Calorie requirements for a thin person vs someone who lost weight to become thin.
Replies
-
There are some interesting studies on twins and weight matters. Really, twins studies can't show something is genetic, just that it isn't. Most twins, even those separated at birth and adopted out, share remarkably similar environments.I wonder if there's a study on this done with identical twins? That way genetics will at least be consistent.
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
Sometimes I'm worried that people are putting way too much into these gut microbiome studies. The conclusions people tend to write are overly simplistic in comparison to what is actually going on in these.I think this is the study showing how certain bacteria in overweight individuals extract more caloric value from food than others in thin people. But without the full text I'm not sure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16033867
And again...mice.
Edit: nope. it's this one. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17183312
That last link looks interesting, but that abstract is more like a press blurb than anything that can be analysed.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »It's not just women. Formerly obese people burn fewer calories than otherwise physically similar people who were never obese. Apparently, the effect lasts for years, perhaps forever.
I believe there is some evidence that more relatively strenuous exercise can offset this, since it seems to be caused by more efficient low level/effort muscle use. I may be misstating that bit, though.
What I've read is that it relates to leptin. Basically, when you lose fat leptin levels go down and the body's response to that is to become more efficient to try to regain fat to where it seems to think it should be (obviously stated in lay terms). I think--but am not certain--this is basically also what metabolic adaptation is.
If you regain the fat, the leptin levels go back up, so it's not a situation of consistently lowering leptin (and maintenance) levels more and more if you lose weight multiple times or having a lower maintenance even if you get fat again, as is sometimes claimed (that would have to relate to reduced muscle mass).
Apparently exercise increases leptin sensitivity, so you can deal with lowered leptin by including exercise in your lifestyle. I wonder if this is why the lowered metabolism often isn't observed among maintainers at MFP (who tend to exercise).
I so far don't see any significant difference between my metabolic rate and where the calculators say I should be (and I lost roughly consistent with the same calculators, so they seem to be accurate for me), and I also do exercise a good amount.
I will try to track down a source for what I recall reading here.0 -
NEAT, might explain it: http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/26/4/729.full
0 -
I've read many different reasons for this and convinced that for me, my metabolism has gotten so out of whack from dieting over 20 years that I will never conform to what 'normal' people eat.
I've lost various amounts over that time, the most being 120lb at one point. Some of us are just going to realize micromanaging our food and energy for the rest of our lives. It sucks, but so be it.
Actually if I had to pick a physical reason why this phenomenon occurs, I read somewhere that when fat is lost, the cells aren't destroyed but just shrink. When you regain weight, all those cells just need to simply grow again along with whatever new ones you've created, which is why such large regains can happen so fast.
I wish I had the link to that study, sorry I don't.
0 -
For me, at this point, the issue is uncertainty in burns above BMR/RMR, whether purposeful exercise or just living life. I'm losing more than my calorie deficit would suggest, which is good. Now, am I losing what I "should" with a "normal" metabolic rate? Am I losing less than I "should" because my metabolism is slower and I'm ascribing the difference to overstated exercise burns?lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »It's not just women. Formerly obese people burn fewer calories than otherwise physically similar people who were never obese. Apparently, the effect lasts for years, perhaps forever.
I believe there is some evidence that more relatively strenuous exercise can offset this, since it seems to be caused by more efficient low level/effort muscle use. I may be misstating that bit, though.
What I've read is that it relates to leptin. Basically, when you lose fat leptin levels go down and the body's response to that is to become more efficient to try to regain fat to where it seems to think it should be (obviously stated in lay terms). I think--but am not certain--this is basically also what metabolic adaptation is.
If you regain the fat, the leptin levels go back up, so it's not a situation of consistently lowering leptin (and maintenance) levels more and more if you lose weight multiple times or having a lower maintenance even if you get fat again, as is sometimes claimed (that would have to relate to reduced muscle mass).
Apparently exercise increases leptin sensitivity, so you can deal with lowered leptin by including exercise in your lifestyle. I wonder if this is why the lowered metabolism often isn't observed among maintainers at MFP (who tend to exercise).
I so far don't see any significant difference between my metabolic rate and where the calculators say I should be (and I lost roughly consistent with the same calculators, so they seem to be accurate for me), and I also do exercise a good amount.
I will try to track down a source for what I recall reading here.
I guess, realistically, it doesn't affect what I need to do, but it does seem like my TDEE is lower than I was hoping.
ETA: My UP24 calculates my TDEE at a little over 3300, consistently. The TDEE from my spreadsheet uses my intake and my weight and it varies pretty substantially from week to week, but averages a shade under 3000.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Actually if I had to pick a physical reason why this phenomenon occurs, I read somewhere that when fat is lost, the cells aren't destroyed but just shrink. When you regain weight, all those cells just need to simply grow again along with whatever new ones you've created, which is why such large regains can happen so fast.
I wish I had the link to that study, sorry I don't.
This was originally a hypothesis that has proven false.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/health/research/05fat.html?_r=0
Fat cells die and are completely replaced about every ten years.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »It's not just women. Formerly obese people burn fewer calories than otherwise physically similar people who were never obese. Apparently, the effect lasts for years, perhaps forever.
