NY Times Article on The Biggest Loser & reset metabolisms

[arubinst]

Would appreciate your perspective on this. I know The Biggest Loserss did not follow WFPB diets during or after but a lot of weight has been lost by them as well as us WFPB SOS-free eaters. What is your perspective regarding metabolism reset, regaining weight, etc and how our PBWF SOS free diets might affect that. Thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/healt ... share&_r=0

[JeffN]

I have no comment on a mass media news report, especially one on a study that has just been published that has not been properly reviewed, a process of which, takes time.

However, you will find this topic discussed in several other threads in this forum.

https://t.co/bjgygF55P7

https://t.co/zIc4nsuaeg


In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

Obesity researchers finally figured out why most of the Biggest Losers (& other calorie/portion restricted diet & high volume exercise programs) that aren't based on calorie density/satiety, fail. Turns out the main reason they fail is people get really hungry due to reduced food & calorie intake:

"While energy expenditure adaptations have often been considered the main reason for slowing of weight loss and subsequent regain, feedback control of energy intake plays an even larger role and helps explain why long-term maintenance of a reduced body weight is so difficult." Dr. Kevin Hall

The solution is to follow the principles of calorie density which will help reduce appetite/hunger levels by providing more satiety per calorie.


In Health
Jeff


How Strongly Does Appetite Counter Weight Loss? Quantification of the Feedback Control of Human Energy Intake
Obesity
Volume 24, Issue 11, pages 2289–2295, November 2016

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi ... 21653/full

Abstract
Objective
To quantify the feedback control of energy intake in response to long-term covert manipulation of energy balance in free-living humans.

Methods
A validated mathematical method was used to calculate energy intake changes during a 52-week placebo-controlled trial in 153 patients treated with canagliflozin, a sodium glucose co-transporter inhibitor that increases urinary glucose excretion, thereby resulting in weight loss without patients being directly aware of the energy deficit. The relationship between the body weight time course and the calculated energy intake changes was analyzed using principles from engineering control theory.

Results
It was discovered that weight loss leads to a proportional increase in appetite resulting in eating above baseline by ∼100 kcal/day per kilogram of lost weight—an amount more than threefold larger than the corresponding energy expenditure adaptations.

Conclusions
While energy expenditure adaptations have often been considered the main reason for slowing of weight loss and subsequent regain, feedback control of energy intake plays an even larger role and helps explain why long-term maintenance of a reduced body weight is so difficult.

[JeffN]

No consistent evidence of a disproportionately low resting energy expenditure in long-term successful weight-loss maintainers
Danielle M Ostendorf Edward L Melanson Ann E Caldwell Seth A Creasy Zhaoxing Pan Paul S MacLean Holly R Wyatt James O Hill Victoria A Catenacci
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 108, Issue 4, 1 October 2018, Pages 658–666, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqy179
Published: 12 October 2018

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-a ... 58/5129189

Abstract

Background
Evidence in humans is equivocal in regards to whether resting energy expenditure (REE) decreases to a greater extent than predicted for the loss of body mass with weight loss, and whether this disproportionate decrease in REE persists with weight-loss maintenance.

Objectives
We aimed to1) determine if a lower-than-predicted REE is present in a sample of successful weight-loss maintainers (WLMs) and 2) determine if amount of weight loss or duration of weight-loss maintenance are correlated with a lower-than-predicted REE in WLMs.

Design
Participants (18–65 y old) were recruited in 3 groups: WLMs (maintaining ≥13.6 kg weight loss for ≥1 y, n = 34), normal-weight controls [NCs, body mass index (BMI; in kg/m2) similar to current BMI of WLMs, n = 35], and controls with overweight/obesity (OCs, BMI similar to pre–weight-loss maximum BMI of WLMs, n = 33). REE was measured (REEm) with indirect calorimetry. Predicted REE (REEp) was determined via 1) a best-fit linear regression developed with the use of REEm, age, sex, fat-free mass, and fat mass from our control groups and 2) three standard predictive equations.

Results
REEm in WLMs was accurately predicted by equations developed from NCs and OCs (±1%) and by 3 standard predictive equations (±3%). In WLMs, individual differences between REEm and REEp ranged from −257 to +163 kcal/d. A lower REEm compared with REEp was correlated with amount of weight lost (r = 0.36, P < 0.05) but was not correlated with duration of weight-loss maintenance (r = 0.04, P = 0.81).

