Breaking News

Metabolic adaptation is an illusion, only present when participants are in negative energy balance

ABSTRACT

setting The universe of metabolic adaptation, following weight loss, remains a controversial offspring. To our cognition, no study has evaluated the function of department of energy balance ( EB ) in modulating metabolic adaptation. Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine if metabolic adaptation, at the level of resting metabolic rate ( RMR ), is modulated by participants ’ EB status. A secondary aim was to investigate if metabolic adaptation was associated with weight recover.

Methods seventy-one individuals with fleshiness ( BMI : 34.6 ± 3.4 kg/m2 ; age : 45.4 ± 8.2 y ; 33 men ) enrolled in a 1000-kcal/d diet for 8 wk, followed by 4 wk of slant stabilization and a 9-mo weight personnel casualty sustenance broadcast. Body weight/composition and RMR were measured at baseline, workweek 9 ( W9 ), workweek 13 ( W13 ), and 1 y ( 1Y ). metabolic adaptation was defined as a significantly different ( lower or higher ) measured compared with bode RMR. Results Participants lost on median 14 kilogram by W9, followed by weight stabilization at W13, and regained 29 % of their initial weight loss at 1Y. metabolic adaptation was found at W9 ( −92 ± 110 kcal/d, P < 0.001 ) and W13 ( −38 ± 124 kcal/d, P = 0.011 ) but was not correlated with weight find. A significant decrease in metabolic adaptation was seen between W9 and W13 ( −53 ± 101 kcal/d, P < 0.001 ). In a subset of participants who gained burden between W9 and W13 ( nitrogen = 33 ), no metabolic adaptation was seen at W13 ( −26.8 ± 121.5 kcal/d, P = 0.214 ). In a subset of participants with data at all time points ( n = 45 ), metabolic adaptation was give at W9 and W13 ( −107 ± 102 kcal/d, P < 0.001 and −49 ± 128 kcal/d, P = 0.013 ) but not at 1Y ( −7 ± 129, P = 0.701 ). decision After weight loss, metabolic adaptation at the level of RMR is dependent on the EB status of the participants, being reduced to half after a period of system of weights stabilization. furthermore, metabolic adaptation does not predict weight unit find at 1Y follow-up. These trials were registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02944253 and NCT03287726 . See corresponding editorial on page 1157.

Methods

Participants

Participants in this analysis are separate of a large burden loss report ( ASKED—Ketosis and Appetite Suppression ) that was then followed by a weight personnel casualty maintenance cogitation. The elementary bearing of the studies was to identify the maximum carbohydrate ( CHO ) intake that is silent associated with appetite inhibition in a low-energy diet ( LED ) and to investigate the impression of probiotics ( compared with placebo ) on weight loss sustenance, respectively. The master learn included adult ( aged 18–65 y ) healthy volunteers, men and women, with fleshiness [ BMI ≥30 ( in kg/m2 ) ], weight static ( < 2-kg magnetic declination in system of weights within the past 3 missouri ), not presently dieting to lose weight, and not using any medications known to affect body weight, appetite, or metamorphosis. Given that both the RMR and appetite of normally ovulating women have been shown to vary across the menstrual bicycle ( 22, 23 ) but not in those who take oral contraception ( 24 ), we included in this learn postmenopausal women and premenopausal women taking oral contraceptives or with a normal menstrual cycle ( 28 ± 2 five hundred ) ( but not those with an irregular menstrual cycle ). This was done to make indisputable that measurements were taken in the same phase of the menstrual cycle. The studies were both approved by the local anesthetic ethical committee and were registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02944253 and NCT03287726, respectively. All participants provided informed accept before participating in the discipline.

Study design

The weight loss survey was a randomized controlled trial with repeat measurements conducted at the Regional Center for Obesity Research and Innovation ( ObeCe ) in Trondheim, Norway. All participants, both men and women, were randomly allocated to 3 isocaloric 1000-kcal/d LEDs for 8 wk containing varying amounts of CHO ( 70, 100, and 130 guanine in each group ) and a fix come of protein ( 75 g/d ), with fat counterbalancing the calories from CHO. This was followed by a 4-wk see time period of weight stabilization. At W9, participants were gradually reintroduced to consume convention foods while reducing the inhalation of LED products. An individualized dietary plan, aiming at weight stabilization, was prescribed to each participant following the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations consisting of 15–20 % protein, 20–30 % fatten, and 50–60 % CHO ( 25 ). Energy needs were estimated by multiplying RMR values at W9 by physical activeness flat ( PAL ) extracted from physical activity monitors ( SenseWear ). The consumption of LED products was discontinued by the end of week 10. At W13, participants were randomly allocated ( duplicate blinded, placebo controlled ) to take a multistrain probiotic ( 8 strains of lactobacillus and bifidobacteria ) ( Nycopro Ferie ; Nycomed ) or placebo twice daily ( 1 with lunch and 1 with dinner ) over a period of 9 missouri. Energy needs were recalculated at W13 by using RMR at W13 and PAL at workweek 12 ( W12 ) and a raw dietary plan prescribed to each participant, with the same macronutrient composing as for the 4-wk weight stabilization period. Participants had to attend follow-up meetings at ObeCe every month with a research nurse for weighing, discussion of likely side effects, and collection of probiotics dose for the follow calendar month. A flow chart of the discipline can be seen in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1Open in new tabDownload slide Flowchart for the study. FIGURE 1Open in new tabDownload slide Flowchart for the study. Participants were asked not to change their physical natural process ( PA ) levels during the beginning 12 wk of the study and to increase it subsequently during the 9-mo burden care phase.

