Some Answers About Genes, Environment, Obesity and Maintenance

[silvernight]

I've read through this entire thread now and it ties in very nicely with "Rethinking Thin" that I just finished. As so many have pointed out: at first it's disappointing to find proof that it WILL be harder to maintain the new weight but it's also a comfort to know that the problems are real and not just something in our heads.

And in knowing all this new information I feel more equipped to deal with maintaining my goal weight, because forewarned is forearmed.

Thank you for an inredibly valuable thread, you are a star Meg!

[kochevnik]

Originally Posted by Meg

Back to the equation Stored Body Fat = Food Intake – Energy Expenditure - the energy expenditure (I’m going to abbreviate it as EE) part is made up of three parts: resting energy expenditure, non-resting EE, and thermic (the digestion of food). Resting EE accounts for about 50 – 60% of the calories we burn in a day, thermic accounts for about 5%, and non-resting EE makes up the remainder.

Here’s the deal - it takes 50 calories per kg of LBM to maintain the body weight of either a normal or an obese person. BUT … it takes only 42 calories per kg of LBM to maintain the weight of a reduced obese person.

...

Now we know that it’s a FACT and we know why – our non-resting EE slows down by 15 – 20%.

I know this thread hasn't had any replies for quite some time - and I'm a newbie - but as a mathemetician, I'd like to point out a contradiction here :

If all of the new 'efficiencies' (15%) in the reduced-obese come from the NON-resting EE and the non-resting EE makes up about 40% of the total (5% thermic, 55% resting EE) - then the actual caloric difference would be about 6% (15% of 40%) not 15% total. Of course the 42 cals versus 50 cals per kg of LBM says differently, so I would be a bit curious as to which is actually correct.

I would BET that the 6% figure is correct, otherwise, it would mean that the muscles of the reduced-obese are actually about 40 PERCENT (40% of 40% = 16%) more efficient than 'normal' people and I find that number hard to swallow. That means the reduced-obese should be uber-long distance athletes as they are so much more efficient than normal people in muscle efficiency.

Anyways - just my two cents.

I also think people need to understand that as in many such scientific studies - there is probably going to be so much individual differences within the studied group that applying it to youself is problemmatic. You can see this in this forum quite well - same goal weight - very different caloric requirements to keep that final goal weight depending on the person.

I'll tell you what opened my eyes the most so far - the difference between me at 220 pounds and me at 210 pounds is about 60 calories a day - and so on down to my goal weight. I deprive myself of a slice a bread a day and I will drop almost 20 pounds over the next year or two. That is SO trivial, I know I can do that. As a maintainer, we will all get to the point where we decide how many slices of bread (or miles of walking) are worth how many extra pounds. The science is interesting and motivational, but I'm not convinced it is RELEVANT to all (or even most) of us.

The war doesn't matter - the battle does.

[19Deltawifey]

This was a very informative post, and it gives me something to think about when I get to maintanence. No wonder why I lose weight so slow

[MiniChick]

This thread was very interesting and encouraging. I'm sure, like anything else, this information will not apply to everyone, but for those that it does apply to, it's so helpful. I never officially reached the obesity category; I sat at the high end of overweight. Regardless of that, I relate to the information shared. Maybe that has more to do with losing more than 10% of my body weight, as someone else mentioned as a marker. All I know is that with my weight loss, it's still easy for me to gain and harder to lose/maintain.

Having said that, I will say that when I did maintain my loss for that first year, it was both easy and hard. It was easy to maintain as long as I continued eating relatively the same as I had while losing. It was hard in the sense that I had to continue eating the same as I had while losing. I'm like others here who have mentioned the need to stay in a tight calorie range, and if even slightly above that range for a day or two, my weight would immediately start going up. Being armed with this information, I feel like I will handle maintenance better this time around...once I get there again. Honestly, regardless of the reason why this is true for some, the reality is that just knowing that something is "off" makes it easier to accept and deal with the reality of it. So, I don't really care if I know for sure what "it" is, as "it" is probably multiple factors anyhow, but it sure helps just knowing that my gut instinct is finally being backed up by scientists who are understanding more and more that there is something to all of this.

