Some people get more calories out of their food than others.
Replies
-
cafeaulait7 wrote: »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).
Not exactly. Many people say one is plateauing because one is eating the amount of food to support that.
You don't have to weigh your food if you don't want to, you just have to learn how to eat less than you burn to lose weight.
That said, food is food and it has a certain amount of calories and it has certain nutrients. This whole thing is majoring in the minors because weight loss ultimately comes down to a calorie deficit no matter what your body temperature is.
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »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.
The 132 you poop out are already being accounted for in the calorie counts of the food you eat to begin with.0 -
I find this interesting regardless if it has a big impact on weight or not, tbh. but k argue0
-
stevencloser wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »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.
The 132 you poop out are already being accounted for in the calorie counts of the food you eat to begin with.
They are ? How well - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649.full "However, we did not invalidate the modified Atwater factor system for comparison of ME values of foods in general when consumed at zero nitrogen balance and zero energy balance (meaning energy intake minus energy expenditure). The system does not account for differences in thermal energy losses associated with the metabolism of the macronutrients."
My poop CV numbers came from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10643389.2014.1000761 which reviews a range of data sources.
Mice appear to be a lot less efficient than humans, if a median loss of 132 goes with an intake of say 2000 we extract over 90% whereas the mice are struggling to extract 2/30 -
stevencloser wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »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.
The 132 you poop out are already being accounted for in the calorie counts of the food you eat to begin with.
This is related what I'm confused about with respect to those claiming this is part of an answer to obesity (haven't tried to read the study yet). Isn't it the case that someone not absorbing MORE than the standard 132 calories (due to issues with gut flora) should lose weight faster, and thus not an explanation for why people might be gaining weight? Having an (ugh) fecal transplant and fixing the issue would result in them absorbing MORE calories, and thus gaining weight faster, given the same intake. Sure, people having a problem with absorbing less might be more likely to be nutrient deficient (although usually diet accounts for that more and diet affects the gut flora, so there may be a causal direction issue here), but they aren't going to be gaining weight in excess of that they eat. Quite the contrary.
Also, of course, no one says that there's some constant calories out that you should have, eat less than that. Part of the process for people hyperfocused on trying to count accurately (which is not me currently) is figuring out the proper level to eat at to lose/maintain.0 -
allbandrelatednamesaretaken wrote: »I find this interesting regardless if it has a big impact on weight or not, tbh. but k argue
This is true, and why I am going to read the study.0 -
How well it's accounted for? I dunno, but it's good enough so most people are not losing weight when they think they're maintaining.
And yeah, our crazy good efficiency hepps a lot with that. Another reason you don't See skinny siberians who burn 4000 per day just because it's cold.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.
@yarwell, where did you get the bolded from, as I couldn't find it in the linked study?lithezebra wrote: »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.
If we run with Yarwell's # of 132 calories per day (which I do not believe has been scientifically proven that a fecal transplant could give this kind of increase, but whatever...) then the average obese person could save themselves 48,180 calories per year. At that rate, if they were at maintenance before the transplant, they would lose a whopping 13.7 pounds per year. For many of them, at that rate, they could reach their goal weight in what, 10 years? 20? I don't think it's fair to put gastric bypass and fecal transplant on the same level for the medically obese.
I see this as helping to stop a slow weight creep rather than leading to a huge drop in weight.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »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.
And...that would be grand, but the only thing that will fix obesity is people choosing to make the choice to eat a calorie allotment that allows them to lose weight. There are no magic solutions.0 -
From an efficiency and micro-evolutionary standpoint, I'm having a hard time seeing gut microbiome changes having a permanent effect on weight.
Typically, whatever you eat regularly is going to encourage the growth of whatever bacteria is most efficient at breaking those classes of food down - that's evolution, the most efficient or most "fit" will reproduce the most. So, over time, any bacteria transplanted into a person is going to be pushed out by other ones that will return the gut to its most efficient state, which in turn will be the state that is most likely to increase weight, as efficiency means extracting more calories.
Still, I'm sure there will be at least a few people living in their fridge and popping gut bacteria killing penicillin bought from a pet store as the newest diet craze. Me, I'd rather count calories that spend my days pooping myself in the fridge, but to each their own.0 -
It's an interesting idea. We are only beginning to understand the role of the gut in everything from immune function to behavioral conditions. What's unfortunate is the most likely beneficiary of this sort of research at this point is the supplement industry.