Data collection

The follow measurements were conducted at baseline, immediately after system of weights loss ( day after the 8 wk of the 1000-kcal/d diet ) ( W9 ), after 4 wk of slant stabilization ( W13 ), and at 1Y follow-up while the participants were in the fast express and immediately after they had voided in the dawn.

Body weight and composition

body weight and composition were determined by whole-body breeze shift plethysmography ( ADP ) ( BOD POD ; COSMED ). intracellular water ( ICW ), as an indirect measure of glycogen storage ( 26 ), was measured by bioimpedance analysis ( BIA ) ( InBody 720 ; Biospace ).

Resting metabolic rate

RMR was measured by collateral calorimetry ( Vmax Encore 29N ; Care Fusion ) using a canopy system and standard operational procedures ( 27 ).

Physical activity levels

Participants were asked to wear armbands ( SenseWear ) for a 7-d menstruation at service line ; weeks 4, 8, and 12 ; and 12-mo follow-up. Data were considered valid if the participants wore the device for a minimal of 4 d, including at least 1 weekend day and > 95 % of the time ( 28 ). The follow variables were analyzed : number of steps per day ; time spent on sedentary [ < 1.5 metabolic equivalent of tasks ( METs ) ], light ( 1.5–3 METs ), mince ( 3–6 METs ), and vigorous to very vigorous ( > 6 METs ) PA ; and total PA ( > 1.5 METs ) per day.

Statistical analysis

merely participants with RMR data available at baseline, W9, and W13 were included in this analysis. As no significant differences were seen in metabolic adaptation among randomly allocated groups, either at W9 or W13 ( P = 0.921 and P = 0.952, respectively, from a one-factor ANOVA ), all participants were analyzed in concert. statistical analysis was performed with SPSS adaptation 22 ( SPSS, Inc. ), data were presented as mean ± SD ( except for PA data, which were presented as mean ± SEM ), and statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Changes in body weight/composition and RMR over time were assessed with a repeated-measures ANOVA, using Bonferroni discipline for multiple comparisons. The presence of metabolic adaptation was tested by paired thyroxine tests, comparing measured RMR ( RMRm ) and predicted RMR ( RMRp ) at the lapp fourth dimension points. An equation to predict RMR was derived from baseline data of all participants that were part of this analysis and included old age, sex, FM, and FFM as predictors.  \begin { eqnarray* } { R^2 } = 0.79 ; P \lt 0.001 \end { eqnarray* }  ( 1 ) RMRp ( kcal/d ) = 505.945 + [ 110.894 × sex ( 1 for females and 2 for males ) ] + [ 0.402 × Age ( years ) ] + [ 5.616 × FM ( kilogram ) ] + [ 15.213 × FFM ( kilogram ) ]. This equation, derived from baseline data, was then used to predict RMR at W9, W13, and 1Y, by using FM and FFM at each specific time point. Differences between metabolic adaptation at weeks 9 and 13 were evaluated by paired samples metric ton test. correlation coefficient analysis was performed between metabolic adaptation after burden loss ( W9 and W13 ) and weight unit find at 1Y ( as a share of the initial system of weights lost ) using Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients, when allow. Changes in PA over time were analyzed using a analogue shuffle model with perennial measures, with a restricted maximum likelihood appraisal and specify effects for time. A Bonferroni correction was applied for post hoc pairwise comparisons.

Results

Baseline characteristics of the study participants are shown in table 1. Seventy-one adult participants ( 33 men ) with fleshiness were included in the present analysis, with an average age of 45.4 ± 8.2 y and an average BMI of 34.6 ± 3.4.

TABLE 1

Characteristic . Value .
Age, y  45.4 ± 8.2
Males, n (%)  33 (47)
Anthropometrics
BMI, kg/m2  34.6 ± 3.4
Weight, kg  104.0 ± 14.6
Height, cm  173.1 ± 8.9
Fat mass, kg  43.3 ± 9.1
Fat mass, %  41.7 ± 6.4
Fat free mass, kg  60.9 ± 10.9
Fat free mass, %  58.4 ± 6.4
Characteristic . Value .
Age, y  45.4 ± 8.2
Males, n (%)  33 (47)
Anthropometrics
BMI, kg/m2  34.6 ± 3.4
Weight, kg  104.0 ± 14.6
Height, cm  173.1 ± 8.9
Fat mass, kg  43.3 ± 9.1
Fat mass, %  41.7 ± 6.4
Fat free mass, kg  60.9 ± 10.9
Fat free mass, %  58.4 ± 6.4

