energy expenditure adjusted for body weight

[Guest guest]

Al,

Look at the food consumption during adulthood:

> 22-23----59.4 488 0.12---39.0 301 0.13

What has always seemed interesting to me is that CR mice always eat

more food per body weight. The 0.01 difference between 0.12 and 0.13

may seem trivial, but it is 8% more food for the CR mice per body

weight. Last year, I pointed this out in Message 15517 and Message

14018 (Aug 5, 2004).

I suggested that there must be some Metabolic Capacity that decreases

more slowly than the body weight of the restricted mice in order to

keep a relative caloric deficit, even though more food is being

consumed. This is why I suggested that we need an experiment to see

how much the CR mice can eat ad libitum.

Tony

--- In , Al Pater <old542000@y...>

wrote:

> Hi All,

>

> See the below, which should be free full-text-available.

>

> It seems to show the effects of CR on energy expenditure adjusted

for the body

> weights, which should be what is important.

>

> Masoro EJ, Yu BP, Bertrand HA.

> Action of food restriction in delaying the aging process.

> Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1982 Jul;79(13):4239-41.

> PMID: 6955798

>

>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=

Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=6955798 & query_hl=29

>

>

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?ar

tid=346614 & blobtype=pdf

>

> Table 1. Food intake from age 6 weeks to the end of the mean length

of life of

> groups A and R rats*

> --------------------------------------

> ---------------Ad lib group A---CR group R

> --------------------------------------

> Age range, mo----Mean food intake* kcal/day Mean body wt**, g Food

intake/g body wt,

> kcal/g/day---Mean food intake* kcal/day Mean body wt**, g Food

intake/g body wt,

> kcal/g/day

> -----------------------------------------

> 1.5-2----41.4 142 0.29---26.2 109 0.24

> 22-23----59.4 488 0.12---39.0 301 0.13

> 32-33----Dead Dead Dead---39.0 292 0.13

> -----------------------------

> *The number of group A rats was 115 at 1.5 mo, 114 at 6 mo, 114 at

12 mo, 102 at 18

> mo, and 64 at the end of the mean length of life (701 days); the

number of group R

> rats was 115 at 1.5 mo, 115 at 6 mo, 110 at 12 mo, 105 at 18 mo, 98

at 24 dio, 81 at

> 30 mo, and 69 at the end of the mean length of life (986 days).

> * Mean food intake for group A rats was determined as follows: Food

intake was

> measured for 3 or 4 days in rotating groups of 40 rats. This

measurement was made

> continuously throughout the month. The mean monthly food intake per

rat was

> calculated from the data collected in this way during that month.

> ** Mean body weight (wt) was assumed to change in a linear fashion

between 1.5 and 2

> mo, 2 and 3 mo, 3 and 4 mo, 4 and 6 mo, 6 and 12 mo, 12 and 18 mo,

18 and 24 mo, 24

> and 30 mo, and 30 and 36 mo. Random checks of the raw data establish

this assumption

> to be sufficiently correct for our purposes.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

Do we know how much food was consumed PER UNIT OF LEAN BODY MASS?

If maintenance of fat mass uses comparatively negligible amounts of

food, then when fat mass drops sharply and lean mass falls more

slowly, food consumed per unit of total body weight might rise simply

because the food being used per unit of lean body mass was the same

as before (or even less perhaps) while total weight had dropped, and

much of that loss was in tissue that does not require much

maintenance.

Do you see my point? I do not have an opinion about this. Just

making a suggestion.

Consider an example where total weight starts out at 200 pounds and

50 pounds of that is fat. Then total weight drops to 160 pounds with

24 pounds now fat. Lean mass will have dropped from 150 pounds to

136 pounds and BF% from 25% to 15%.

Now the question is: how does the amount of food consumed per unit

of lean mass change? Does it rise? Stay the same? Or fall?

Rodney.

> > Hi All,

> >

> > See the below, which should be free full-text-available.

> >

> > It seems to show the effects of CR on energy expenditure adjusted

> for the body

> > weights, which should be what is important.

> >

> > Masoro EJ, Yu BP, Bertrand HA.

> > Action of food restriction in delaying the aging process.

> > Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1982 Jul;79(13):4239-41.