As for metabolism, I don't think it entirely comes down to body mass and composition. However the effect of other influencing factors such as this is probably very, very small. If you consider the fact that even online calculators of basal metabolic rate are surprisingly accurate when compared to laboratory measurements of BMR, there is definitely a strong, proven correlation between mass/comp and metabolism. If the microbiome of the gut were influencing metabolism say 150 calories a day one way or another, it would be hard to assess the impact of this sort of intervention. The USDA's acceptable margin of error on product labels at 20%, that alone is plus or minus 400 kcal/day on a 2000 kcal/day diet. So this could maybe one day be a "might help, won't hurt" adjunct that is available like a vitamin or probiotic at the market. But I don't see it being a game changer for the masses.
Thanks for sharing. It's an interesting article.0 -
Be careful where you get your transplant from - http://ofid.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/1/ofv004.full "We report a case of a woman successfully treated with FMT who developed new-onset obesity after receiving stool from a healthy but overweight donor. "0
-
blankiefinder wrote: »@yarwell, where did you get the bolded from, as I couldn't find it in the linked study?
"My poop CV numbers came from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10643389.2014.1000761 which reviews a range of data sources." (you missed it in a different post)
As the OP study is in mice I was looking for a human benchmark as the mice seemed fairly inefficient at extracting calories.0 -
This is so true. I am in med school and all of the new material about the role of the gut is newly discovered and they are figuring out more and more.It's an interesting idea. We are only beginning to understand the role of the gut in everything from immune function to behavioral conditions. What's unfortunate is the most likely beneficiary of this sort of research at this point is the supplement industry.
0 -
I think it's a very interesting read, and with a lot of solid numbers attached and an actual proven link to the cause, might help explain how the rates humans absorb food vary person to person.
Though some will always stick to the claims that any small variances don't matter, I personally think they do matter once added up and all factored in together.
If we take the variance in @yarwell 's links with the human comparison it's almost 300 calories. Add to that the USDA variances in food labels and that is potentially another in the hundreds. Add to that error in calculating calorie burn, which is probably well up in the 20% or better range for most, and that's another chunk potentially in the hundreds depending on activity levels. When you take all the unknown influences and margins of potential error due to differences, before you know it the potential for a daily error is up in the 400-600 calories per day range for a person my size. And considering that at least some of these factors could sway one direction or another quickly, it may well explain why weight loss or gain is rarely linear.
I think it would be interesting to also consider this as a potential method of treatment for those that deal with Celiac or gluten intolerance below that level. Since the turnover in the gut affects them, it might be something that could help speed the process.0 -
Reading your post made me think that you are not considering this. Take for example your point about the USDA variances. It goes both ways and is never going to end up at hundreds above.robertw486 wrote: »I think it's a very interesting read, and with a lot of solid numbers attached and an actual proven link to the cause, might help explain how the rates humans absorb food vary person to person.
Though some will always stick to the claims that any small variances don't matter, I personally think they do matter once added up and all factored in together.
If we take the variance in @yarwell 's links with the human comparison it's almost 300 calories. Add to that the USDA variances in food labels and that is potentially another in the hundreds. Add to that error in calculating calorie burn, which is probably well up in the 20% or better range for most, and that's another chunk potentially in the hundreds depending on activity levels. When you take all the unknown influences and margins of potential error due to differences, before you know it the potential for a daily error is up in the 400-600 calories per day range for a person my size. And considering that at least some of these factors could sway one direction or another quickly, it may well explain why weight loss or gain is rarely linear.
I think it would be interesting to also consider this as a potential method of treatment for those that deal with Celiac or gluten intolerance below that level. Since the turnover in the gut affects them, it might be something that could help speed the process.
It is an interesting read and I really do believe that gut flora has potential for the immune system and digestive health.
As for it being a potentially positive factor for weight loss I'm not convinced. I feel it will just be another Daily Mail headline.0 -
Do you understand how averages work and how values are distributed randomly around that average?0
-
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »
Reading your post made me think that you are not considering this. Take for example your point about the USDA variances. It goes both ways and is never going to end up at hundreds above.robertw486 wrote: »I think it's a very interesting read, and with a lot of solid numbers attached and an actual proven link to the cause, might help explain how the rates humans absorb food vary person to person.