Open in new tab

TABLE 1

Characteristic . Value .
Age, y  45.4 ± 8.2
Males, n (%)  33 (47)
Anthropometrics
BMI, kg/m2  34.6 ± 3.4
Weight, kg  104.0 ± 14.6
Height, cm  173.1 ± 8.9
Fat mass, kg  43.3 ± 9.1
Fat mass, %  41.7 ± 6.4
Fat free mass, kg  60.9 ± 10.9
Fat free mass, %  58.4 ± 6.4
Characteristic . Value .
Age, y  45.4 ± 8.2
Males, n (%)  33 (47)
Anthropometrics
BMI, kg/m2  34.6 ± 3.4
Weight, kg  104.0 ± 14.6
Height, cm  173.1 ± 8.9
Fat mass, kg  43.3 ± 9.1
Fat mass, %  41.7 ± 6.4
Fat free mass, kg  60.9 ± 10.9
Fat free mass, %  58.4 ± 6.4

Open in new tab
Anthropometrics and RMR data, at baseline, W9, and W13, in all participants can be seen in table 2. average weight loss at W9 was 14.1 ± 0.4 kilogram ( 13.2 % ± 2.8 % ), followed by sustenance between W9 and W13 ( 0.09 ± 0.22kg, P = 0.999 ). FM and FFM ( kilogram ) were significantly reduced at W9 and W13, compared with service line ( P < 0.001 for all comparisons ), but a significant decrease in FM and a significant increase in FFM ( kilogram ) was seen between W9 and W13 ( P < 0.001 for both ). BIA data showed a significant decrease in ICW from baseline to W9 ( P < 0.001 ), which returned to baseline at W13 ( P = 0.126 ). RMRm was significantly lower than RMRp at both W9 and W13, resulting in a metabolic adaptation of −92 ± 110 ( P < 0.001 ) and −38 ± 124 kcal/d ( P = 0.011 ), respectively. A significant reduction in metabolic adaptation was seen from W9 to W13 ( −53 ± 101 kcal/d, P < 0.001 ). In a subset of participants who gained weight between W9 and W13 ( newton = 33 ), RMRm−RMRp was −3.3 ± 119 kcal/d ( P = 0.874 ) at service line, −90.0 ± 94.5 kcal/d ( P < 0.001 ) at W9, −26.8 ± 121.5 kcal/d ( P = 0.214 ) at W13, and 6.4 ± 97.8 kcal/d ( P = 0.769 ) at 1Y.

TABLE 2

. . . . P value .
Characteristic . Baseline . Week 9 . Week 13 . Baseline vs. week 9 . Baseline vs. week 13 . Week 9 vs. week 13 .
Weight, kg  104.0 ± 14.6  90.1 ± 11.6  90.0 ± 11.8  <0.001  <0.001  0.999
FM, kg  43.3 ± 9.1  32.4 ± 8.6  31.4 ± 8.4  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001
FFM, kg  60.0 ± 10.9  57.6 ± 9.9  58.3 ± 10.1  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001
ICW, L  28.4 ± 5.9  27.2 ± 5.2  27.9 ± 9  <0.001  0.791  0.126
RMRm, kcal/d  1856 ± 249  1654 ± 204  1715 ± 238  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001
RMRp, kcal/d  1856 ± 221  1746 ± 193  1754 ± 197  <0.001  <0.001  0.005
RMRm−p, kcal/d  −0.01 ± 113  −92 ± 110***  −38 ± 124*
. . . . P value .
Characteristic . Baseline . Week 9 . Week 13 . Baseline vs. week 9 . Baseline vs. week 13 . Week 9 vs. week 13 .
Weight, kg  104.0 ± 14.6  90.1 ± 11.6  90.0 ± 11.8  <0.001  <0.001  0.999
FM, kg  43.3 ± 9.1  32.4 ± 8.6  31.4 ± 8.4  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001
FFM, kg  60.0 ± 10.9  57.6 ± 9.9  58.3 ± 10.1  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001
ICW, L  28.4 ± 5.9  27.2 ± 5.2  27.9 ± 9  <0.001  0.791  0.126
RMRm, kcal/d  1856 ± 249  1654 ± 204  1715 ± 238  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001
RMRp, kcal/d  1856 ± 221  1746 ± 193  1754 ± 197  <0.001  <0.001  0.005
RMRm−p, kcal/d  −0.01 ± 113  −92 ± 110***  −38 ± 124*