[knitsforfive]

I haven't read the whole thread yet as I have 3 sweet little interruptions happening whenever I sit down to read...so I'll just ask my question anyway...

How does the body know when you are ready to maintain? Or does it go by when the calories in vs. calories out ratio shifts? I mean, for example, I lost 90 lbs. a few years ago, but I was not anywhere near goal. However, when I became even slightly lax, I started to gain (and, by lax, I mean simply not exercising -- though calories remained at a lower level). Did my body think that I was maintaining due to shift in that ratio? Does this mean that breaks in trying to lose weight are counter-productive and that we need to push on until we reach goal and then only slightly modify for maintenance? Or does the body wait until it is at the right weight for itself and then start this business of slowing down the metabolism?

Thanks.

[DixC Chix]

Interesting sticky.

I don't know if anyone around here has the answer but I wonder if the reduced energy expenditure is gradual during the weight loss period?

Can we compensate for the reduced EE rate with a hormonal replacement - say maybe a higher thyroid prescription to raise the RMR is 60% to compensate for a lower EE?

Finally is there a cummulative effect of the loss of EE by yo-yo dieting? For example, I once reduced from 200 to 135 (hence EE is now at 42%) and then gained back and now reducing back down. I guess I am restarting with EE at 42% but will there be an additional reduction (another 15+%) in EE rate by the time I am once again a formerly obese person?

Thanks for any info or opinion in this matter.

[kputts]

I know this is an old thread and hope it is okay to append it...

Like any complicated process with lots of variables (and individual differences) involved, it will take scientists a long time to really unravel all the issues here.

I'm posting as there is data from the National Weight Loss Registry that address this issue but comes to a different finding:

Wyatt, H.R., Grunwald, G. K., Segale, H.M., Klem, M. L., McGuire, M. T., Wing, R.R., & O'Hill, J. (1999). Resting energy expenditure in reduced-obese subjects in the National Weight Control Registry. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 69, No. 6, 1189-1193.

Their conclusions:

---QUOTE---
These results show that in at least some reduced-obese individuals there does not seem to be a permanent obligatory reduction in RMR beyond the expected reduction for a reduced lean mass.
---END QUOTE---

Thus, like many things in life, your mileage may vary....

KP

[freelancemomma]

Chiming in late to say that I don't think Robert was being snarky. He was questioning Dr. Leibel's findings in the time-honoured spirit of scientific debate. As a medical writer I work with scientists all the time, and they EXPECT to have their hypotheses picked apart. It shouldn't be taken personally.

I also happen to agree with much of what Robert says, and I've read other studies showing that metabolic rate DOES return to normal (normal for the lower weight) after weight loss. To me, the idea that metabolism basically reflects your body weight and composition makes more intuitive sense than the idea that your body resets its metabolism at a lower level after you've lost weight. Even less plausible to me is the notion that the body "wants" to become obese again just because it was obese in the past.

I'm always open to new information, but I continue to believe that many if not most people regain weight because they're actually consuming more calories than they think (or admit) they are. I know how easy it is for me to add up to 500 extra calories to my daily total without being fully aware of it -- things like coffee with milk and sugar, tea with honey, a glass of wine, a few spoonfuls of dip, a handful of crackers, "evening out" the margins of the leftover lasagna...

In any case, I think it's perfectly OK to disagree about facts, and to express that disagreement, as long as we're not making personal attacks.

Freelance

[RedPanda]

Originally Posted by freelancemomma

I also happen to agree with much of what Robert says, and I've read other studies showing that metabolic rate DOES return to normal (normal for the lower weight) after weight loss.

My own experience indicates that, eight-plus years after reaching my current weight, my metabolism is still suppressed. I have tracked my calories closely and I eat exactly at the level indicated by guidelines from several sources (which come up with similar numbers). I'm maintaining at the level indicated for a woman of my age, weight and height who exercises "for at least 30 minutes a day". Trouble is that I exercise intensely (both cardio and weights) for an average of 1.5 hours a day.

I have a feeling that if I only exercised for 30 minutes a day, or exercised at a more moderate level, I'd have to cut my calories a lot.

Of course, that's only my experience and it's hardly a scientific study, but it does bear out the "suppressed metabolism" theory.