> > PMID: 6955798

> >

> >

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=

> Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=6955798 & query_hl=29

> >

> >

> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?ar

> tid=346614 & blobtype=pdf

> >

> > Table 1. Food intake from age 6 weeks to the end of the mean

length

> of life of

> > groups A and R rats*

> > --------------------------------------

> > ---------------Ad lib group A---CR group R

> > --------------------------------------

> > Age range, mo----Mean food intake* kcal/day Mean body wt**, g Food

> intake/g body wt,

> > kcal/g/day---Mean food intake* kcal/day Mean body wt**, g Food

> intake/g body wt,

> > kcal/g/day

> > -----------------------------------------

> > 1.5-2----41.4 142 0.29---26.2 109 0.24

> > 22-23----59.4 488 0.12---39.0 301 0.13

> > 32-33----Dead Dead Dead---39.0 292 0.13

> > -----------------------------

> > *The number of group A rats was 115 at 1.5 mo, 114 at 6 mo, 114 at

> 12 mo, 102 at 18

> > mo, and 64 at the end of the mean length of life (701 days); the

> number of group R

> > rats was 115 at 1.5 mo, 115 at 6 mo, 110 at 12 mo, 105 at 18 mo,

98

> at 24 dio, 81 at

> > 30 mo, and 69 at the end of the mean length of life (986 days).

> > * Mean food intake for group A rats was determined as follows:

Food

> intake was

> > measured for 3 or 4 days in rotating groups of 40 rats. This

> measurement was made

> > continuously throughout the month. The mean monthly food intake

per

> rat was

> > calculated from the data collected in this way during that month.

> > ** Mean body weight (wt) was assumed to change in a linear fashion

> between 1.5 and 2

> > mo, 2 and 3 mo, 3 and 4 mo, 4 and 6 mo, 6 and 12 mo, 12 and 18 mo,

> 18 and 24 mo, 24

> > and 30 mo, and 30 and 36 mo. Random checks of the raw data

establish

> this assumption

> > to be sufficiently correct for our purposes.

> >

[Guest guest]

Relationship between tissue energy expenditure and mass

Different body tissues have markedly different resting energy requirements.

Organs that have large metabolic demands, such as the liver, gut, brain, kidney,

and heart, have the highest energy requirements per gram of tissue. In a lean

adult, these organs account for approximately 75% of resting energy expenditure,

although they constitute only 10% of total body weight. In contrast, resting

skeletal muscle consumes only 20% of resting metabolic rate, although it

represents approximately 40% of total body weight. Adipose tissue consumes less

than 5% of resting metabolic rate but usually accounts for approximately 20% of

body weight.

Relationship between resting energy expenditure and fat-free mass

Resting energy expenditure (REE) correlates closely with fat-free mass in lean

and obese men and women. Although energy expenditure of metabolically active

organs is responsible for a large component of REE, fat free-mass, which is

composed primarily of skeletal muscle, accounts for most of the variability in

energy expenditure between individuals. This figure demonstrates that both

fat-free mass and REE generally are greater in obese than lean persons, but REE

follows the same regression line in lean and obese subjects across a wide range

of fat-free masses.

Owen O. Resting metabolic requirements of men and women. Mayo Clin Proc

1988;63:503-510.

Energy metabolism in lean and obese subjects

Most obese persons do not have an abnormal reduction in energy metabolism. Both

total energy expenditure and resting energy expenditure are usually greater in

obese than lean persons who are of the same height and gender because of greater

body cell mass (both fat and fat-free cell masses) in obese persons. Therefore,

obese persons must consume more calories than lean persons to maintain their

larger body size.

Ravussin E, Burnand B, Schutz Y, Jequier E. Twenty-four-hour energy expenditure

and resting metabolic rate in obese, moderately obese, and control subjects. Am

J Clin Nutr 1982;35:566-573.

Energy metabolism before and after weight loss

An important clinical question is whether weight loss in obese persons causes

an abnormal decline in energy expenditure, which could become an obstacle to

long-term successful weight management. The answer to this question is not

entirely clear because of conflicting data from different studies. However, the

results from most studies support the notion that resting energy expenditure

(REE) and total daily energy expenditure (TEE) in reduced-obese subjects are

normal for their new body size and composition. This figure represents data from

a study that evaluated REE, by use of indirect calorimetry, and free-living TEE,

by use of the doubly-labeled water technique, in a group of obese women who lost

approximately 25% of their initial body weight (BMI decreased from 31 to 23

kg/m2) and in a never-obese control group [1]. The reduced-obese subjects were

studied after they were weight stable for at least 2 months. Although weight

loss caused a 10% decline in REE and TEE, the decline in metabolic rate was

appropriate for their new body size. Both REE and TEE values in reduced-obese

women were the same as those predicted based on the values obtained in the

never-obese control group.

Amatruda JM, Statt MC, Welle SL. Total and resting energy expenditure in obese

women reduced to ideal body weight. J Clin Invest 1993;92:1236-1242.

And, I received this on another list recently where a similar topic was being

discussed...

RESTING skeletal muscle burns far fewer calories than you often hear in the

popular press--just 13kcal/Kg/day (5.9/pound). Fat burns 4.5kcals/Kg/day

(2kcals/pound). These data are from Elia, a UK researcher who has spent his life

studying this. Part of the confusion is that when we look at muscle--as a body

compartment (including the highly metabolically activie organ tissue)--it burns

~45 kcals/Kg. When you look at RMR however, organ tissue is responsible for 60-

to 70% of RMR while comprising only 5- to 6% of body weight. Conversly, skletal

muscle contributes only 16- to 22% of RMR while comprising a much larger portion

of body weight 30- to 40%.