Open in new tab

TABLE 2

. . . . P value .
Characteristic . Baseline . Week 9 . Week 13 . Baseline vs. week 9 . Baseline vs. week 13 . Week 9 vs. week 13 .
Weight, kg  104.0 ± 14.6  90.1 ± 11.6  90.0 ± 11.8  <0.001  <0.001  0.999
FM, kg  43.3 ± 9.1  32.4 ± 8.6  31.4 ± 8.4  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001
FFM, kg  60.0 ± 10.9  57.6 ± 9.9  58.3 ± 10.1  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001
ICW, L  28.4 ± 5.9  27.2 ± 5.2  27.9 ± 9  <0.001  0.791  0.126
RMRm, kcal/d  1856 ± 249  1654 ± 204  1715 ± 238  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001
RMRp, kcal/d  1856 ± 221  1746 ± 193  1754 ± 197  <0.001  <0.001  0.005
RMRm−p, kcal/d  −0.01 ± 113  −92 ± 110***  −38 ± 124*
. . . . P value .
Characteristic . Baseline . Week 9 . Week 13 . Baseline vs. week 9 . Baseline vs. week 13 . Week 9 vs. week 13 .
Weight, kg  104.0 ± 14.6  90.1 ± 11.6  90.0 ± 11.8  <0.001  <0.001  0.999
FM, kg  43.3 ± 9.1  32.4 ± 8.6  31.4 ± 8.4  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001
FFM, kg  60.0 ± 10.9  57.6 ± 9.9  58.3 ± 10.1  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001
ICW, L  28.4 ± 5.9  27.2 ± 5.2  27.9 ± 9  <0.001  0.791  0.126
RMRm, kcal/d  1856 ± 249  1654 ± 204  1715 ± 238  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001
RMRp, kcal/d  1856 ± 221  1746 ± 193  1754 ± 197  <0.001  <0.001  0.005
RMRm−p, kcal/d  −0.01 ± 113  −92 ± 110***  −38 ± 124*

Open in new tab
Anthropometrics and RMR data over time in a subgroup with data at all points ( including 1Y ) ( north = 45, 33 males ) can be seen in table 3. average weight personnel casualty in this subsample at W9 was 14.4 ± 0.6 kilogram ( P < 0.001 ), followed by sustenance between W9 and W13 ( −0.01 ± 0.3 kilogram, P = 0.999 ) and regain between W13 and 1Y ( 4.1 ± 1.2 kg, P < 0.001 ). average slant find at 1Y was 29.1 % ± 52.1 %. There was a significant metabolic adaptation at both W9 ( −107 ± 102 kcal/d, P < 0.001 ) and W13 ( −49 ± 128 kcal/d, P = 0.013 ), despite a significant decrease in metabolic adaptation between W9 and W13 ( −57 ± 93 kcal/d, P < 0.001 ). No metabolic adaptation was seen at 1Y follow-up. Despite no significant differences in body system of weights between W9 and W13, at group charge, there was a very large interindividual variation ( range : −4.0 to +4.4 kilogram ).

TABLE 3

. . . . . P value .
Characteristic . Baseline . Week 9 . Week 13 . 1 y . Baseline vs. week 9 . Baseline vs. week 13 . Baseline vs. 1 y . Week 9 vs. week 13 . Week 13 vs. 1 y .
Weight, kg  105.1 ± 14.0  90.7 ± 11.4  90.7 ± 11.5  94.8 ± 15.5  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.999  0.005
FM, kg  42.6 ± 9.1  31.4 ± 8.6  30.6 ± 8.3  35.4 ± 10.6  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.006  <0.001
FFM, kg  62.7 ± 10.8  59.2 ± 9.8  60.1 ± 10.1  59.4 ± 11.5  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.001  0.999
RMRm, kcal/d  1884 ± 253  1665 ± 211  1732 ± 242  1790 ± 228  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.037
RMRp, kcal/d  1888 ± 216  1773 ± 190  1781 ± 195  1798 ± 224  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.088  0.999
RMRm−p, kcal/d  −4 ± 122  −107 ± 102***  −49 ± 128*  −7 ± 129
. . . . . P value .
Characteristic . Baseline . Week 9 . Week 13 . 1 y . Baseline vs. week 9 . Baseline vs. week 13 . Baseline vs. 1 y . Week 9 vs. week 13 . Week 13 vs. 1 y .
Weight, kg  105.1 ± 14.0  90.7 ± 11.4  90.7 ± 11.5  94.8 ± 15.5  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.999  0.005
FM, kg  42.6 ± 9.1  31.4 ± 8.6  30.6 ± 8.3  35.4 ± 10.6  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.006  <0.001
FFM, kg  62.7 ± 10.8  59.2 ± 9.8  60.1 ± 10.1  59.4 ± 11.5  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.001  0.999
RMRm, kcal/d  1884 ± 253  1665 ± 211  1732 ± 242  1790 ± 228  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.037
RMRp, kcal/d  1888 ± 216  1773 ± 190  1781 ± 195  1798 ± 224  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.088  0.999
RMRm−p, kcal/d  −4 ± 122  −107 ± 102***  −49 ± 128*  −7 ± 129

