Myths about metabolism and why people don’t lose weight by 1000 calories?
Once I received the following personal feedback on one of the articles:
Given.
Three participants in the story: a 42-year-old woman, a 22-year-old guy – her son, a friend – age unknown, but probably friends of the same age.
The son and author of the message usually eats 2000 kk, and by giving up 500 kk he easily reduces it, and at the same time he is a homebody. His friend trains in the gym, but still barely spends 2000 kk (like the main character, who does nothing). A woman – a mother – eats 1000 kcal a day, works a lot and does not lose weight at all.
It turns out that our couch potato, without doing any physical activity, loses weight better than his training friend and his mother, who is generally a mystery because they eat so little. The author of the passage claims that the reasons for such different results are precisely in the slow metabolism.
After reading the message, questions arise, so in the article you will find out:
Why does the main character, with a sedentary lifestyle, live on 2000 kk, like his friend who trains?
Why does the hero’s mother eat so little, stand on her feet all day and not lose weight? Is it a slow metabolism?
Why is it difficult for some people to lose weight, while others are always thin without difficulty?
What is metabolism?
Let's quickly go over the basics first. They will be needed further.
Metabolism occurs in every cell of the body. Essentially, this is the sum of energy costs for anabolism and catabolism of substances in all cells of the body.
Metabolism carries out a specific request, which can vary depending on conditions. Therefore, if we lie down, the metabolism will be lie close to peace. If we walk, our metabolism will be increased as muscle cells absorb energy and work to move the body through space. If we go and eat, then the metabolism will be even higher, because the stomach will connect to the working muscles, starting to digest food.
Due to such different states of metabolism, it would be correct to consider it not as something homogeneous, but to divide it into several categories:
Resting metabolism – this is the energy necessary to provide energy to all important organs and systems at rest without any activity or food consumption.
Thermic effect of food – energy consumption for digestion, assimilation of food and its passage through the gastrointestinal tract to exit.
Metabolism activity – this is the energy necessary to move in space and maintain a straight position while standing, sitting or walking and everything related to the movement of any parts of the body.
— Metabolism activity can also be divided into training activity metabolismbecause the nature of the work differs from ordinary everyday activities and requires more conscious effort, while household activity metabolism happens without thinking.
Please note that up to 70% of all energy expended is spent on resting metabolism. Even if you lie down all day, you will still use a lot of energy.
About 15% of energy comes from non-training activities.
Training activity takes on average 5-10% from daily activity. People train on average for an hour and move for 14-16 hours. Even taking into account intensity, training still loses in energy consumption.
Of course, percentages are very approximate and will vary from person to person. If we consider two extremes – an office employee and a professional athlete – then the latter can spend up to 50% of metabolic energy on training activity, while the former will be close to the distribution from the picture.
A non-professional athlete will not be able to expend much energy through training, simply because he is unable to perform an amount of work that would be at least equal to non-training activity, due to fatigue and lack of strength.
Another 10% of energy is spent on digesting food. (But even here there will be a difference depending on the % of subcutaneous fat, but all this difference is around 10%).
This is where the biggest confusion occurs.
When they talk about “slow metabolism,” which is considered to be the cause of weight gain, they usually mean resting metabolism or something homogeneous (at the same time incomprehensible and initially erroneous), taking into account all metabolic states.
But the general metabolism, due to its variability, is incorrect to consider in the context of differences between people.
To do this, it must be divided into sections, which are described above, and this must be compared and looked at the differences between people/groups.
And if we do this, then the conclusions will not be pleasant for those who complain about the damned slow metabolism in attempts to lose weight.
The Myth of Accelerated (Slow) Resting Metabolism
Yes, resting metabolism can vary from person to person, but on average, it is very close to the same for everyone. So close that the existing difference cannot explain one person's difficulty losing weight and another person's ease of maintaining weight.
Metabolism in all relatively healthy (this is important) people works the same way. works according to the same principles and laws. It is almost impossible to speed it up while remaining healthy. Well, if you really want to disperse it, then fever, thyrotoxicosis or some types of cancer can help with this.
The metabolism of an obese person can also change, but these are no longer completely healthy conditions and it is important – Metabolic disorders in obesity usually appear as a result of obesity itself and are rarely its cause.
To get to the point, I suggest starting with of this research review.
From it we learn that the differences in resting metabolism between people are only 5-8%.
