of fat, as compared to someone who eats a varied diet high in protein and strength trains during weight loss.0 -
I was just reading something elsewhere about how losing muscle tends to take fewer calories than fat, so when the weight loss is made up of more muscle it would be more lb/calorie deficit. Wonder if that's related at all.
If so, it puts a different spin on it, as you wouldn't want to be losing muscle.
Another thing is that we know some people naturally vary their activity/metabolism more with increases and decreases in calories, but that doesn't mean that a lb of fat isn't 3500 calories for them, it's just that it's hard to measure as their CO vary--decreasing as they lose, increasing as they gain.
For me, I think when I first started losing weight my CO did not decline much at all or even increased independent of intentional activity, because losing weight made me feel better. I noticed I was doing things I used to do and hadn't in a while, like bouncing when standing around or naturally tapping my foot, moving my legs, stuff like that.0 -
and you are wrong.LeslieB042812 wrote: »but basically it's saying 1lb of fat <>3500 calories...correct me if I am wrong...
Over long term you will find that all those people would even out and it would in fact be equal weight lost over a given period of time.
No, it's saying that 1 lb of fat is equal to different amounts of calories for different people, not that it fluctuates within the same person (which is how it would even out over a period of time).
3500 calories equalling 1lb of fat is an approximation but it's pretty friggin' close...
0 -
determined_14 wrote: »Trying to measure calories consumed and calories burned is always an approximation anyway. Of course people won't always get perfectly identical results-- there are way too many variables. Practically speaking though, you still need to eat less than you burn to lose weight, and TDEE estimates and 3500cals/lb is a good place to start. As is stated often on here: start with basic guidelines, give it some time, reevaluate, tweak if you're not happy.
Very true! I just think that sometimes people in the community tend to forget that 3500 calories/lb is a starting place.....not the end all be all.
0 -
It sounds interesting, but I am not sure the entire story is being told either.
I would be curious to know how accurately they tracked expenditure. I see it says "no exercise" but were they actually tracking "non exercise" energy expenditure? Some days I walk 8,000 steps "not exercising" and others I only walk 3,000. If someone cut my calories by 50% I might sit on the couch all day feeling crappy and not burning as much as I typically do. If that is the case that would skew the results compared to someone who was not hit so hard by the deficit and felt ok to keep walking around or whatever.0 -
There is no question that a pound of fat has 3500 calories. But keep in mind that we don't just lose fat when we lose weight. A pound of muscle is more like 1200 calories. So depending on the percentage of fat loss to muscle loss, you would expect different results. Considering that this was on a very low calorie diet, we would expect significant muscle loss with some people.0
-
This isn't news. Genetics count and lean muscle/fat ratios count too. Also hormone production.
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 -
Oh, and now having clicked the link (should have done that before my first comment), I see it IS precisely that natural increase/decrease in energy expenditure that's being discussed:We found that a smaller reduction in 24-h energy expenditure during fasting and a larger response to overfeeding predicted more weight loss over 6 weeks, even after accounting for age, sex, race, and baseline weight, as well as a greater rate of energy deficit accumulation. The success of dietary weight loss efforts is influenced by the energy expenditure response to caloric restriction. Greater decreases in energy expenditure during caloric restriction predict less weight loss, indicating the presence of thrifty and spendthrift phenotypes in obese humans.
Stands to reason.0 -
1lb of fat = ~3500 calories
1lb of lean muscle = ~600 calories
Almost everyone who loses weight loses some combination of fat and muscle. Most people try to lose as much fat as possible and as little muscle as possible. But depending on how much body fat you have to start with, how overweight you are, whether or not you strength train while losing weight, and other factors, you are going to lose some small amounts of muscle along with your fat.
So, let's say, for example, that someone loses 100 pounds, of which 75% was fat and 25% was lean muscle. That person would have required a deficit of (3500x0.75)+(600x0.25)= 2775 calories to lose a pound.
In another example, let's say this person loses 100 pounds and is lucky enough to lose 90% fat, 10% muscle. (Maybe a bit unrealistic, but hey.) In this example, they would've required a deficit of (3500x0.9)+(600x0.1) = 3210 calories to lose a pound.