Though some will always stick to the claims that any small variances don't matter, I personally think they do matter once added up and all factored in together.
If we take the variance in @yarwell 's links with the human comparison it's almost 300 calories. Add to that the USDA variances in food labels and that is potentially another in the hundreds. Add to that error in calculating calorie burn, which is probably well up in the 20% or better range for most, and that's another chunk potentially in the hundreds depending on activity levels. When you take all the unknown influences and margins of potential error due to differences, before you know it the potential for a daily error is up in the 400-600 calories per day range for a person my size. And considering that at least some of these factors could sway one direction or another quickly, it may well explain why weight loss or gain is rarely linear.
I think it would be interesting to also consider this as a potential method of treatment for those that deal with Celiac or gluten intolerance below that level. Since the turnover in the gut affects them, it might be something that could help speed the process.
It is an interesting read and I really do believe that gut flora has potential for the immune system and digestive health.
As for it being a potentially positive factor for weight loss I'm not convinced. I feel it will just be another Daily Mail headline.
Based on averages or median values, we could all assume incomes, percentage of those married, number of kids and pets, weights, and many other things are more or less fixed. But in reality the average or median values don't mean much except for people that fall within them.
As for the USDA comparison, I'm not claiming it would likely not balance out over time. Simply that day to day it might change. As could a number of other things which combined could result in the error swaying one direction or another. I would think that it would remain a moving target somewhat and balance out over time. But if we use the example of the USDA ratings already taking into account that proteins usually aren't fully absorbed, what if the reality is that certain people process them much more efficiently? If the built in "fudge factor" was proven wrong, it might even lead to changes on how things are labelled.
Overall I agree that this research might not have much impact, it all boils down to basics in weight control. But then again, if the rates and efficiency of how foods are absorbed affects satiety, hormones that influence hunger, glucose levels, etc... then it might have more influence than we think. I personally think it's worthy of more research to help look at the subject more closely and at least attempt to figure things out.0 -
I do love how all the people in here thinking that if this disproved TDEE prediction calculations, that would have anything to do with CICO or calorie counting working.
You can always figure out TDEE via practicum - you see if someone loses weight on a controlled calorie intake, and adjust from there. Would any of these people say biology is bunk because we have to count a horse's teeth instead of predict them from mathematical principles? Most honest BMR, RMR, and TDEE calculators are surprisingly accurate with honest input. Even if off by 200 calories, someone setting their goal for 1 lb a week is going to still be in a deficit if they properly measure their intake. Instead people want to pretend these studies explain people claiming to be on a 1000 calorie deficit gaining weight instead of the "well I eyeballed my cooking oil (pure fat), no need to measure."0 -
I do love how all the people in here thinking that if this disproved TDEE prediction calculations, that would have anything to do with CICO or calorie counting working.
You can always figure out TDEE via practicum - you see if someone loses weight on a controlled calorie intake, and adjust from there. Would any of these people say biology is bunk because we have to count a horse's teeth instead of predict them from mathematical principles? Most honest BMR, RMR, and TDEE calculators are surprisingly accurate with honest input. Even if off by 200 calories, someone setting their goal for 1 lb a week is going to still be in a deficit if they properly measure their intake. Instead people want to pretend these studies explain people claiming to be on a 1000 calorie deficit gaining weight instead of the "well I eyeballed my cooking oil (pure fat), no need to measure."
And the point that gets lost in the noise is that even if it does exist, it can only exist in the negative. It may theoretically be possible that somebody only gets 80% of the calories from their food, but it's a physical impossibility to get 120% of the calories from their food. It could only increase the deficit, not decrease it.0 -
From an efficiency and micro-evolutionary standpoint, I'm having a hard time seeing gut microbiome changes having a permanent effect on weight.
Typically, whatever you eat regularly is going to encourage the growth of whatever bacteria is most efficient at breaking those classes of food down - that's evolution, the most efficient or most "fit" will reproduce the most. So, over time, any bacteria transplanted into a person is going to be pushed out by other ones that will return the gut to its most efficient state, which in turn will be the state that is most likely to increase weight, as efficiency means extracting more calories.
Still, I'm sure there will be at least a few people living in their fridge and popping gut bacteria killing penicillin bought from a pet store as the newest diet craze. Me, I'd rather count calories that spend my days pooping myself in the fridge, but to each their own.
