New Research on Losing Weight

[betpchem]

I just found this article on NPR and I thought I would share it. It talks about how important exercise is, but how total calories burned is pretty much the same whatever you do. It's about allocation of calories, not total calories:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-s...

[Heybales]

Really shows out the known metabolic adaptation that takes place - especially on any extreme diets, especially when attempted to be done long term.

I will say other scientists have disagreed with not only how he presents his info (the tribe they tested are much smaller than avg Western/European sizes therefore daily burn will be much less, so direct comparison of that is not useful if not commenting on size of person), nor the fact there are plenty of studies for 3-6 months time where exercise is included and the daily burn does stay increased by the expected amount when they account for weight being lost. Some of these same studies also show make the diet extreme and indeed body will adapt to slow down, with exercise or not.

But the big take away is if you restrict food more than body desires, and you increase some levels of activity like daily or exercise - the body will respond by slowing other things down. Slowing down some base metabolism functions the body needs to do can be bad.

This used to be called Starvation mode - but way too many people associated myths with it (body will store more fat, you will stop losing weight, you will gain weight, ect) so the phrase was thrown out in favor of new one.

I think the problem with this thinking that you don't burn more with exercise though - is if you don't account for it you are right there creating a more extreme diet and the effects that he is saying will occur.

Account for the exercise though, keep the deficit reasonable - and you may just be able to avoid the issue.

That article was much more reasonable than others I've seen in years past though discussing that study.

They admit "how we eat and expend our calories is more important than all of our collective obsession with what to eat." ie eating "healthy" or "clean" or schedule for IF, ect, isn't the main point.

The admit "eventually you don't burn more calories a day, but you change the way your calories are spent. If you spend your calories on exercise, what that means is you're spending fewer calories on other tasks." Showing it takes time to adapt.

[Baltoscott]

The interview hits the high points of the book, which is worth a read.  

[Glenda]

We have a wonderful gadget that supposedly counts the calories burned no matter what you are doing.  I was so happy to get my first Fitbit.  I still like to see how many steps it counts for me each day.  I believe in daily exercise for better health.  I don't believe in  the "calorie deficits " people get so involved with.  If they would sit on a chair all day to see how many calories that used per hour and then subtracted that amount from the total they used when exercising, only then would the exercise amount make any sense as exercise calories burned.   That is part of the reason hardly anyone starts an exercise program to lose weight, and loses weight instead of eating more and gaining.  Crazy.  I have been exercising daily for decades and have always been very healthy.  Exercise is critical for better health.  You have to limit calories to lose weight though.

[Heybales]

---

@Glenda wrote:

We have a wonderful gadget that supposedly counts the calories burned no matter what you are doing.  I was so happy to get my first Fitbit.  I still like to see how many steps it counts for me each day.  I believe in daily exercise for better health.  I don't believe in  the "calorie deficits " people get so involved with.  If they would sit on a chair all day to see how many calories that used per hour and then subtracted that amount from the total they used when exercising, only then would the exercise amount make any sense as exercise calories burned.   That is part of the reason hardly anyone starts an exercise program to lose weight, and loses weight instead of eating more and gaining.  Crazy.  I have been exercising daily for decades and have always been very healthy.  Exercise is critical for better health.  You have to limit calories to lose weight though.

---

Just so you are aware.

"I don't believe in the "calorie deficits" people get so involved with" is exactly what "You have to limit calories to lose weight though" is.

Limiting calories is what creates a calorie deficit - eating less than you are burning - is the only way to burn fat weight, if done right just fat, if done wrong include muscle mass too.

[Glenda]

Do you like to add crunch to food sometimes?  I read a fat book that had one good idea in it.  I sometimes add chocolate sprinkles to frozen blueberries in yogurt.  I read "As a topping to replace nuts (to retain crunchiness) replace them with grapenuts cereal.  But it said to  sprinkle on a cookie sheet & bake for 10 minutes @ 375 degrees.   (Maybe that makes them less hard?)   A teaspoon a grapenuts has only 1/8 as many calories as chocolate sprinkles.

[Glenda]

@betpchem @Heybales   I have read that our bodies adjust well to whatever we do.  We burn about the same number of calories no matter what we do.   Exercise doesn't ever help us to lose weight.  It is only good for better health.  However,  we eat the same weight of food every day.  Isn't that amazing???    So to lose weight, I think the solution is to eat HEAVY lower calorie food.  (Stuff with more water in it?)    What do you think?

[Glenda]

You can lose a bit of weight just staying hydrated with 40 degree water.  You body uses extra calories warming the water to body temperature.  A 120 pound woman should drink 7 cups of water per day.  Bigger people need to google to see how much they should be drinking.  There are 33 good health benefits from drinking water !!  Google also said we wake up dehydrated and should start the day with 2 cups of water.  A small container of cold water & a cup full,  in the fridge makes it easy and cold filtered water is actually refreshing and pleasant.  You don't have to drink a whole cup full at a time.    LOL  

[Heybales]

Interesting math on the cold water idea since it comes up frequently as if a major way to burn extra calories.

(For anyone that's interested)
By definition:
- 1cal = energy required to raise 1g of water 1C
- 1g water ≈ 1ml water

- Therefore 1kcal (generally referred to as a calorie as far as calorie counting is concerned) = energy required to raise 1L (almost 32 oz) of water 1C
- Assuming we're using ice cold water at 1C and a core body temperature is, on average, 37C then the energy used to raise 1L of water to body temp is 36 kcals.
- Room temperature is around 21C, so the energy used to raise 1L of water to body temp (37C) is 16 kcals.
- That gives us a difference of only 20 kcals for your ice water vs room temp.
- But who really drink 1L of water in one go. It's probably more beneficial to half it and consider 500ml* in a glass of water at most, so halving that value, that glass of ice water is burning 18 kcals and room temp is 8 kcals.
- For a 10 kcal difference, honestly, I'd just take the glass that I prefer to drink.

Assumptions:
- Ice water is 1C. (In reality it could easily be higher depending on if the water has come from the fridge or freezer, or the tap/room temperature but had ice added to it. This'll make your difference even smaller)
- All water is raised to body temperature before being removed from the system (ie, you pee it out a core body temp, if you drink a lot of water very quickly, you need to pee faster, if you need to pee faster, then the water may not have reached equilibrium with your body temperature. The lower the temperature starts, the longer it will take to reach equilibrium)
- Room temp water is 21C (Unless you're in a very hot room, this is probably the highest it's likely to be, and if you're grabbing water out of a tap, even in summer it's going to be lower than this)
- 1g water ≈ 1ml water (unless you're working on a lab bench scale, this is good enough, you don't need to consider the impurities/minerals affecting the density of the water)

*500ml is just under a pint

[Heybales]

---

@Glenda wrote:

@betpchem @Heybales   I have read that our bodies adjust well to whatever we do.  We burn about the same number of calories no matter what we do.   Exercise doesn't ever help us to lose weight.  It is only good for better health.  However,  we eat the same weight of food every day.  Isn't that amazing???    So to lose weight, I think the solution is to eat HEAVY lower calorie food.  (Stuff with more water in it?)    What do you think?

---

Context matters from wherever you have heard that, which isn't true. If sources don't give the context, like just sensationalized headline reporting - then not really useful.

If you keep eating the same amount and increase activity - then the body can indeed try to adapt for you to burn less in others ways. Depends on what you increased the activity of and by how much.

But it's rarely going to lower to exactly the same as you were before. The body can only adapt so much.

Because you just caused a calorie deficit if you eat the same and burn more - eating less than you burn.

If the body adjusted as suggested no one would lose weight eating in a deficit.

Exercise without accounting for calories indeed may not cause weight loss. Because you could start eating more and the more you burned was exactly balanced by the more you ate. Actually some exercise makes some people so hungry they eat more than they burned. So easy to eat 500 calories compared to walking off 500 truly extra calories.

You have to account for calories eaten, which to create a deficit means you have to account for calories burned.

But eating less than you burn in total is the basis for every single successful research study about weight loss. It's when you make it extreme things can get bad - like not accounting for what you burn in total because you left exercise out.

Here's one study - showing not only the fact exercise can cause weight loss despite body adapting, but the negative effect of taking an extreme diet without exercise, and how the body can adjust, and how weight is still lost.

Notice the info about the CR+EX group - 12.5% deficit eating less, and exercised for 12.5% extra calorie burn. Especially comparison in Fig 1 chart.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004377

Or this meta-analysis study showing that indeed if calories are not accounted for and restricted, some exercise just isn't a benefit overall.

But when calories are being accounted for, then indeed the exercise does matter - because you can cause those extreme diets that just lead to the 80% failure rate to reach or maintain goal.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925973/

Not sure where it's stated we eat the same weight of food everyday, probably within 5% though, easily depends on how many calories you can have. I can have almost the same number of calories 2 days, and the weight won't be that close. Some food indeed has more water weight in it.

Some food has more fat calories to it and very filling, and with 2x the calories as carbs or protein, some can easily eat less of it per weight.

Food with higher fiber can be more satiety.

But high water content usually doesn't last that long, since it's a small quantity compared to say just drinking a glass of water - which some do before eating so as not to eat as much.

[Glenda]

No one said it was a big deal to lose weight drinking cold water.  We should stay hydrated and it is just interesting to know it can make a BIT of difference.  Also drinking a glass of water with a meal does NOTHING.  It isn't the same as eating food with water in it.  Anyone who hopes exercise will help them lose weight is sure to be disappointed.  I've been walking on a treadmill everyday for many decades.  I think it helps keep me healthy  Maybe if I just sat in a chair all day every day I might weigh a bit more, but I doubt it.

[Heybales]

Yes I should have put context on the cold water thing, that math was done in response to someone telling others to drink up the cold water claiming it "would stoke their furnace and kickstart their metabolism and light it on fire".

You reminded me, because those are the claims that sound like sensational headlines that get thrown around as if they are meaningful.

Few extra Pringles or M&M's would total cancel out a cold water effect.

The glass of water before you eat can help many people briefly feel fuller so they don't eat so much, and allow the normal body's response to having food in the stomach not be the normal 20-30 min delay. Many people don't have the patience to eat the amount they know they should and just wait, or eat slowly enough for the effect to happen.

There is a slight delay of hitting the point where you can feel the stretch on the stomach and feel very stuffed, and your grehlin hormone coming down and feeling full too. But if you hit the full stomach feeling you've likely eaten too much, but if you can wait you'll feel better too. Well, usually, unless just eating too little in general.

Your treadmill usage was great for health factors. If you never accounted for calories though, indeed not a weight loss mechanism. Besides, exercise should be fun and improve you, if doing purely for burning calories not likely to keep it up, at least not for decades.