Open in new tab

TABLE 3

. . . . . P value .
Characteristic . Baseline . Week 9 . Week 13 . 1 y . Baseline vs. week 9 . Baseline vs. week 13 . Baseline vs. 1 y . Week 9 vs. week 13 . Week 13 vs. 1 y .
Weight, kg  105.1 ± 14.0  90.7 ± 11.4  90.7 ± 11.5  94.8 ± 15.5  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.999  0.005
FM, kg  42.6 ± 9.1  31.4 ± 8.6  30.6 ± 8.3  35.4 ± 10.6  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.006  <0.001
FFM, kg  62.7 ± 10.8  59.2 ± 9.8  60.1 ± 10.1  59.4 ± 11.5  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.001  0.999
RMRm, kcal/d  1884 ± 253  1665 ± 211  1732 ± 242  1790 ± 228  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.037
RMRp, kcal/d  1888 ± 216  1773 ± 190  1781 ± 195  1798 ± 224  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.088  0.999
RMRm−p, kcal/d  −4 ± 122  −107 ± 102***  −49 ± 128*  −7 ± 129
. . . . . P value .
Characteristic . Baseline . Week 9 . Week 13 . 1 y . Baseline vs. week 9 . Baseline vs. week 13 . Baseline vs. 1 y . Week 9 vs. week 13 . Week 13 vs. 1 y .
Weight, kg  105.1 ± 14.0  90.7 ± 11.4  90.7 ± 11.5  94.8 ± 15.5  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.999  0.005
FM, kg  42.6 ± 9.1  31.4 ± 8.6  30.6 ± 8.3  35.4 ± 10.6  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.006  <0.001
FFM, kg  62.7 ± 10.8  59.2 ± 9.8  60.1 ± 10.1  59.4 ± 11.5  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.001  0.999
RMRm, kcal/d  1884 ± 253  1665 ± 211  1732 ± 242  1790 ± 228  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.037
RMRp, kcal/d  1888 ± 216  1773 ± 190  1781 ± 195  1798 ± 224  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  0.088  0.999
RMRm−p, kcal/d  −4 ± 122  −107 ± 102***  −49 ± 128*  −7 ± 129

Open in new tab
Changes in body composition ( FM and FFM ) over time using data from BIA were of similar magnitude and meaning as the changes previously reported based on ADP ( data not shown ). metabolic adaptation at W9 or W13 was not correlated with weight find at 1Y follow-up ( gas constant = 0.034, P = 0.824, n = 45 and r = 0.106, P = 0.488, newton = 45, respectively ). Changes in PA over meter can be seen in table 4. A significant overall effect of time was seen for steps/d ( P = 0.006 ) ; sedentary ( P < 0.001 ), light ( P < 0.001 ), moderate ( P = 0.13 ), and vigorous to very vigorous ( P = 0.001 ) PA ; and full PA duration ( P = 0.001 ). A significant increase in steps/d was seen at 1Y compared with baseline ( P = 0.03 ). Time spent on sedentary PA was significantly lower than baseline at workweek 8 ( W8 ) ( P < 0.001 ). Time spent on fall PA was importantly higher than service line at W8, week 12 ( W12 ), and 1Y ( P < 0.001 for all ). No significant changes from baseline were seen for meter spent on mince PA. A meaning increase in time spent on vigorous to very vigorous PA was seen at 1Y compared with service line ( P = 0.025 ). Time spent on sum PA was significantly higher than baseline at W8, W12, and 1Y ( P = 0.007, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively ).

TABLE 4

Characteristic . Baseline . Week 4 . Week 8 . Week 12 . 1 y . P value .
Steps/d  6556 ± 285  6548 ± 286  6627 ± 287  7156 ± 295  7519 ± 340*  0.006
Sedentary time, min/d  1184 ± 19  1177 ± 19  1071 ± 19***  1130 ± 20  1127 ± 24  <0.001
Light PA, min/d  188 ± 7  202 ± 8  221 ± 7***  227 ± 8***  229 ± 9***  <0.001
Moderate PA, min/d  55 ± 5  46 ± 5  54 ± 5  60 ± 5  59 ± 6  0.013
Vigorous to very vigorous PA, min/d  0.9 ± 0.4  0.5 ± 0.4  1.0 ± 0.4  1.8 ± 0.4  2.7 ± 0.5*  0.001
Total PA, min/d  244 ± 10  249 ± 10  276 ± 10**  289 ± 10***  290 ± 11***  0.001
Characteristic . Baseline . Week 4 . Week 8 . Week 12 . 1 y . P value .
Steps/d  6556 ± 285  6548 ± 286  6627 ± 287  7156 ± 295  7519 ± 340*  0.006
Sedentary time, min/d  1184 ± 19  1177 ± 19  1071 ± 19***  1130 ± 20  1127 ± 24  <0.001
Light PA, min/d  188 ± 7  202 ± 8  221 ± 7***  227 ± 8***  229 ± 9***  <0.001
Moderate PA, min/d  55 ± 5  46 ± 5  54 ± 5  60 ± 5  59 ± 6  0.013
Vigorous to very vigorous PA, min/d  0.9 ± 0.4  0.5 ± 0.4  1.0 ± 0.4  1.8 ± 0.4  2.7 ± 0.5*  0.001
Total PA, min/d  244 ± 10  249 ± 10  276 ± 10**  289 ± 10***  290 ± 11***  0.001