It turns out that 1 standard deviation of the population (68%) is 5-10% of the average metabolic rate, and 2 standard deviations (96%) are within 10-16% of the average metabolic rate.
Most people do not differ in resting metabolic rate by more than 300 kk.
However, the review looked at all people, regardless of gender, height or age. Therefore, the difference in resting metabolism of 600 kk between the 5th and 95th percentiles rather shows the difference between a miniature woman and a 2-meter man. Unequal comparison. Obviously, a larger body will expend more energy.
If you divide 20-60 year olds people at least by gender (but not age, height and weight)then the difference of 600 kk is immediately reduced to ±139 kk in the case of only women and ±173 in the case of only men.
±173 kk is not a value that would open your eyes to why someone eats and does not gain weight by stretching on a chair, while someone cannot lose weight by 1000 kk per day.
Organ mass also affects resting metabolism. And organs, as a rule, are larger in those who is taller or weighs more.
In general, if you become more selective, not lumping all people together, but separating them by gender, height, build, age, then with each stage of “sameness” the difference in resting metabolism will be reduced to almost none. The probability that any random person will have a resting metabolism 600 kk more powerful than yours is 0.50%. And most likely this person will simply be physically larger than you.
Metabolism in humans is not accelerated or slowed down, but varies depending on the amount of active cell mass (it creates metabolism), which is greater in those who are larger in build (taller, more skin area, more organs, more muscles) and less for those who are smaller.
But if we take 1 kg of cells from one 2-meter man and from another 1.6-meter man, then the metabolism of these pieces will be the same. But in general, a 2-meter man will have a higher metabolism, because he has more of these kilogram pieces of active cell mass.
There is only one way to safely increase metabolism – by increasing the amount of active cell mass. The only available way is to increase muscle mass. And then 1 kg of muscle spends about 15 kcal per day, while at rest. Not so much.
We'll be back to research where we started. There is another interesting point. I quote:
“The total daily energy expenditure of people varies several times not due to changes in resting metabolic ratediet-induced thermogenesis or exercise-induced thermogenesis, but rather due to variations in non-exercise activity.”
In other words, the main differences between people are not in their resting metabolism, but in how they move their body.
Metabolism activity
Active cell mass works in the same way for everyone according to the same biological laws and is regulated by the same genes. Therefore, mass at rest cannot serve as an unambiguous and significant difference factor. The defining difference may be how this active mass is used.
The main differences between people occur in activity, and to a greater extent in everyday life. For some, the sewing was in one place, while for others, this place was glued to the chair.
Initially, we underestimate energy consumption in everyday life, considering it “nothing”. Therefore, it seems to us that sitting at the table “we are not doing anything.” We do not consider or evaluate getting up from a chair and wandering around the room during a conference call as some kind of activity. You can also jerk your leg endlessly. All this is a vacuum, not worth our attention and analysis. But in fact, non-training activity is the most energy-consuming item.
In one study people were locked in metabolic chambers for several days with nothing much to do. You can sit, lie down, go to the toilet. See for yourself what they look like:
Based on the results of measurements, the difference between people, adjusted for body size, was 100-800(!) kk per day. Let me remind you, people didn’t do anything. Their resting metabolism did not differ. And the researchers called the main reason for the differences “fidgeting,” which can be translated as “fussiness.”
We always underestimate our everyday activity and overestimate our training activity.
We tend to overestimate training, because it is a conscious decision and volitional effort, and also there we sweat and it’s hard for us. Concentrating intensity in a narrow period of time gives a distorted idea of energy expenditure. In reality, we don't expend much energy during training.
And when we try to estimate the amount of household activity, our assessment is limited by our memory. Do you remember your every move? No. Then how can you be sure that you moved a lot/little today unless there was some obvious extreme?
Our ability to realize our default activity is at a minimum. We overestimate conscious activity because it is volitional. Volitional effort gives a more significant color. And what goes beyond our control is something insignificant, because it simply exists and does not require effort. But it is precisely this uncontrollable thing that makes up the majority of our daily activity.
Therefore, our addressee initially bases his statement on an error. Just because his friend works out doesn't mean he automatically burns more calories. Because he doesn’t spend much during the training itself, and subsequently may be less active at home. And the hero of the letter himself spends a lot of energy during the day due to untrained activity. Therefore, their consumption can be equal, despite the fact that one trains and the other does not.
