Re: Sensitivity of Weight to Caloric Intake

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Sorry. Ahem. Minor correction to the title of the table below:

It should read: " Analysis for Light Activity level " .

The activity factor for that table is 1.375, for light, not moderate,

activity. Nothing else changes.

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

>

> Hi folks:

>

> OK. As promised (threatened?) here are the calculations behind

> the 'fifteen-pounds-weight-change-per-hundred-incremental-calories'

> number I mentioned in a previous post. ...................

>

> Analysis for Moderate Activity Level

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

>

> Caloric Intake........Equilib

> --------------.........weight

> Total......REE....... --------

> -----.....----.......

> ...(calories).........(pounds)

> 1500......1091............62

> 1750......1273...........103

> 2000......1455...........143

> 2250......1636...........183

> 2500......1818...........223

> 2750......2000...........263

> 3000......2182...........303

> 3250......2364...........343

> 3500......2545...........383

> 3750......2727...........423

> 4000......2909...........463

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Sorry. Ahem. Minor correction to the title of the table below:

It should read: " Analysis for Light Activity level " .

The activity factor for that table is 1.375, for light, not moderate,

activity. Nothing else changes.

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

>

> Hi folks:

>

> OK. As promised (threatened?) here are the calculations behind

> the 'fifteen-pounds-weight-change-per-hundred-incremental-calories'

> number I mentioned in a previous post. ...................

>

> Analysis for Moderate Activity Level

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

>

> Caloric Intake........Equilib

> --------------.........weight

> Total......REE....... --------

> -----.....----.......

> ...(calories).........(pounds)

> 1500......1091............62

> 1750......1273...........103

> 2000......1455...........143

> 2250......1636...........183

> 2500......1818...........223

> 2750......2000...........263

> 3000......2182...........303

> 3250......2364...........343

> 3500......2545...........383

> 3750......2727...........423

> 4000......2909...........463

[Guest guest]

Sorry Rodney, it still seems like 22 pounds per 100 calories to me

looking at the REE.

If we take two of the the REEs in your list and the corresponding weights:

....1455...........143

....2909...........463

=====================

1454 . . . . . . 320 <== difference between

lb per 100cal = (320/1454)*100 = 22 lb per 100 cal

Tony

> >

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > OK. As promised (threatened?) here are the calculations behind

> > the 'fifteen-pounds-weight-change-per-hundred-incremental-calories'

> > number I mentioned in a previous post. ...................

> >

> > Analysis for Moderate Activity Level

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

> >

> > Caloric Intake........Equilib

> > --------------.........weight

> > Total......REE....... --------

> > -----.....----.......

> > ...(calories).........(pounds)

> > 1500......1091............62

> > 1750......1273...........103

> > 2000......1455...........143

> > 2250......1636...........183

> > 2500......1818...........223

> > 2750......2000...........263

> > 3000......2182...........303

> > 3250......2364...........343

> > 3500......2545...........383

> > 3750......2727...........423

> > 4000......2909...........463

>

[Guest guest]

Sorry Rodney, it still seems like 22 pounds per 100 calories to me

looking at the REE.

If we take two of the the REEs in your list and the corresponding weights:

....1455...........143

....2909...........463

=====================

1454 . . . . . . 320 <== difference between

lb per 100cal = (320/1454)*100 = 22 lb per 100 cal

Tony

> >

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > OK. As promised (threatened?) here are the calculations behind

> > the 'fifteen-pounds-weight-change-per-hundred-incremental-calories'

> > number I mentioned in a previous post. ...................

> >

> > Analysis for Moderate Activity Level

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

> >

> > Caloric Intake........Equilib

> > --------------.........weight

> > Total......REE....... --------

> > -----.....----.......

> > ...(calories).........(pounds)

> > 1500......1091............62

> > 1750......1273...........103

> > 2000......1455...........143

> > 2250......1636...........183

> > 2500......1818...........223

> > 2750......2000...........263

> > 3000......2182...........303

> > 3250......2364...........343

> > 3500......2545...........383

> > 3750......2727...........423

> > 4000......2909...........463

>

[Guest guest]

>>[Of course I am relying on the assumption that the scientifically

determined Mifflin-St Jeor equation is accurate -

From an earlier message...

J Am Diet Assoc. 2003 Sep;103(9):1152-9.

Validation of several established equations for resting metabolic rate in obese

and nonobese people. enfield DC, Rowe WA, JS, Cooney RN.

Department of Clinical Nutrition, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA

17033, USA. Dfrankenfield@...

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate several equations for predicting resting metabolic rate

against measured values in obese and nonobese people. DESIGN: Resting metabolic

rate was measured with indirect calorimetry. Four calculation standards using

various combinations of weight, height, and age were used to predict resting

metabolic rate: a) -Benedict equation, -Benedict equation using

adjusted body weight in obese individuals, c) Owen, and d) Mifflin. Main outcome

was percentage of subjects whose calculated metabolic rate was outside a +/-10%

limit from measured values. Subjects/Setting 130 nonhospitalized adult

volunteers grouped by degree of obesity (range of body mass index, 18.8 to

96.8). Statistical Analysis Performed Analysis of proportions was used to

determine differences in the percentage of subjects estimated accurately by each

equation; alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: Calculated resting metabolic rate was

more than 10% different from measured in 22% of subjects using the Mifflin

equation, 33% using the -Benedict equation (P=.05 vs Mifflin), and 35%

using the Owen equation (P<.05 vs Mifflin). The error rate using -Benedict

with adjusted weight in obesity was 74% (vs 36% in obese subjects using actual

weight in the standard -Benedict equation). APPLICATIONS/CONCLUSION: Of

the calculation standards tested, the Mifflin standard provided an accurate

estimate of actual resting metabolic rate in the largest percentage of nonobese

and obese individuals and therefore deserves consideration as the standard for

calculating resting metabolic rate in obese and nonobese adults. Use of adjusted

body weight in the -Benedict equation led to less overestimation by that

equation in obese people at the expense of increased incidence of

underestimation.