I wonder. I read part of a recent interview (link to the article posted below) where the adult microbiome was characterized as a constantly evolving environment affected by everything from your diet to whether you were breastfed in infancy. Admittedly, I did not bother to try and find any back-up material, but I understand this to mean that while we can add certain types of bacteria to alter the environment, we can't ever completely change our microbiome because just about everything we do affects it.
As applied to a fecal transplant, I would guess that while the introduction of new bacteria would have long-term (perhaps even permanent) affects on the gut by adding to what is already there, it could never completely change the microbiome we have because we can't undo what's already been done.
Anyway, I find all of this very interesting.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gut-bacteria-microbiome-influence-weight-heart-health/
0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »From an efficiency and micro-evolutionary standpoint, I'm having a hard time seeing gut microbiome changes having a permanent effect on weight.
Typically, whatever you eat regularly is going to encourage the growth of whatever bacteria is most efficient at breaking those classes of food down - that's evolution, the most efficient or most "fit" will reproduce the most. So, over time, any bacteria transplanted into a person is going to be pushed out by other ones that will return the gut to its most efficient state, which in turn will be the state that is most likely to increase weight, as efficiency means extracting more calories.
Still, I'm sure there will be at least a few people living in their fridge and popping gut bacteria killing penicillin bought from a pet store as the newest diet craze. Me, I'd rather count calories that spend my days pooping myself in the fridge, but to each their own.
I wonder. I read part of a recent interview (link to the article posted below) where the adult microbiome was characterized as a constantly evolving environment affected by everything from your diet to whether you were breastfed in infancy. Admittedly, I did not bother to try and find any back-up material, but I understand this to mean that while we can add certain types of bacteria to alter the environment, we can't ever completely change our microbiome because just about everything we do affects it.
As applied to a fecal transplant, I would guess that while the introduction of new bacteria would have long-term (perhaps even permanent) affects on the gut by adding to what is already there, it could never completely change the microbiome we have because we can't undo what's already been done.
Anyway, I find all of this very interesting.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gut-bacteria-microbiome-influence-weight-heart-health/
It's the same principle as you can bring 2 rabbits to Australia and they'll over run Australia in a week, but bring a boat of koalas to North America and good luck having 2 left in a week.0 -
I suppose if the bacteria actually altered food preferences, they might have a slight hope of having a niche to occupy. If that's how you want to do things, what is cheaper than bariatric surgery, or even bacteria transfer would be: eat the foods that the thinning bacteria would encourage. No medical intervention needed, just eat right. Shucks, that's a boring solution, and a person might need to track that they're eating those foods in the quantities to lose weight. Wonder if there is an app to track those things?0
-
missblondi2u wrote: »From an efficiency and micro-evolutionary standpoint, I'm having a hard time seeing gut microbiome changes having a permanent effect on weight.
Typically, whatever you eat regularly is going to encourage the growth of whatever bacteria is most efficient at breaking those classes of food down - that's evolution, the most efficient or most "fit" will reproduce the most. So, over time, any bacteria transplanted into a person is going to be pushed out by other ones that will return the gut to its most efficient state, which in turn will be the state that is most likely to increase weight, as efficiency means extracting more calories.
Still, I'm sure there will be at least a few people living in their fridge and popping gut bacteria killing penicillin bought from a pet store as the newest diet craze. Me, I'd rather count calories that spend my days pooping myself in the fridge, but to each their own.
I wonder. I read part of a recent interview (link to the article posted below) where the adult microbiome was characterized as a constantly evolving environment affected by everything from your diet to whether you were breastfed in infancy. Admittedly, I did not bother to try and find any back-up material, but I understand this to mean that while we can add certain types of bacteria to alter the environment, we can't ever completely change our microbiome because just about everything we do affects it.
As applied to a fecal transplant, I would guess that while the introduction of new bacteria would have long-term (perhaps even permanent) affects on the gut by adding to what is already there, it could never completely change the microbiome we have because we can't undo what's already been done.
Anyway, I find all of this very interesting.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gut-bacteria-microbiome-influence-weight-heart-health/
Plenty of research in the field, and I'm sure nobody would want a change in BMI right?
circres.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/09/09/CIRCRESAHA.115.306807.abstract0
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