Most of us reverse-calculate our observed TDEE by assuming we're losing 100% body fat and no muscle. For almost all of us, this is wishful thinking. In reality, most of us have a true TDEE that's a bit lower than we think, because of the muscle mass included in our weight loss. That's why when we move to maintenance and try to find our maintenance calories, it's good to be conservative in our estimates.
But yes, this could account for why most people in this study required fewer calories to lose a pound. Someone consuming nothing but Ensure and not exercising is probably going to lose a higher percentage of muscle and a lower percentage of fat, as compared to someone who eats a varied diet high in protein and strength trains during weight loss.
thanks for this, I was thinking along those lines as well but had never really researched it to verify what my common sense was telling me
0 -
LeslieB042812 wrote: »With that said, each person does have the ability to still lose weight, it's just harder and slower for some. I think this is an important point to reiterate because MFPers are often married to the notion that 3500 calories reduced from a diet will always equal 1 pound lost and if that doesn't seem to be happening for an individual then they must be doing something wrong (underestimating calorie intake, etc.).
I actually think that the take away from this is that someone for whom it seems slower or who thinks she has a tendency to gain should focus even more on increasing natural activity level--basically getting up and walking around regularly, walking when possible instead of driving, taking the stairs instead of the elevator, etc.
0 -
LeslieB042812 wrote: »but basically it's saying 1lb of fat <>3500 calories...correct me if I am wrong...
Over long term you will find that all those people would even out and it would in fact be equal weight lost over a given period of time.
No, it's saying that 1 lb of fat is equal to different amounts of calories for different people, not that it fluctuates within the same person (which is how it would even out over a period of time).
The study does NOT say or claim that.
All it's really saying is that being sedentary and having poor body composition matter to weight loss - which is the same thing you'll hear on MFP about 457,289 times a day.
0 -
LeslieB042812 wrote: »I think the point is to validate the fact that the math isn't as simple as some people on MFP want it to seem. There are biological differences in the way that different people process calories that can impact how much (or even if) they lose weight. It is easier for some people and harder for others.
With that said, each person does have the ability to still lose weight, it's just harder and slower for some. I think this is an important point to reiterate because MFPers are often married to the notion that 3500 calories reduced from a diet will always equal 1 pound lost and if that doesn't seem to be happening for an individual then they must be doing something wrong (underestimating calorie intake, etc.). I think this study shows that it's important to validate that they might be doing what they say they're doing and just not getting the expected results. The reason it's important to validate that experience is because just telling them they're doing it wrong can be incredibly demotivating and may lead to a lot of people just giving up, when what they need to do is work a bit harder and be a bit more patient.
Thank you for sharing this, Alabasterverve!
I've never seen anyone say that on here. Ever. And I've been here over a year.
It's all about averages. On average a deficit of 3500 calories will (again, over time) average out to a pound a week loss. That doesn't mean that you will lose exactly a pound a week and I've never seen anyone claim otherwise. There are lots of mitigating factors in weight loss like water weight, exercise, hormones, sleep, etc. I don't think people deny those factors exist.0 -
LeslieB042812 wrote: »I think the point is to validate the fact that the math isn't as simple as some people on MFP want it to seem. There are biological differences in the way that different people process calories that can impact how much (or even if) they lose weight. It is easier for some people and harder for others.
With that said, each person does have the ability to still lose weight, it's just harder and slower for some. I think this is an important point to reiterate because MFPers are often married to the notion that 3500 calories reduced from a diet will always equal 1 pound lost and if that doesn't seem to be happening for an individual then they must be doing something wrong (underestimating calorie intake, etc.). I think this study shows that it's important to validate that they might be doing what they say they're doing and just not getting the expected results. The reason it's important to validate that experience is because just telling them they're doing it wrong can be incredibly demotivating and may lead to a lot of people just giving up, when what they need to do is work a bit harder and be a bit more patient.
Thank you for sharing this, Alabasterverve!