Open in new tab

TABLE 4

Characteristic . Baseline . Week 4 . Week 8 . Week 12 . 1 y . P value .
Steps/d  6556 ± 285  6548 ± 286  6627 ± 287  7156 ± 295  7519 ± 340*  0.006
Sedentary time, min/d  1184 ± 19  1177 ± 19  1071 ± 19***  1130 ± 20  1127 ± 24  <0.001
Light PA, min/d  188 ± 7  202 ± 8  221 ± 7***  227 ± 8***  229 ± 9***  <0.001
Moderate PA, min/d  55 ± 5  46 ± 5  54 ± 5  60 ± 5  59 ± 6  0.013
Vigorous to very vigorous PA, min/d  0.9 ± 0.4  0.5 ± 0.4  1.0 ± 0.4  1.8 ± 0.4  2.7 ± 0.5*  0.001
Total PA, min/d  244 ± 10  249 ± 10  276 ± 10**  289 ± 10***  290 ± 11***  0.001
Characteristic . Baseline . Week 4 . Week 8 . Week 12 . 1 y . P value .
Steps/d  6556 ± 285  6548 ± 286  6627 ± 287  7156 ± 295  7519 ± 340*  0.006
Sedentary time, min/d  1184 ± 19  1177 ± 19  1071 ± 19***  1130 ± 20  1127 ± 24  <0.001
Light PA, min/d  188 ± 7  202 ± 8  221 ± 7***  227 ± 8***  229 ± 9***  <0.001
Moderate PA, min/d  55 ± 5  46 ± 5  54 ± 5  60 ± 5  59 ± 6  0.013
Vigorous to very vigorous PA, min/d  0.9 ± 0.4  0.5 ± 0.4  1.0 ± 0.4  1.8 ± 0.4  2.7 ± 0.5*  0.001
Total PA, min/d  244 ± 10  249 ± 10  276 ± 10**  289 ± 10***  290 ± 11***  0.001

Open in new tab

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors ’ responsibilities were as follows––CM, JR, and SS : conceived and designed the study ; JR and SS : collected the data ; CM : performed the statistical psychoanalysis ; CM, JR, SS, BAG, and GRH : wrote the manuscript ; CM : had primary responsibility for final content ; and all authors : assisted with data rendition and understand and approved the final manuscript. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Notes

fund : This study was funded by the norwegian University of Science and Technology ( NTNU ) ( doctoral accord ) and the Liaison Committee for Education, Research, and Innovation in Central Norway in partnership with NTNU ( running costs ). CM was supported by a sabbatical award by the Liaison Committee for Education, Research, and Innovation in Central Norway and the NTNU. Data sharing : Data described in the manuscript will be made available upon request pending approval by the local ethics committee. Abbreviations used : ADP, air shift plethysmography ; BIA, bioelectric electric resistance psychoanalysis ; CHO, carbohydrate ; EB, energy libra ; EE, energy expending ; FM, fat mass ; FFM, nonfat mass ; ICW, intracellular water ; LED, low-energy diet ; MET, metabolic equivalent of tax ; NREE, nonresting energy consumption ; PA, physical action ; PA, physical activity charge ; RMR, resting metabolic rate ; RMRm, resting metabolic rate measured ; RMRp, resting metabolic rate predicted ; W, week ; Y, year.

References

1.

Leibel

RL

,

Rosenbaum

M

,

Hirsch

J

. Changes in energy expending resulting from altered body weight. N Engl J Med. 1995; 332: 621– 8. 2.

Rosenbaum

M

,

Hirsch

J

,

Gallagher

DA

,

Leibel

RL

. long-run doggedness of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who have maintained a reduced consistency weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008; 88( 4): 906– 12. ) : 3.

Froidevaux

F

,

Schutz

Y

,

Christin

L

,

Jequier

E

. Energy outgo in corpulent women before and during weight personnel casualty, after refeeding, and in the weight-relapse period. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993; 57( 1): 35– 42. ) : 4.

Fothergill

E

,

Guo

J

,

Howard

L

,

Kerns

JC

,

Knuth

ND

,

Brychta

R

,

Chen

KY

,

Skarulis

MC

,

Walter

M

,

Walter

PJ

et aluminum. Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “ The Biggest Loser ” competition. fleshiness. 2016; 24( 8): 1612– 19. ) : 5.

Camps

SG

,

Verhoef

SP

,

Westerterp

KR

. Weight loss, slant alimony, and adaptive thermogenesis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013; 97( 5): 990– 4. ) : 6.

Johannsen

DL

,

Knuth

ND

,

Huizenga

R

,

Rood

JC

,

Ravussin

E

,

Hall

KD

. Metabolic slowing with massive weight loss despite preservation of nonfat mass. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012; 97( 7): 2489– 96. ) : 7.

Weinsier

RL

,

Nagy

TR

,

Hunter

GR

,

Darnell

BE

,

Hensrud

DD

,

Weiss

HL

. Do adaptive changes in metabolic pace favor weight recover in weight-reduced individuals ? An examination of the set-point theory. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000; 72( 5): 1088– 94. ) : 8.

Weinsier

RL

,

Hunter

GR

,

Zuckerman

PA

,

Darnell

BE

. low perch and sleeping energy expending and fat function do not contribute to fleshiness in women. Obes Res. 2003; 11( 8): 937– 44. ) : 9.

Wyatt

HR

,

Grunwald

GK

,

Seagle

HM

,

Klem

ML

,

McGuire

MT

,

Wing

RR

,

Hill

JO

. Resting energy consumption in reduced-obese subjects in the National Weight Control Registry. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999; 69( 6): 1189– 93. ) : 10.

Larson

DE

,

Ferraro

RT

,

Robertson

DS

,

Ravus

E

. Energy metabolism in weight-stable postobese individuals. Am J Clin Nutr. 1995; 62: 735– 9. 11.

Ostendorf

DM

,

Melanson

EL

,

Caldwell

AE

,

Creasy

SA

,

Pan

Z

,

MacLean

PS

,

Wyatt

HR

,

Hill

JO

,

Catenacci

VA

. No coherent attest of a disproportionately low resting energy outgo in long-run successful weight-loss maintainers. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018; 108( 4): 658– 66. ) : 12.

Amatruda

JM

,

Statt

MC

,

Welle

SL

. total and resting energy consumption in corpulent women reduced to ideal body system of weights. J Clin Invest. 1993; 92( 3): 1236– 42. ) : 13.

Dulloo

AG

,

Jacquet

J

,

Montani

JP

,

Schutz

Y

. adaptive thermogenesis in homo body slant regulation : more of a concept than a measurable entity ?. Obes Rev. 2012; 13( Suppl 2): 105– 21. ) : 14.

Dulloo

AG

,

Schutz

Y

. adaptive thermogenesis in resistance to fleshiness therapies : issues in quantifying careful department of energy expending phenotypes in humans. Curr Obes Rep. 2015; 4( 2): 230– 40. ) : 15.

Celi

FS

,

Le

TN

,

Ni

B

. Physiology and relevance of homo adaptive thermogenesis answer. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2015; 26( 5): 238– 47. ) : 16.

Rosenbaum

M

,

Leibel

RL

. adaptive thermogenesis in humans. Int J Obes. 2010; 34( Suppl 1): S47– 55. ) : 17.

Major

GC

,

Doucet

E

,

Trayhurn

P

,

Astrup

A

,

Tremblay

A

. clinical meaning of adaptive thermogenesis. Int J Obes. 2007; 31( 2): 204– 12. ) : 18.

Flatt

JP

. exaggerated claim about adaptive thermogenesis. Int J Obes. 2007; 31( 10): 1626; . ) : ; . 19.

Kuchnia

A

,

Huizenga

R

,

Frankenfield

D

,

Matthie

JR

,

Earthman

CP

. Overstated metabolic adaptation after “ The Biggest Loser ” interposition. fleshiness. 2016; 24( 10): 2025. ) : 20.

Larson

DE

,

Ferraro

RT

,

Robertson

DS

,

Ravussin

E

. Energy metamorphosis in weight-stable postobese individuals. Am J Clin Nutr. 1995; 62( 4): 735– 9. ) : 21.

Martins

C

,

Gower

BA

,

Hill

JO

,

Hunter

GR

. metabolic adaptation is not a major barrier to weight loss maintenance. Am J Clin Nutr. . . . 22.

Henry

CJ

,

Lightowler

HJ

,

Marchini

J

. Intra-individual variation in resting metabolic rate during the menstrual cycle. Br J Nutr. 2003; 89( 6): 811– 17. ) : 23.

Brennan

IM

,

Feltrin

KL

,

Nair

NS

,

Hausken

T

,

Little

TJ

,

Gentilcore

D

,

Wishart

JM

,

Jones

KL

,

Horowitz

M

,

Feinle-Bisset

C

. Effects of the phases of the menstrual motorbike on gastric vacate, glycemia, plasma GLP-1 and insulin, and energy intake in goodly lean women. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2009; 297( 3): G602– 10. ) : 24.

Curtis

V

,

Henry

CJ

,

Ghusain-Choueiri

A

. Basal metabolic pace of women on the contraceptive pill. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996; 50( 5): 319– 22. ) : 25.

Nordic Council of Ministers

. nordic nutrition recommendations. 5th ed. copenhagen: Narayana Press; 2012.. 5th erectile dysfunction . 26.

Shiose

K

,

Y

,

Motonaga

K

,

Sagayama

H

,

Higaki

Y

,

Tanaka

H

,

Takahashi

H

. metameric extracellular and intracellular urine distribution and brawn glycogen after 72-h carbohydrate loading using spectroscopic techniques. J Appl Physiol. 2016; 121( 1): 205– 11. ) : 27.