I have talked to top researchers around the country (Heymsfield at St.

Lukes, Ross at Baylor, Jakicic at Univ. Pittsburgh, etc.) regarding this

topic and they ALL agree that Elia's numbers are the most accurate we have.

Several studies have been published the past few years using MRIs or DEXA to

calculate the proportion of various body tissues, then they plugged in Elia's

numbers and compared to measured RMR. Measured RMR and predicted RMR (based on

Elias numbers) were in close alignment.

The Bottom Line: it's a faliacy that adding skeletal muscle has a

clinically significant affect on RMR. Unfortunately, the only way to increase EE

in a clinically significant way is to " get off the couch " and move it!

[Guest guest]

One more, and the one I think may matter the most when dealing with " free

living " individuals and trying to calculate all of this..

Discrepancy between reported and actual energy intake and expenditure

A subset of obese patients believe that they are unable to lose weight despite

careful adherence to a low-calorie diet (<1200 kcal/d). These patients often

assume that a metabolic defect in energy metabolism is responsible for their

difficulty in losing weight. This figure shows the results of a study involving

10 patients (1 man, 9 women) who had repeatedly failed to lose weight despite

multiple attempts with low-calorie diet therapy [1]. All patients were placed on

a low-calorie diet for 14 days. Measures of total daily energy expenditure, by

using the doubly-labeled water technique, and self-reported dietary intake were

obtained throughout the study. Body composition, measured by hydrodensitometry,

was determined at the beginning and end of the study. Actual food intake was

calculated from measures of total energy expenditure and changes in body

composition. The data demonstrated that these subjects reported good compliance

with their diet and activity program, but under-reported their actual energy

intake by 47% and over-reported their actual physical activity by 51%.

Lichtman SW, Pisarska K, Berman ER, et al. Discrepancy between self-reported and

actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. N Engl J Med

1992;327:1893-1898.

[Guest guest]

I went looking for a control where the food intake was actually measured or

controlled, to corrorborate the calculations. However, I did not find that

yet. I did find that individual variation has been documented to be as high

as 21%, that accuracy typically ranges up to 8.5%, and that if obese people

are in the process of losing weight, it can cause greater

unpredictabilities, and that if people are changing their food and water

sources, it can also effect the data. Thus, I see some possibly significant

flaws with the conclusions. It is not that I don't think that (all) people

misestimate things. But it seems that to demonstrate that the estimates of

scientists are not also significantly flawed, then food intake must be

correlated with the calculations, and I cannot find that yet. The

calculations appear to me to still be an unsubstantiated estimate -

reasonably sound for generalities, but not definitive where there is

apparent paradox. Right now, the conclusions are tending toward stating

that the people misstate their consumption, and overstate their exercise,

but if weight loss, exercise, etc, can complicate these measures, then there

may be reason to demand actual accounting for food intake, before

conclusions are accepted.

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/266/3/E510

" The experimental reliability of +/- 8.5% exceeds theoretical values

generated from calculations based on propagation of error from analytical

uncertainty. Between subjects, the experimental variation ranged from 1 to

21%, "

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0841/is_6_38/ai_112311942/pg_1

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309057973/html/287.html use of doubly labeled

water in measuring military troop expenditure

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID01E/uid01e02.htm discussion of various

ways of measuring energy expenditure, and the assumptions involved

Best,

Kayce

From: " Diane Walter " <dianepwalter@...>

Reply-

Subject: [ ] Energy expenditure adjusted for body weight

Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:51:23 -0000

Below is the study Rodney referred to about underreporting of calories:

>

> One more, and the one I think may matter the most when dealing with

" free living " individuals and trying to calculate all of this..

>

>

>

> Discrepancy between reported and actual energy intake and expenditure

>

> A subset of obese patients believe that they are unable to lose

weight despite careful adherence to a low-calorie diet (<1200 kcal/d).

These patients often assume that a metabolic defect in energy

metabolism is responsible for their difficulty in losing weight. This

figure shows the results of a study involving 10 patients (1 man, 9

women) who had repeatedly failed to lose weight despite multiple

attempts with low-calorie diet therapy [1]. All patients were placed

on a low-calorie diet for 14 days. Measures of total daily energy

expenditure, by using the doubly-labeled water technique, and

self-reported dietary intake were obtained throughout the study. Body

composition, measured by hydrodensitometry, was determined at the

beginning and end of the study. Actual food intake was calculated from

measures of total energy expenditure and changes in body composition.