My friends and I sorted it out. Why isn't the hero's mother losing weight?
The myth about losing weight by 1000 kk
Eating 1000 kcal per day and standing on your feet all day does not lead to any weight loss.
A strong statement. I will certainly check it out!
According to some individual studiesthe energy consumption of only the 5 largest internal organs reaches 1385 kk per day. And there is also skin, muscles, blood…
Of course, metabolism slows down when losing weight, but in the case of no weight loss with 1000 kcal consumed, metabolism must slow down until the liver or brain and lungs combined completely shut down. At the same time, the woman also has physically active work. Doesn't add up.
Even if we assume that she has a thrifty phenotype, she is sensitive to calorie deficit, and we take into account the significant metabolic adaptation, 1000 kk is still enough for weight loss. In my opinion, complete adaptation to 1000 kk seems unrealistic. Metabolic adaptation has reasonable limits and the full functioning of the body + physical activity does not fit into the framework of 1000 kk. This requires more energy, so 1000 kk should be scarce.
Although, extreme diet studies have foundthat consumption of 420, 600 and 800 kcal per day (this is not the size of the deficit and the total number of calories per day) for six months did not lead to noticeable differences in weight loss among the participants.
Another review of studies also writes that “400 and 800 kcal per day do not differ in terms of weight loss.”
Why is this so? Such a big difference in consumption, but the results are the same? Does your metabolism completely break down on these calories?
This is where honesty breaks down.
The fact that people lie about how much they eat is scientific fact.
Most people underestimate the number of calories they ate for various reasons. The degree of understatement may vary depending on weight, income, education, gender And psychological characteristics.
The degree of underestimation can be very serious. For example, in identical twin studyin a pair of which one of the twins was obese and the other with normal body weight, the obese twins were underestimated by an average of 800 kk, and the normal twin by up to 400 kk.
IN another study the underestimation reached 2000 kk, while women were informed that their reports would be verified.
What if we paid people to provide accurate and honest reports of their consumption in an environment where they were not judged or judged by the amount they ate and their food choices (like our toxic friends)? You don't have to try. In these studies, people still lied and underreported.
What if we take people with higher nutritional skills? Let's say the nutritionists themselves. And even here there will be a jamb. IN research, where 10 women nutritionists were compared with 10 women from other professions, but all were about the same weight, nutritionists underestimated, although less, but still underestimated (223 ± 116 kcal/day versus 429 ± 142 kcal/day). That is, even the skill is not 100% protection.
Here is the answer to the question. Considering that 1000 kk is not enough to even maintain life, even if you just lie down, an active 42-year-old woman cannot help but lose weight by eating 1000 kk. Most likely she has some kind of adaptation, but most likely she simply does not accurately record the calories she consumes for various reasons.
The most common: incorrect portion sizes or incorrect product descriptions; undercounting because the task itself can be quite tedious and people may simply not be diligent enough in weighing and counting all food items; in the end, the KBZHU data on the packages may not be accurate and reach 8-18% deviation.
Or a woman may be losing weight, but the pace of change does not meet her expectations. From coaching experience, I know very well that women often refer to lack of weight loss as insufficient weight changes. “I wish it would be faster, I do so much!” or “In a month, only 1 kg is gone, that’s nothing at all = I’m not losing weight.”
Some people still don’t understand what weight changes depend on and assess any swelling from chronic lack of sleep as a stop in weight loss or even weight gain due to a lack of energy. Misunderstanding of some physiological processes, of course, greatly complicates weight control in the psychological part.
In summary, following the data, and not individual observations of one person, we come to the conclusion that there are people who move little, eat a lot and lie about how much they eat or build unrealistic expectations about their abilities to lose weight and change externally, against the background for whom it seems that changes are not happening (although they are happening, just not quickly). And there are those who don’t really worry about their activity or calories consumed, but do not experience problems with weight, because they themselves are quite fussy and generally eat less.
I’m sure there will be comments like this on this article: “all because of testosterone, thyroid gland, food is not digested” etc. All this will be discussed in the next post, so the current post without the second part is not final. I'm working on a sequel. In the meantime…
I run a fitness center telegram channelwhich is often called “the most adequate”. I recommend subscribing. There is even more wisdom and usefulness about strength training, weight control and healthy lifestyle.