I believe there is some evidence that more relatively strenuous exercise can offset this, since it seems to be caused by more efficient low level/effort muscle use. I may be misstating that bit, though.
What I've read is that it relates to leptin. Basically, when you lose fat leptin levels go down and the body's response to that is to become more efficient to try to regain fat to where it seems to think it should be (obviously stated in lay terms). I think--but am not certain--this is basically also what metabolic adaptation is.
If you regain the fat, the leptin levels go back up, so it's not a situation of consistently lowering leptin (and maintenance) levels more and more if you lose weight multiple times or having a lower maintenance even if you get fat again, as is sometimes claimed (that would have to relate to reduced muscle mass).
Apparently exercise increases leptin sensitivity, so you can deal with lowered leptin by including exercise in your lifestyle. I wonder if this is why the lowered metabolism often isn't observed among maintainers at MFP (who tend to exercise).
I so far don't see any significant difference between my metabolic rate and where the calculators say I should be (and I lost roughly consistent with the same calculators, so they seem to be accurate for me), and I also do exercise a good amount.
I will try to track down a source for what I recall reading here.
Please do!
I only lost about 17kg, but my maintenance calories are currently nearly 400kcal higher than what calculators say they should. I do train strength though.
With regards to leptin: I know it's only anecdotal but for me I can say that my appetite goes down after any kind of workout: a brisk walk, running, weight training, bodyweight circuits, swimming, a long relaxed cycle ride.0 -
I lost my weight over the course of several years. The last 70 or over a period of 6 months while lifting. Why do I exhibit the effect then?mamapeach910 wrote: »
Yeah, the guy with the picture in armor posted a study that showed that ONLY for low grade exercise (pedaling at 25 watts or less), there was a difference in calories used between a an overweight person of 15% between when they were overweight, and after they lost.mamapeach910 wrote: »We recently hashed this out in another thread. There are a couple of problems with a lot of the research on this topic relating to the methods of weight loss in the subjects.
The science of it got over my head, but if I followed things correctly enough, exercise and protein consumption while losing weight slowly mitigated the differential to a very large extent.
Paging @EvgeniZyntx
@senecarr, weren't you there too? Or am I remembering incorrectly?
However, the same study found that a thin person gaining weight also had their energy use GO up when they were made to gain weight, if I recall correctly.
They also found that subjects that had almost ANY level of resistance training activity didn't have these effects.
So the advice to lose weight at a sensible rate, do resistance training, and eat adequate protein will counter these effects to a very significant extent...
AND EVERYONE IN THE THREAD IS IGNORING THIS.
Because some studies designed around people who lost weight on 800 calorie diets or diets with extremely low protein intakes showed the effect.
I want to cry sometimes.
I can't even with you. People have been round and round with you on your issues before. You won't take sound advice.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
I lost my weight over the course of several years. The last 70 or over a period of 6 months while lifting. Why do I exhibit the effect then?mamapeach910 wrote: »
Yeah, the guy with the picture in armor posted a study that showed that ONLY for low grade exercise (pedaling at 25 watts or less), there was a difference in calories used between a an overweight person of 15% between when they were overweight, and after they lost.mamapeach910 wrote: »We recently hashed this out in another thread. There are a couple of problems with a lot of the research on this topic relating to the methods of weight loss in the subjects.
The science of it got over my head, but if I followed things correctly enough, exercise and protein consumption while losing weight slowly mitigated the differential to a very large extent.
Paging @EvgeniZyntx
@senecarr, weren't you there too? Or am I remembering incorrectly?
However, the same study found that a thin person gaining weight also had their energy use GO up when they were made to gain weight, if I recall correctly.
They also found that subjects that had almost ANY level of resistance training activity didn't have these effects.
So the advice to lose weight at a sensible rate, do resistance training, and eat adequate protein will counter these effects to a very significant extent...
AND EVERYONE IN THE THREAD IS IGNORING THIS.
Because some studies designed around people who lost weight on 800 calorie diets or diets with extremely low protein intakes showed the effect.
I want to cry sometimes.
I can't even with you. People have been round and round with you on your issues before. You won't take sound advice.
This the guy that won't see a doctor about possible hormone imbalance?0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
I lost my weight over the course of several years. The last 70 or over a period of 6 months while lifting. Why do I exhibit the effect then?mamapeach910 wrote: »
Yeah, the guy with the picture in armor posted a study that showed that ONLY for low grade exercise (pedaling at 25 watts or less), there was a difference in calories used between a an overweight person of 15% between when they were overweight, and after they lost.mamapeach910 wrote: »We recently hashed this out in another thread. There are a couple of problems with a lot of the research on this topic relating to the methods of weight loss in the subjects.
The science of it got over my head, but if I followed things correctly enough, exercise and protein consumption while losing weight slowly mitigated the differential to a very large extent.
Paging @EvgeniZyntx
@senecarr, weren't you there too? Or am I remembering incorrectly?
However, the same study found that a thin person gaining weight also had their energy use GO up when they were made to gain weight, if I recall correctly.