Conclusions
We found no consistent evidence of a significantly lower REE than predicted in a sample of long-term WLMs based on predictive equations developed from NCs and OCs as well as 3 standard predictive equations. Results suggest that sustained weight loss may not always result in a substantial, disproportionately low REE.

[JeffN]

Physiological Predictors of Weight Regain at 1‐Year Follow‐Up in Weight‐Reduced Adults with Obesity
Obesity. First published: 20 April 2019 https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22476

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22476

Abstract

Objective
This study aimed to assess whether changes in resting metabolic rate (RMR), exercise‐induced energy expenditure (EIEE), and appetite following weight loss (WL) are associated with weight regain at 1 year.

Methods
Thirty‐six adults with obesity underwent 8 weeks of a very‐low‐energy diet, followed by 4 weeks of refeeding and a 1‐year maintenance program. RMR, EIEE, appetite ratings, and active ghrelin, peptide YY, glucagon‐like peptide‐1, cholecystokinin, and insulin concentrations were measured at baseline, week 13, and 1 year.

Results
A 17% WL (−20 ± 5 kg [mean ± SD]; range: −11.7 to −32.2 kg; P < 0.001) was achieved at week 13. After 1 year, weight regain was 2.5 ± 9.0 kg (not significant), ranging from −18.2 to 22.5 kg. Both fat mass and fat‐free mass were reduced at week 13 (−17.9 ± 4.8 and −2.9 ± 2.7 kg, respectively; P < 0.001), while only loss of fat mass was sustained at 1 year. WL was associated with reduced RMR, EIEE, and fasting/postprandial insulin (all P < 0.001), as well as increased fasting hunger (P < 0.01) and fasting/postprandial active ghrelin (P < 0.001). There were no significant correlations between changes in RMR, EIEE, or appetite with WL and weight regain at 1 year.

Conclusions
No clear evidence emerged that changes in RMR, EIEE, or appetite following WL can predict weight regain at 1 year, but larger studies are needed to confirm these results.

[JeffN]

No, your metabolism isn’t broken

Revisiting the Compensatory Theory as an explanatory model for relapse in obesity management
Am J Clin Nutr 2020;00:1–10.

Full text
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-a ... 43/5906560

ABSTRACT
Weight regain remains the main challenge in obesity management, and its etiology remains elusive. The aim of the present review was to revise the available evidence regarding the “Compensatory Theory,” which is an explanatory model of relapse in obesity treatment, and to propose alternative mechanisms that can contribute to weight regain. It has been proposed, and generally accepted as true, that when a person loses weight the body fights back, with physiological adaptations on both sides of the energy balance equation that try to bring body weight back to its original state: this is the Compensatory Theory. This theory proposes that the increased orexigenic drive to eat and the reduced energy expenditure that follow weight loss are the main drivers of relapse. However, evidence showing a link between these physiological adaptations to weight loss and weight regain is lacking. Here, we propose that the physiological adaptations to weight loss, both at the level of the homeostatic appetite control system and energy expenditure, are in fact a normalization to a lower body weight and not drivers of weight regain. In light of this we explore other potential mechanisms, both physiological and behavioral, that can contribute to the high incidence of relapse in obesity management. More research is needed to clearly ascertain whether the changes in energy expenditure and homeostatic appetite markers seen in reduced-obese individuals are a compensatory mechanism that drives relapse or a normalization towards a lower body weight, and to explore alternative hypotheses that explain relapse in obesity management.
I

[JeffN]

Kevin Hall has reexamined The Biggest Loser study through the lens of the energy constrained model of Dr Pontzer

If you are on twitter, you can read it here...

Kevin Hall (@KevinH_PhD) Tweeted:
My latest Perspective was just published by @ObesitySociety: "Energy compensation and metabolic adaptation: 'The Biggest Loser' study reinterpreted"

Study
https://t.co/U0hiNYn0Ey

Twitter discussion by Dr Hall
https://twitter.com/KevinH_PhD/status/1 ... 90914?s=20

or

https://twitter.com/kevinh_phd/status/1 ... 90914?s=12


No, your metabolism is not broken.

[QubitBob]

Jeff:

The New York Times has just published an article discussing Kevin Hall's latest study: https://tinyurl.com/2kjvcpaf .