Päiväkirja - Nimm, 16 touko 12

Great info. Thanks for sharing. We love that stuff too. 

I think it's a brilliant use of your journal, Nimm, and I look forward to the info shared like the one here. Good article. However, it may not have the same presence as forums because those of us who "follow" you are the ones likely to read your journal space. Forums reach a wider audience.  

Trublu & Helewis: Thanks. I thought about posting this info in the forum, but for now I prefer not to. This is more thinking-out-loud stuff that I don't want to push on those who don't care/don't want to hear it. Some of it I could also see starting arguments or "debates" that I would prefer not to start.  

I look forward to your journal entries. I look at journals more than forums so this is perfect for me! Thanks! 

Just 100-150? What problem did you have with the Fat Trap Article in the NYT that sited research showing the calorie disadvantage per day was 250-400? I understand estimates range from none to 500, depending on whose study you read. My RMR tested at 1596, putting my same stats into online estimators I got 1676, 1682, & 1683. I guess that supports your number 

Jess: I will have to go back and re-read that NYT article, but I'm going to guess that it didn't differentiate between the reduction in resting metabolic rate vs reduction in activity - which combined to about 400 or 500. 

@Jess: My suspicions were right. Here's the quote from the article: "The research shows that the changes that occur after weight loss translate to a huge caloric disadvantage of about 250 to 400 calories." Notice it said a "caloric" disadvantage. That's consistent with the article and study that I linked in the post - the total reduction in daily calorie burn can range up to 400 or 500. But most of that is attributable to a reduction in spontaneous activity - we move around and fidget less without even realizing it. The internal part that's (for now) beyond our control only accounts for up to 150 or so (or less, if you haven't lost a large amount of weight, or have a little genetic luck). It's good news, I think - we can do a lot to avoid weight regain simply by sitting down less and consciously offsetting the unconscious decrease in activity. No treadmill necessary. 

I read someplace too that the calories burned is better estimated using the Metabolic Equivalent of Task - MET. Where you take your RMR/24 to get your hourly calorie expenditure, then multiply it by the MET for whatever activity you're doing. Running a 12min/mi has a MET of 8; 10min/mi = MET of 10. I ran an 11min mile this week for 30minutes. If you us the MET calculation is would be 9 x 33.25 = 299. I According to my GPS watch/ heart rate monitor, my burn was 388 cals. An online fitness calculator puts it at 468 calories. Quite a difference! The MET estimate of 299 is probably the most accurate, since my body fat percentage is taken into account right? It is quite high, and that accounts for my lower calorie burn in exercise than a person of the same weight doing the same activity. I’m working to correct this! 

So my point being, that yes it is a reduction in daily caloric burn, but your daily caloric burn is a funciton of your RMR. Lower your RMR base, and every activity you do is lowered by a percentage as well. 

@Jess: Right. I don't know if the adaptive thermogenesis you're talking about has actually been measured or confirmed, but it's probably there - but the bigger picture is that it's probably negligible at the end of the day. If someone else at my weight and body fat % burns 100 calories by walking a mile at a certain pace, I might burn 95. The difference pales in comparison to not taking the walk in the first place. Interestingly, the metabolic penalty in the article got smaller over time. I want to know if it continues to shrink over time as we adapt to the new weight, and the body stops perceiving a need to conserve energy. I don't think that's been studied yet. 

I would venture to guess that the metabolic penalty would continue to shrink over time until it hits a certain point. There must be an adjustment period where the body needs to figure out caloric needs vs. caloric expenditure, but I can't imagine that the metabolic slowdown from weight loss would be permanent. Adding lean muscle mass could only help the cause.. 

Taking that a step further, consider that it is the exercise, even more so than the weight loss, that gets you to an increase in the RMR. You can lose a lot of weight and still not have done a lot for your lean body mass. Lean body mass burns a whole lot more calories at rest, than does fat, which doesn't take a lot of energy to support it. Hence, a lot of people that lose weight due to dieting alone, suffer the consequences of a lethargic metabolic rate, and therefore find that they are eating less and less and losing less and less. While you may have to run 20 miles to lose a pound, the development of the lean body mass over time will increase your RMR and therefore your TDEE, and keep your weight loss regimen from becoming stagnant. 

@erika & @DairyKing: Absolutely. Between my own experience and what the research all demonstrates, maximizing the retention and growth of lean mass may be the single biggest factor in the success of long-term fat loss or body recomposition. The endless debates about high-carb vs low-carb, for example, are almost irrelevant - get sufficient protein and include some sensible weight training in your weekly activity, and the rest will almost take care of itself. The aggressive diets that are short on protein, low on exercise (and weight training in particular), and have large calorie deficits practically guarantee that the weight will be regained - and now you've dieted off your lean mass, and regained fat in its place, leaving you worse off than when you started. 

Adding, while I think a lot of low-carb dieting is misguided, it serves a valuable purpose for anyone that can stick with them. It's almost impossible to get insufficient protein on a low-carb diet, and for that reason alone they often do a lot of good from people switching off of the standard American diet. 

Fascinating reading... Both in the article and the comments. Thanks :-) 

within the last few weeks i read an article, i forget where, but it stated that -- no there haven't been any studies of a long enough time frame to determine if the body ever rebounds from the caloric disadvantage. And stop me if I'm wrong, but i believe they were taking into account differences in LBM, not just weight. That it is changes in the muscle fibers that result in the slower metabolic rate. So yes, even people with the same weight, same LBM, the dieted-down person would have a lower RMR. 

@Milla: I'll throw in the occasional link to complete quackery, just to see if you're paying attention. 

Thank you Nimm for starting do to this in your journal! I really think that I will be gettin a lot of what you post here! Thank again for sharing! Rubie-sue  

Personally, I can't wait for the quackery.. 

@Jess: If you remember or find that link again, share it. Otherwise, I think that's right - it may be something we're just saddled with forever. Having said that, any future studies on the issue probably won't control for activity level very well -and I wouldn't be surprised that if it's possible to recover RMR, the level and type of activity are a major factor. The hormonal environment in the body is just so different with regular activity - cardio and/or weight training - that I think it must have an effect, independent of the effects on lean mass.