Compher

C

,

Frankenfield

D

,

Keim

N

,

Roth-Yousey

L

. Best practice methods to apply to measurement of resting metabolic rate in adults : a taxonomic recapitulation. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006; 106( 6): 881– 903. ) : 28.

Scheers

T

,

Philippaerts

R

,

Lefevre

J

. Patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior in normal-weight, fleshy and corpulent adults, as measured with a portable armband device and an electronic diary. Clin Nutr. 2012; 31( 5): 756– 64. ) : 29.

Olsson

KE

,

Saltin

B

. variation in entire body urine with muscleman glycogen changes in man. Acta Physiol Scand. 1970; 80( 1): 11– 18. ) : 30.

Kreitzman

SN

,

Coxon

AY

,

Szaz

KF

. Glycogen memory : illusions of easily weight loss, excessive system of weights find, and distortions in estimates of body composition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992; 56: 292S– 3S. 31.

Weinsier

RL

,

Hunter

GR

,

Zuckerman

PA

,

Redden

DT

,

Darnell

BE

,

Larson

DE

,

Newcomer

BR

,

Goran

MI

. Energy consumption and free-living physical activeness in black and white women : comparison before and after slant loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000; 71( 5): 1138– 46. ) : 32.

Weinsier

RL

,

Hunter

GR

,

Desmond

RA

,

Byrne

NM

,

Zuckerman

PA

,

Darnell

BE

. free-living natural process energy expending in women successful and unsuccessful at maintaining a convention body weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002; 75( 3): 499– 504. ) : 33.

Newcomer

BR

,

Larson-Meyer

DE

,

Hunter

GR

,

Weinsier

RL

. skeletal brawn metamorphosis in fleshy and post-overweight women : an isometric line exercise analyze using ( 31 ) P magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Int J Obes. 2001; 25( 9): 1309– 15. ) : 34.

Weinsier

RL

,

Hunter

GR

,

Schutz

Y

,

Zuckerman

PA

,

Darnell

BE

. physical natural process in free-living, fleshy white and black women : divergent responses by rush to diet-induced weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002; 76( 4): 736– 42. ) : 35.

Borges

JH

,

Carter

SJ

,

Singh

H

,

Hunter

GR

. inverse relationship between changes of maximal aerobic capacity and changes in walking economy after weight unit loss. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2018; 118( 8): 1573– 8. ) : 36.

Carter

SJ

,

Rogers

LQ

,

Bowles

HR

,

Norian

LA

,

Hunter

GR

. Inverse affiliation between changes in energetic cost of walking and vertical accelerations in non-metastatic breast cancer survivors. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2019; 119( 11–12): 2547– 64. ) : 37.

Hunter

GR

,

McCarthy

JP

,

Bryan

DR

,

Zuckerman

PA

,

Bamman

MM

,

Byrne

NM

. Increased potency and decrease tractability are related to reduced oxygen cost of walking. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008; 104( 5): 895– 901. ) : 38.

Fisher

G

,

McCarthy

JP

,

Zuckerman

PA

,

Bryan

DR

,

Bickel

CS

,

Hunter

GR

. frequency of combine resistance and aerobic coach in older women. J Strength Cond Res. 2013; 27( 7): 1868– 76. ) : 39.

Hunter

GR

,

Byrne

NM

. physical activity and brawn function but not resting department of energy outgo impact on weight acquire. J Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19( 1): 225– 30. ) : 40.

Larew

K

,

Hunter

GR

,

Larson-Meyer

DE

,

Newcomer

BR

,

McCarthy

JP

,

Weinsier

RL

. Muscle metabolic serve, exercise performance, and weight addition. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35( 2): 230– 6. ) : 41.

Carter

SJ

,

Hunter

GR

,

Norian

LA

,

Turan

B

,

Rogers

LQ

. Ease of walking associates with greater free-living physical activity and reduce depressive symptomology in summit cancer survivors : pilot burner randomized trial. Support Care Cancer. 2018; 26( 5): 1675– 83. ) : 42.

Brock

DW

,

Chandler-Laney

PC

,

Alvarez

JA

,

Gower

BA

,

Gaesser

GA

,

Hunter

GR

. perception of exercise difficulty predicts weight recover in once fleshy women. Obesity ( Silver Spring ). 2010; 18( 5): 982– 6. ) : 43.

Hunter

GR

,

Weinsier

RL

,

Zuckerman

PA

,

Darnell

BE

. Aerobic seaworthiness, physiologic difficulty and forcible bodily process in black and white women. Int J Obes. 2004; 28( 9): 1111– 17. ) :

Copyright © The Author ( s ) on behalf of the american Society for Nutrition 2020. This is an open Access article distributed under the terms of the creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( hypertext transfer protocol : //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original cultivate is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions @ oup.com

source : https://thefartiste.com
Category : Tech