They also found that subjects that had almost ANY level of resistance training activity didn't have these effects.
So the advice to lose weight at a sensible rate, do resistance training, and eat adequate protein will counter these effects to a very significant extent...
AND EVERYONE IN THE THREAD IS IGNORING THIS.
Because some studies designed around people who lost weight on 800 calorie diets or diets with extremely low protein intakes showed the effect.
I want to cry sometimes.
I can't even with you. People have been round and round with you on your issues before. You won't take sound advice.
This the guy that won't see a doctor about possible hormone imbalance?
The last big go around with him that really hashed out everything was while I was still lurking. There's a lot that he's not willing to do. Most of the people who know anything don't even bother anymore.
I have a terrible habit of not remembering details sometimes, and just remembering the bottom line.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
Yeah, the guy with the picture in armor posted a study that showed that ONLY for low grade exercise (pedaling at 25 watts or less), there was a difference in calories used between a an overweight person of 15% between when they were overweight, and after they lost.mamapeach910 wrote: »We recently hashed this out in another thread. There are a couple of problems with a lot of the research on this topic relating to the methods of weight loss in the subjects.
The science of it got over my head, but if I followed things correctly enough, exercise and protein consumption while losing weight slowly mitigated the differential to a very large extent.
Paging @EvgeniZyntx
@senecarr, weren't you there too? Or am I remembering incorrectly?
However, the same study found that a thin person gaining weight also had their energy use GO up when they were made to gain weight, if I recall correctly.
They also found that subjects that had almost ANY level of resistance training activity didn't have these effects.
So the advice to lose weight at a sensible rate, do resistance training, and eat adequate protein will counter these effects to a very significant extent...
AND EVERYONE IN THE THREAD IS IGNORING THIS.
Because some studies designed around people who lost weight on 800 calorie diets or diets with extremely low protein intakes showed the effect.
I want to cry sometimes.
Thanks you.
Potential outliers excepted for the sake of politeness, this was my thought too. In these studies, as far as I can tell, VLCDs and rapid weight loss are employed. This makes sense from a clinical perspective -- you don't have to follow the participants for as long and weight loss is guaranteed. But it makes generalizing the results much more difficult.
From what I can tell I maintain above the nominal calorie level for a man my age and weight. I lost my initial weight pretty rapidly -- 50 lbs over about 6 months - and have been maintaining/slightly gaining and losing for the last 3 years or so.0 -
eclenden01 wrote: »You're underestimating the role of genetics. This study found that obese people burn 60 percent less calories than non obese people in response to exercise after taking into consideration body composition, just as an example. I think I remember seeing that some people burn 3 times as much per pound of resting lean muscle than others.
http://rnd.edpsciences.org/articles/rnd/abs/2005/02/r5205/r5205.html
That's not what the study says.
It says that obese burn less exercise-ish calories because they're much less active.
Making X pounds run Y miles is going to take about the same amount of energy, regardless of body composition, and regardless of whether someone got to their current weight through dieting or were always at that weight.
On the other side, an obese out of shape individual is going to burn a LOT less than a fit person doing something like 30DS.
0 -
I have not tracked down anything conclusive on the leptin/metabolism thing. Thinking about it, I think I got it from an interview with Lyle McDonald, and here he is on the topic (among other things) with some links: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-3.html/ and http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-4.html/.
Precision Nutrition has a little piece on it where they say that the hypothesis about effect on metabolism is so far uncertain (but which is quite interesting overall): http://www.precisionnutrition.com/leptin-ghrelin-weight-loss.
Some studies/reviews (some in full, some I couldn't get but someone else may be able to access) on the topic that look interesting:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00270.x/full
ftp://trf.education.gouv.fr/pub/edutel/siac/siac2/jury/2005/agreg_ext/bio5.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19176740
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12614978
I also found some articles discussing the leptin/metabolism effect I mentioned as a fact, in publications like Slate, but they did not cite sources and were from the POV that weight loss is largely impossible to maintain, etc. (Which IMO is not the correct take away even if it is true. Instead I'd say that exercise is more important than often portrayed, contra the latest from Lustig et al., if one is able to do it.)0 -
I don't think there's any validity to this premise across the board, but I guess it could arise in different situations.0
-
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.0 -
eclenden01 wrote: »It is based on a study that found that weight loss stimulates changes in hormones regulating hunger and metabolism, and that these changes are still seen at least a year later. Your body is constantly bringing you back to a set point, and scientists are unsure when or if your set point can be adjusted downwards.
HBO had a 4 part documentary called The Weight of the Nation where this is discussed. You should be able to find the video on youtube.
Yes, that documentary was where I first learned about this. It was well worth the time to watch this series.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Do you consider 112 pounds a small amount of weight to lose?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.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Do you consider 112 pounds a small amount of weight to lose?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.
Trust me. Save yourself the pain.
0 -
I'm just killing time before I take my daughter to her weightlifting class.mamapeach910 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Do you consider 112 pounds a small amount of weight to lose?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.
Trust me. Save yourself the pain.
0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I believe this is generally true.0
-
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.0
-
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.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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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?
0 -
This content has been removed.
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