[Guest guest]

>>[Of course I am relying on the assumption that the scientifically

determined Mifflin-St Jeor equation is accurate -

From an earlier message...

J Am Diet Assoc. 2003 Sep;103(9):1152-9.

Validation of several established equations for resting metabolic rate in obese

and nonobese people. enfield DC, Rowe WA, JS, Cooney RN.

Department of Clinical Nutrition, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA

17033, USA. Dfrankenfield@...

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate several equations for predicting resting metabolic rate

against measured values in obese and nonobese people. DESIGN: Resting metabolic

rate was measured with indirect calorimetry. Four calculation standards using

various combinations of weight, height, and age were used to predict resting

metabolic rate: a) -Benedict equation, -Benedict equation using

adjusted body weight in obese individuals, c) Owen, and d) Mifflin. Main outcome

was percentage of subjects whose calculated metabolic rate was outside a +/-10%

limit from measured values. Subjects/Setting 130 nonhospitalized adult

volunteers grouped by degree of obesity (range of body mass index, 18.8 to

96.8). Statistical Analysis Performed Analysis of proportions was used to

determine differences in the percentage of subjects estimated accurately by each

equation; alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: Calculated resting metabolic rate was

more than 10% different from measured in 22% of subjects using the Mifflin

equation, 33% using the -Benedict equation (P=.05 vs Mifflin), and 35%

using the Owen equation (P<.05 vs Mifflin). The error rate using -Benedict

with adjusted weight in obesity was 74% (vs 36% in obese subjects using actual

weight in the standard -Benedict equation). APPLICATIONS/CONCLUSION: Of

the calculation standards tested, the Mifflin standard provided an accurate

estimate of actual resting metabolic rate in the largest percentage of nonobese

and obese individuals and therefore deserves consideration as the standard for

calculating resting metabolic rate in obese and nonobese adults. Use of adjusted

body weight in the -Benedict equation led to less overestimation by that

equation in obese people at the expense of increased incidence of

underestimation.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

: ^ )))

But we aren't consuming an amount of calories equal to our REE,

unless we are bed-ridden and not permitted to move. So shouldn't we,

when considering what happens to real ambulant individuals, be

looking at the effect of the reduction in total calories consumed,

including those that are expended in all physical activities beyond

bedrest?

But either way, whether we agree or not, the conclusion remains the

same, indeed even more so with your number, that relatively modest

reductions in caloric intake have quite large long term effects on

weight. At least, they are appreciably larger than I had expected

them to be before I did the calculations.

Rodney.

> > >

> > > Hi folks:

> > >

> > > OK. As promised (threatened?) here are the calculations behind

> > > the 'fifteen-pounds-weight-change-per-hundred-incremental-

calories'

> > > number I mentioned in a previous post. ...................

> > >

> > > Analysis for Moderate Activity Level

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

> > >

> > > Caloric Intake........Equilib

> > > --------------.........weight

> > > Total......REE....... --------

> > > -----.....----.......

> > > ...(calories).........(pounds)

> > > 1500......1091............62

> > > 1750......1273...........103

> > > 2000......1455...........143

> > > 2250......1636...........183

> > > 2500......1818...........223

> > > 2750......2000...........263

> > > 3000......2182...........303

> > > 3250......2364...........343

> > > 3500......2545...........383

> > > 3750......2727...........423

> > > 4000......2909...........463

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

: ^ )))

But we aren't consuming an amount of calories equal to our REE,

unless we are bed-ridden and not permitted to move. So shouldn't we,

when considering what happens to real ambulant individuals, be

looking at the effect of the reduction in total calories consumed,

including those that are expended in all physical activities beyond

bedrest?

But either way, whether we agree or not, the conclusion remains the

same, indeed even more so with your number, that relatively modest

reductions in caloric intake have quite large long term effects on

weight. At least, they are appreciably larger than I had expected

them to be before I did the calculations.

Rodney.

> > >

> > > Hi folks:

> > >

> > > OK. As promised (threatened?) here are the calculations behind

> > > the 'fifteen-pounds-weight-change-per-hundred-incremental-

calories'

> > > number I mentioned in a previous post. ...................

> > >

> > > Analysis for Moderate Activity Level

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

> > >

> > > Caloric Intake........Equilib

> > > --------------.........weight

> > > Total......REE....... --------

> > > -----.....----.......

> > > ...(calories).........(pounds)

> > > 1500......1091............62

> > > 1750......1273...........103

> > > 2000......1455...........143

> > > 2250......1636...........183

> > > 2500......1818...........223

> > > 2750......2000...........263

> > > 3000......2182...........303

> > > 3250......2364...........343

> > > 3500......2545...........383

> > > 3750......2727...........423

> > > 4000......2909...........463

> >

>