0 -
LeslieB042812 wrote: »I think the point is to validate the fact that the math isn't as simple as some people on MFP want it to seem. There are biological differences in the way that different people process calories that can impact how much (or even if) they lose weight. It is easier for some people and harder for others.
With that said, each person does have the ability to still lose weight, it's just harder and slower for some. I think this is an important point to reiterate because MFPers are often married to the notion that 3500 calories reduced from a diet will always equal 1 pound lost and if that doesn't seem to be happening for an individual then they must be doing something wrong (underestimating calorie intake, etc.). I think this study shows that it's important to validate that they might be doing what they say they're doing and just not getting the expected results. The reason it's important to validate that experience is because just telling them they're doing it wrong can be incredibly demotivating and may lead to a lot of people just giving up, when what they need to do is work a bit harder and be a bit more patient.
Thank you for sharing this, Alabasterverve!
Exactly. I found the article very interesting.0 -
Even the study isn't claiming that people typically needed more than a 3500-calorie deficit to lose weight. For most people, it's less -- i.e. faster than expected -- and if it's a lot faster than expected it could be a sign of too much lean muscle mass being lost.
But if it's much slower than expected, i.e. you're finding it takes you 4000 or 5000 calories to lose a pound, then you're probably eating more than you think you are.0 -
That's why it pays to work out! Keep more muscle, lose fat faster.0
-
Even the study isn't claiming that people typically needed more than a 3500-calorie deficit to lose weight. For most people, it's less -- i.e. faster than expected -- and if it's a lot faster than expected it could be a sign of too much lean muscle mass being lost.
Yeah. People are taking the implication the wrong way.
:drinker:
0 -
That's why it pays to work out! Keep more muscle, lose fat faster.
Yes, that can help. There are other factors, e.g. genetics, or how much fat you have to lose, that will influence the amount of muscle being lost, too. But to the extent that it's within our control, progressive strength training has been shown to help.0 -
Lol, before reading anything I'd just like to comment saying: Who would've guessed peoples metabolisms are different! 0
-
Lol, before reading anything I'd just like to comment saying: Who would've guessed peoples metabolisms are different!
That's got nothing to do with metabolism though. A faster metabolism burns calories faster and a slower one burns calories slower, but it should still require the same number of calories to lose a pound of fat.0 -
Even the study isn't claiming that people typically needed more than a 3500-calorie deficit to lose weight. For most people, it's less -- i.e. faster than expected -- and if it's a lot faster than expected it could be a sign of too much lean muscle mass being lost.
Yeah. People are taking the implication the wrong way.
:drinker:
Welcome to confirmation bias.0 -
I found this interesting. Thanks for sharing. 0
-
1lb of fat = ~3500 calories
1lb of lean muscle = ~600 calories
Almost everyone who loses weight loses some combination of fat and muscle. Most people try to lose as much fat as possible and as little muscle as possible. But depending on how much body fat you have to start with, how overweight you are, whether or not you strength train while losing weight, and other factors, you are going to lose some small amounts of muscle along with your fat.
So, let's say, for example, that someone loses 100 pounds, of which 75% was fat and 25% was lean muscle. That person would have required a deficit of (3500x0.75)+(600x0.25)= 2775 calories to lose a pound.
In another example, let's say this person loses 100 pounds and is lucky enough to lose 90% fat, 10% muscle. (Maybe a bit unrealistic, but hey.) In this example, they would've required a deficit of (3500x0.9)+(600x0.1) = 3210 calories to lose a pound.
Most of us reverse-calculate our observed TDEE by assuming we're losing 100% body fat and no muscle. For almost all of us, this is wishful thinking. In reality, most of us have a true TDEE that's a bit lower than we think, because of the muscle mass included in our weight loss. That's why when we move to maintenance and try to find our maintenance calories, it's good to be conservative in our estimates.
But yes, this could account for why most people in this study required fewer calories to lose a pound. Someone consuming nothing but Ensure and not exercising is probably going to lose a higher percentage of muscle and a lower percentage of fat, as compared to someone who eats a varied diet high in protein and strength trains during weight loss.
Thank you for explaining this. It was very helpful and informative, I'm quite ignorant about weight loss and you communicated yourself very well.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions