Download Fitness Tools

Bicycling to work is one of these "small things" that may make the difference between lean and obese.

I know this is not what your friends will want to hear, but for 99.9% of them it's not their genes which are to blame for their inability to lose weight. It's much simpler than that: It's their inability or unwillingness to induce a large enough caloric deficit to force their bodies to tap into the fat stores. Don't get me wrong: It's obvious that genes, with their direct and indirect influence on one's basal energy requirements (think of being tall vs. being small, if nothing else), amount of muscle, and even ability to handle glucose and fats, will factor in here. In the end, however, it's everyone's knowledge about the dos and don'ts of dieting, effort and dietary adherence that will make the difference.

That's no news for you? I think the results of a recent study from the University of Kansas Medical Center and the Texas Tech University will still come as a surprise. Usually, we talk about cheating on one's diet, skipping scheduled workouts and eating foods people are not supposed to eat, when we discuss the reasons why people fail. The results of said study, however, suggest that something else may have a much larger impact: Our regular non-exercise physical activity.
If you've read my March 2015 article "It Doesn't Have to be an Exhaustive Workout - Increasing Physical Activity Just as Effective as Strength, Endurance or Combined Exercise to Lose Fat and Build Muscle" (read it now), you will know about the importance of "taking the stairs", standing instead of seating, bicycling to work and other often overlooked low-intensity non-exercise physical activity in our everyday lives. Interestingly enough, it is just this type of low intensity 'non-exercise' of which the so-called "Midwest Exercise Trial 2" indicates that it is what distinguishes the weight loss responders (>5% weight loss) from the non-responders (<5% weight loss) in a relatively tightly controlled "work out five times per week for 10 months to lose weight"-intervention by Herrmann et al. (2015).

Before we are dealing with this surprising result, though, let's first take a look at what exactly the N=141 18-30 year-old men overweight/obesity (BMI 25-40 kg/m²) subjects had to do in this 'exercise for weight loss study' (details can be found in the description the scientists published when they registered their clinical trial | Donelly. 2012):

• Table 1: It is important to note that there were no sign. baseline differences in weight, age, etc. between responders and non-responders among the study participants (Herrmann. 2015).

  the subjects exercised on 5 days of the week - one of the session was "choose the activity you want", the other sessions were performed under supervision walking/jogging on treadmill
• the duration / intensity of all workouts was matched to initially burn 150 kcal; from months for on, 400 and 600 kcal/session (this is in line with the "2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans" | USDA. 2008) 

I see you're looking for the dietary advise? Well, there was none. That may look awkward, but in view of the fact that the scientists wanted to see whether the simple adherence to the USDA "Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans" would make a difference, the subjects were told to stay on their regular (junk food?) diets.
As the name of the study or rather the index "2" in the name implies, the "Midwest Exercise Trial 2" is a follow up study. It's a follow up that was supposed to elucidate (a) what distinguishes responders from non-responders and whether (b) the gender differences in weight response Donelly et al. observed in their 2003 predecessor study were coincidental or something we have to keep in mind, whenever we are designing exercise-based weight loss routines for men and women..

Figure 1: Total daily energy expenditure (TDEE), nonexercise energy expenditure (NEEx), and resting metabolic rate (RMR) at baseline and 10 months in responders (RS) and nonresponders (NR) to an aerobic exercise intervention.

What should I say? If you look at the data it would almost seem as if (2) was the case: Men and women appear to respond very differently to this kind of exercise-based weight loss efforts. Yes, the data in Figure 1 shows that there is a trend for non-responders from both sexes to be less active in their free time and thus having a lower non-exercise induced energy expenditure (NEEEx). On the other hand, though, ...

1. Figure 2: Nonexercise physical activity (NEPA) and sedentary time across 10 months in responders (RS) and nonresponders (NR) to an aerobic exercise intervention (Herrmann. 2015).

   only the male non-responders are truly characterized by their tendency to take the five weekly workouts as an excuse to use the elevator and drive the 200m to the next fast-food outlet by car, while 
2. there is no such compensatory effect on NEEEx in the women and even an increase in resting metabolic rate (so no metabolic damage or shut-down) in the female non-responders

This trend for a "compensatory effect" on non-exercise physical activity (NEPA) in male and its absence is in female non-responders becomes even more obvious in Figure 2.

Figure 3: Rel. energy balance in male and female weight loss responders and non-responders in month 10 - data calculated as (total intake / total expenditure - 1)*100 based on data from Herrmann et al. (2015).

If we go back to my initial comment on caloric deficits and do the math that's required to calculate the relative difference between the total reported energy intake and the estimated energy expenditure, we get an excellent explanation for the fact that the male "non-responders" don't lose weight: They simply weren't in caloric deficit (see Figure 3); and that - and this is actually the most interesting finding - not because they ate more (the reported energy intake didn't change much), but because they moved less in their everyday lives!
References:

• Donnelly, Joseph E., et al. "Effects of a 16-month randomized controlled exercise trial on body weight and composition in young, overweight men and women: the Midwest Exercise Trial." Archives of Internal Medicine 163.11 (2003): 1343-1350.
• Donnelly, Joseph E., et al. "A randomized, controlled, supervised, exercise trial in young overweight men and women: the Midwest Exercise Trial II (MET2)." Contemporary clinical trials 33.4 (2012): 804-810.
• Herrmann, Stephen D., et al. "Energy intake, nonexercise physical activity, and weight loss in responders and nonresponders: The Midwest Exercise Trial 2." Obesity 23.8 (2015): 1539-1549.
• Klesges, Robert C., Linda H. Eck, and JoAnne W. Ray. "Who underreports dietary intake in a dietary recall? Evidence from the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey." Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 63.3 (1995): 438.
• USDA, Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. "Physical activity guidelines for Americans." Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services (2008): 15-34.
• Poppitt, S. D., et al. "Assessment of selective under-reporting of food intake by both obese and non-obese women in a metabolic facility." International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders: journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 22.4 (1998): 303-311.
• Smith, Wayne T., Karen L. Webb, and Peter F. Heywood. "The implications of underreporting in dietary studies." Australian journal of public health 18.3 (1994): 311-314.

Will slimming down from a 120 cm to a 60 cm waist always ruin your metabolic rate and set you up for weight regain or can high GI protect you from yoyoing?

Broscience tells us: "Carb up to preserve your resting metabolic rate." And in fact, there is some scientific evidence that suggests a link between high(er) carbohydrate intakes and increased thyroid function. The same amount of T3 will trigger a sign. higher stimulation of lipolysis and fat oxidation, for example, on high vs. low carb diets (Mariash. 1980). Low carb diets, on the other hand, lead to significant reductions of the active thyroid hormone and increases in the 'thyroid receptor inhibitor' rT3 - even in healthy individuals and if the energy intake is standardizes (Serog. 1982; Ullrich. 1985). So, is broscience right? Well, overfeeding studies show a similar increase in T3 in response to protein, fat and carbohydrates (Danforth Jr. 1979). So refeeds should work, irrespective of their carbohydrate content...
As you can see, it is hardly possible to confirm or reject the "carb up to prevent metabolic damage" (=prevent the diet induced over-proportional reduction in resting energy expenditure) hypothesis based on the existing evidence. A recent study by J. Philip Karl and colleagues who tried to determine "the effects of diets varying in carbohydrate and glycemic index (GI) on changes in body composition, resting metabolic rate (RMR), and metabolic adaptation during and after weight
loss" (Karl. 2015), however, may yet take us one step further towards rejecting or confirming this commonly heard of idea.

Figure 1: Overview of the key parameters of the study design and dietary composition (Karl. 2015).

In said study, Karl et al. randomly assigned adults with obesity (n = 91) to one of four diet groups for 17 weeks. As you can see in Figure 1, the diets all subjects were provided with differed in percentage energy from carbohydrate (55% or 70% | Figure 1, top-right) and GI (low or high, Figure 1, bottom-right) but were matched for protein, fiber, and energy. The study design itself comprised 5 phases:

Metabolic Damage in Biggest Losers: Will Diet & Intense Exercise Make You Fat, While Surgery Will Make You Lean? Plus: How to Avoid or Even Correct Diet-Induced REE Reductions | more

"Phase 1 was a 5-week weight maintenance phase in which weight maintenance energy needs were determined by adjusting provided energy intake to maintain stable weight. Mean Phase 1 energy intake was 12.2 MJ/day with 48% energy provided as carbohydrate, 16% as protein, and 36% as fat. Following Phase 1, participants were randomized by the study statistician to their Phase 2 dietary assignment using computer-generated randomization. The four diets differed in carbohydrate content (55%, ModCarb or 70%, HighCarb of total energy) and dietary GI (less than 60, LowGI or 80, HighGI), and were provided for 12 weeks at 67% of the weight maintenance energy intake determined in Phase 1. 

Participants were allowed to increase their energy intake during Phase 2 by requesting additional, randomization-appropriate foods from the metabolic kitchen if too hungry to be adherent. Phase 3 was a 5-week weight maintenance phase during which food was provided according to randomization. Energy intake during Phase 3 was prescribed to support weight maintenance at the new, lower body weight, and was predicted from body weight and energy intake measured at the end of Phase 2, with adjustment for self-reported physical activity. Phase 4 was a 12- month follow-up period during which participants selected and pre pared their own meals after being provided with instructions on fol lowing the diet to which they were randomized" (Karl. 2015)

To assess the effects of this sequence of induction (weight maintenance), and weight stabilization phases, the body weight, body composition, RMR, and metabolic adaptation (measured RMR vs. predicted resting metabolic rate = RMR) of the middle aged study participants (49-64 years) were measured before and after all phases of the study.

Figure 2: (A) Weight loss and (B) percentage of total weight loss attributable to fat mass and fat free mass while consuming provided-food diets differing in glycemic index (GI) and percent energy from carbohydrate (55%, ModCarb and 70%, HighCarb) for 17 weeks (n = 79). Values are mean 6 SEM. Weight loss analyzed by repeated measures ANCOVA, body composition by two-factor ANOVA. a,bMain effect of time; asignificant decrease from baseline (P < 0.001), bsignificant difference from Phase 2 end (P < 0.001). No diet effects (main effects or interactions) for any comparisons. GI, glycemic index; HighCarb, 70% energy from carbohydrate; ModCarb, 55% energy from carbohydrate (Karl. 2015).

Interestingly, the analysis of this data revealed no significant inter-group differences in terms of any of the relevant study outcomes. Yes, you read me right: This means that neither the GI, nor the GL, nor the carbohydrate content of the diet had statistically significant effects on weight loss, body composition, RMR, or the metabolic adaptation aka "metabolic damage" due to weight loss.

Figure 3: Measured resting metabolic rate as a function of predicted metabolic rate (Karl. 2015). Note: If there was no "metabolic damage", the solid line which represents the ideal body-weight dependent decline of energy expenditure and the dashed line which represents the actual ratio of the measured to the predicted RMR should be congruent.

While there were no inter-group differences and neither the amount or the type of carbohydrates had an effect on the reduction of the metabolic rate, there is still one interesting result you can see in the right graph in Figure 3. Said graph depicts the ratio of the measured to the predicted metabolic rate during the 5-week weight maintenance phase. If you look closely, you will realize that it suggests that having a high predicted RMR, i.e. being heavier, being taller and being more muscular, is associated with a non-significant decline of the non-predicted reduction of the energy expenditure (=metabolic damage) and thus a narrowing of the gap between the solid and dashed line.

"Solid and dashed? I don't get it!"

You're asking how I can support this hypothesis? Well, the dashed line that represents the true ratio of the actual to the predicted RMR approaches the theoretical one (the solid line) for higher RMR values. If this was more than a trend, it would suggest that two things: (a) Losing less weight and thus maintaining a higher predicted metabolic rate protects against metabolic damage (that would be useless). And (b) being tall and muscular and thus having a naturally high(er) predicted RMR can protect you from suffering metabolic damage when you lose weight.

Unfortunately, it's not possible to tell which (if any) of the two options is correct. If I had to make an educated guess, though, I would say it's a combination of both: The weight change of an average 5.5 kg did not wary too much and was withing 95% confidence intervals of [-7.1 kg, -4.6 kg]. In conjunction with individual physiological qualities of people with higher baseline RMRs, it could still explain the narrowing of the gap between predicted and true RMR after dieting.
References:

• Danforth Jr, Elliot, et al. "Dietary-induced alterations in thyroid hormone metabolism during overnutrition." Journal of Clinical Investigation 64.5 (1979): 1336.
• Karl, J. Philip, et al. "Effects of carbohydrate quantity and glycemic index on resting metabolic rate and body composition during weight loss." Obesity 23.11 (2015): 2190-2198.
• Mariash, C. N., et al. "Synergism of thyroid hormone and high carbohydrate diet in the induction of lipogenic enzymes in the rat. Mechanisms and implications." Journal of Clinical Investigation 65.5 (1980): 1126.
• Serog, P., et al. "Effects of slimming and composition of diets on VO2 and thyroid hormones in healthy subjects." The American journal of clinical nutrition 35.1 (1982): 24-35.
• Ullrich, Irma H., Philip J. Peters, and M. J. Albrink. "Effect of low-carbohydrate diets high in either fat or protein on thyroid function, plasma insulin, glucose, and triglycerides in healthy young adults." Journal of the American College of Nutrition 4.4 (1985): 451-459.

With adequ. protein and nutrients "crash"- beats "low and steady" -dieting. In the obese that's almost certain, in athletes more experimental evidence are needed.

You will have heard and read that rapid weight loss will make you lose muscle and set you up for weight regain aka the "Yo-Yo effect". As a waredownloadsoft reader, you know that things are not as simple as that. While some studies appear to support this urban myth others suggest that the exact opposite may be the case.

A 2014 study by Purcell, Sumithran, and Prendergast that was published in the venerable scientific journal The Lancet for example, showed that rapid weight loss on a very low calorie diet leads to better long-term outcomes than gradual weight loss on a much less restricted diet.
That's a results of which I feel that it is important enough to re-address ii in its own waredownloadsoft article. After all, the "slow and steady" advise is still ubiquitous, both in the mainstream and in the health and fitness community. In said study, Purcell et al.

"aimed to investigate whether the rate of weight loss affects the rate of regain, and whether weight lossinduced changes in circulating appetite-mediating hormones and subjective appetite are affected by the rate of weight loss" (Purcell. 2012).

To this end, the researchers from the University of Melbourne conducted a two-phase, non-masked, randomized controlled trial. The study participants were recruited through radio and newspaper advertisements and word of mouth in Melbourne, Australia.

• Inclusion criteria were healthy men and women aged between 18–70 years who were weight stable for 3 months and had a BMI between 30.0–45.0kg/m². 
• Exclusion criteria included use of a very low energy diet or weight loss drugs in the previous 3 months, contraceptive use, pregnancy or lactation, smoking, current use of drugs known to affect body weight, previous weight loss surgery, and the presence of clinically significant disease (including diabetes).

Eligible participants were randomized into 2 different weight loss programs — a 12-week rapid program or a 36-week gradual program —using a computer-generated randomization sequence with a block design to account for the potential confounding factors of age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Investigators and laboratory staff were blind to the group assignments.

Figure 1: Overview of the study design (Purcell. 2014)

Both, the subjects on the rapid and the gradual weight loss program had the same simple goal: "Reduce your body weight by at least 12.5%." The way the subjects were supposed to achieve this weight loss was yet completely different. For phase 1 of the study (until 12.5% weight loss), the following interventions were prescribed:

• Better ZERO than Some Food? Study Suggest Just That! Learn more.

  Rapid weight loss: Participants in the rapid weight loss group replaced 3 meals a day with a commercially available meal replacement (Optifast, Nestlé Nutrition) over a period of 12 weeks (450–800 kcal/day). 
• Gradual weight loss: Participants in the gradual group replaced 1 to 2 meals daily with the same supplements and followed a diet program based on recommendations from the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating for the other meals over a period of 36 weeks (400–500 kcal deficit per day).

Both groups were given comparable dietary education materials and had appointments every 2 weeks with the same dietician. Participants who achieved 12.5% or greater weight loss were eligible for phase 2. In phase 2, participants met with their same dietician at weeks 4 and 12, and then every 12 weeks until week 144. During appointments, the dietician assessed adherence based on participants' self-reported food intake, and participants were encouraged to partake in 30 minutes of physical activity of mild to moderate intensity. Participants who gained weight were told to reduce their energy intake by 400–500 kcal in order to get back on the weight loss track.
To assess the success of the diets, the scientists used the mean weight loss that was maintained at week 144 of phase 2 (primary outcome), the mean difference in fasting ghrelin and leptin concentrations measured at baseline, end of phase 1 (week 12 for rapid and week 36 for gradual), and at weeks 48 and 144 of phase 2, as well as the overall changes in weight, BMI, waist and hip circumferences, fat mass, fat free mass, ghrelin, leptin, and physical activity (secondary outcomes).

Figure 2: Percent of participants achieving the weight loss target in phase 1 completers (left) and all subjects including the losers who didn't complete the full study - that the right figure shows even greater differences actually supports the superiority of the rapid vs. gradual weight loss regimen (p = 0.0001 | Purcell. 2015)

The overall message of the results was clear, the "rate of weight loss does not affect the proportion of weight regained within 144 weeks" (Purcell. 2014). The same goes for the implication that "[t]hese findings are not consistent with present dietary guidelines which recommend gradual over rapid weight loss, based on the belief that rapid weight loss is more quickly regained" (ibid).

Figure 3: Relative changes in measures body composition (left) and activity from pre- to follow up (Purcell. 2015).

But this wouldn't be the waredownloadsoft if we didn't go beyond the mere averages for the main study outcomes. So, let's take a look at the actual changes from the pretest to the follow up in Figure 3. What do you see? Yes, the rapid weight loss group had better (albeit not significantly better) results in everything and that despite the fact that they didn't increase their physical activity (see Figure 2, right). So let's not forget that this information that's missing from the abstract, when we're discussing the "bottom line" to this article in the following paragraphs.
References:

• Bistrian, B. R., and Mindy Sherman. "Results of the treatment of obesity with a protein-sparing modified fast." International journal of obesity 2.2 (1977): 143-148.
• Garthe, Ina, et al. "Effect of two different weight-loss rates on body composition and strength and power-related performance in elite athletes." International journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism 21 (2011): 97-104.
• Iselin, Hans U., and Peter Burckhardt. "Balanced hypocaloric diet versus protein-sparing modified fast in the treatment of obesity: a comparative study." International journal of obesity (1982).
• Martin, Corby K., et al. "Empirical evaluation of the ability to learn a calorie counting system and estimate portion size and food intake." British Journal of Nutrition 98.2 (2007): 439-444.
• Martin, Corby K., and Kishore M. Gadde. "Weight loss: slow and steady does not win the race." The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 2.12 (2014): 927-928.
• Mero, Antti A., et al. "Moderate energy restriction with high protein diet results in healthier outcome in women." J Int Soc Sports Nutr 7.4 (2010): 1-11.
• Nackers, Lisa M., Kathryn M. Ross, and Michael G. Perri. "The association between rate of initial weight loss and long-term success in obesity treatment: does slow and steady win the race?." International journal of behavioral medicine 17.3 (2010): 161-167.
• Purcell, Katrina, et al. "The effect of rate of weight loss on long-term weight management: a randomised controlled trial." The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 2.12 (2014): 954-962.
• Rolls, Barbara J., P. M. Van Duijvenvoorde, and Edmund T. Rolls. "Pleasantness changes and food intake in a varied four-course meal." Appetite 5.4 (1984): 337-348.

This could have been the HP breakfast. Egg-based pancakes + ham.

It is almost like the question "to carb" or "not to carb" and the almost religiously maddish discussions between carb-eaters and ketophiles: The debate revolving around the useful- or uselessness of breakfast, when it comes to health and physique issues.

In my more recent articles about the topic I have repeatedly exposed the claim that "not having breakfast is bad for everyone" is total bogus; and while I am not going to go back on that I am about to discuss a study that demonstrates that the right breakfast, i.e. one that's high in protein, may be extremely better than having no breakfast at all.
Said study has been conducted by scientists from the University of Missouri and the Purdue University (Leidy. 2015). It's an investigation into the effects of normal-protein (NP) vs. high-protein (HP) breakfast meals on appetite control, food intake, and body composition in “breakfast skipping” young people with overweight/obesity.

As a waredownloadsoft reader you'll know that previous studies suggest that as habitual breakfast skippers, the youths are actually not the ideal study object for a study to show beneficial effects of breakfast. After all, a recent study by Thomas et al. showed quite convincingly that "Whether Skipping Breakfast Increases Insulin, Hunger and Blood Lipids Depends on One's Breakfast Habits" (read the article). Is this a problem? Well, it could be if the new study yielded negative results. After all, we'd have to argue that this was to be expected if the subjects were habitual breakfast skippers.

Table 1: Subject characteristics at baseline (Leidy. 2015). As you can see the subjects were randomly assigned to the three groups at a ratio of 1:2:2 to breakfast skipping, normal protein (NP) and high protein (HP) breakfast.

Luckily, the results were positive and the study with its 12-week study period probably long enough to overcome the effects of habituation which mess with the results of all studies which test the effect of having vs. skipping breakfast on only one or two occasions.

Figure 1: Macronutrient composition (g) of the test meals used in the study (Leidy. 2015)

The study at hand, however, had its fifty-seven adolescent subjects (age: 19 +/- years; BMI: 29.7 +/- 4.6 kg/m²) complete a 12-week randomized controlled trial in which the adolescents consumed either a 1,464 kJ NP breakfast (13 g protein), an isocaloric breakfast with a high protein content (HP | 35 g protein), or continued to skip breakfast (CON). The main outcome variables were the subjects' pre- and post-study appetite, their food intake, body weight, and body composition, which was assessed assessed via DXA scans (which are as you know still the "gold standard" for measuring the body composition of subjects in scientific studies)
The NP and HP groups were provided with specific breakfast meals to consume between 6:00 and 9:45am each day, while the CON group continued to skip breakfast (with nothing to eat/drink, besides water) before 10:00am - with significant consequences as the in parts significant inter-group differences in Figure 2 can tell you.

Figure 2: Comparison of the changes in fat mass, the daily food intake, hunger and fullness ratings in the subjects from the CON (=kept skipping breakfast), NP (normal protein) and HP (high protein) breakfast groups (Leidy. 2015).

The superiority of (a) having breakfast and (b) consuming a high protein breakfast are not debatable. With its 12-week study duration, the study at hand obviously allowed for a full habituation and did thus - much in contrast to many short-term studies - yield all the benefits that are usually ascribed to having breakfast. In particular, having breakfast...

• "Breakfast!? An (Un-)Biased (?) Review of the Breakfast Myth" | read it!

  made the subjects magically lose (HP) or at least not gain (NP) superfluous body fat.
• significantly reduced the daily energy intake in the high protein condition and buffered the significant increase in energy intake in the no breakfast condition if the breakfast had a normal protein content,
• reduced the total time during which the subjects were hungry not just in the morning, but 24/7, and
• increased the subjects' fullness, especially in the morning.

• Dhurandhar, Emily J., et al. "The effectiveness of breakfast recommendations on weight loss: a randomized controlled trial." The American journal of clinical nutrition 100.2 (2014): 507-513.
• Leidy, Heather J., et al. "A high‐protein breakfast prevents body fat gain, through reductions in daily intake and hunger, in “Breakfast skipping” adolescents." Obesity (2015).
• Schlundt, David G., et al. "The role of breakfast in the treatment of obesity: a randomized clinical trial." The American journal of clinical nutrition 55.3 (1992): 645-651.
• Thomas, Elizabeth A., et al. "Usual breakfast eating habits affect response to breakfast skipping in overweight women." Obesity 23.4 (2015): 750-759.