The data demonstrated that these subjects reported good compliance

with their diet and activity program, but under-reported their actual

energy intake by 47% and over-reported their actual physical activity

by 51%.

>

> Lichtman SW, Pisarska K, Berman ER, et al. Discrepancy between

self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese

subjects. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1893-1898.

>

[Guest guest]

--- kayce cover <k_cover@...> wrote:

> toast has

> more calories than the same piece of bread, untoasted

Hi All,

Not true is it according to the data from http://www.nutritiondata.com/ for 1

slice of

commercially prepared whole wheat bread.

-- Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

--- In , " kayce cover " <k_cover@...>

wrote:

>

> (toast has

more calories than the same piece of bread, untoasted, even if it has

less

weight)

Hi Kayce

OK: like why? Never heard of this before...a piece of bread is bread.

??

Diane

[Guest guest]

Hi Al and Diane,

Maybe this is another thing that does not hold true universally, but it is

what I was taught in nutrition classes, and here is one example.

rye bread, 28.3 grams

http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/18060.html

untoasted = 73

http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/18061.html

toasted = 80

Funny how there are almost no absolute facts.

Best,

Kayce

From: Al Pater <old542000@...>

Reply-

Subject: Re: [ ] Energy expenditure adjusted for body weight

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT)

--- kayce cover <k_cover@...> wrote:

> toast has

> more calories than the same piece of bread, untoasted

Hi All,

Not true is it according to the data from http://www.nutritiondata.com/ for

1 slice of

commercially prepared whole wheat bread.

-- Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

If it's based on a kcal/g determination rather than a per slice

determination, the water loss from toasting might increase the energy

density per gram by the referenced amount.

Maco

At 02:01 PM 8/7/2006, you wrote:

>Hi Al and Diane,

>

>Maybe this is another thing that does not hold true universally, but it is

>what I was taught in nutrition classes, and here is one example.

>

>rye bread, 28.3 grams

>

>http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/18060.html

>untoasted = 73

>

>http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/18061.html

>toasted = 80

>

>Funny how there are almost no absolute facts.

>

>Best,

>Kayce

>

>

>From: Al Pater <old542000@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: Re: [ ] Energy expenditure adjusted for body weight

>Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT)

>

>--- kayce cover <k_cover@...> wrote:

>

> > toast has

> > more calories than the same piece of bread, untoasted

>

>Hi All,

>

>Not true is it according to the data from http://www.nutritiondata.com/ for

>1 slice of

>commercially prepared whole wheat bread.

>

>-- Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

>

>__________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Hi All and kayce,

The difficult may be the description is different for rye for the types of

regular and toasted

bread slices. Whole wheat was 69 calories for untoasted and toasted bread

slices and the breads

were the same for the slices compared.

Cheers, Al.

--- kayce cover <k_cover@...> wrote:

> Hi Al and Diane,

>

> Maybe this is another thing that does not hold true universally, but it is

> what I was taught in nutrition classes, and here is one example.

>

> rye bread, 28.3 grams

>

> http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/18060.html

> untoasted = 73

>

> http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/18061.html

> toasted = 80

>

> Funny how there are almost no absolute facts.

>

> Best,

> Kayce

>

>

> From: Al Pater <old542000@...>

> Reply-

>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Energy expenditure adjusted for body weight

> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT)

>

> --- kayce cover <k_cover@...> wrote:

>

> > toast has

> > more calories than the same piece of bread, untoasted

>

> Hi All,

>

> Not true is it according to the data from http://www.nutritiondata.com/ for

> 1 slice of

> commercially prepared whole wheat bread.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi Al,

It may relate to whether the bread it weighed pre or post toasting.

Best,

Kayce

From: Al Pater <old542000@...>

Reply-

Subject: Re: [ ] Energy expenditure adjusted for body weight

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:07:30 -0700 (PDT)

Hi All and kayce,

The difficult may be the description is different for rye for the types of

regular and toasted

bread slices. Whole wheat was 69 calories for untoasted and toasted bread

slices and the breads

were the same for the slices compared.

Cheers, Al.

--- kayce cover <k_cover@...> wrote:

> Hi Al and Diane,

>

> Maybe this is another thing that does not hold true universally, but it

is

> what I was taught in nutrition classes, and here is one example.

>

> rye bread, 28.3 grams

>

> http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/18060.html

> untoasted = 73

>

> http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/18061.html

> toasted = 80

>

> Funny how there are almost no absolute facts.

>

> Best,

> Kayce

>

>

> From: Al Pater <old542000@...>

> Reply-

>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Energy expenditure adjusted for body weight

> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT)

>

> --- kayce cover <k_cover@...> wrote:

>

> > toast has

> > more calories than the same piece of bread, untoasted

>

> Hi All,

>

> Not true is it according to the data from http://www.nutritiondata.com/

for

> 1 slice of

> commercially prepared whole wheat bread.

__________________________________________________