Hardwired Calories Out

If you've heard it once, you've probably heard it a thousand times, that ELMM = Eat Less Move More is a failed strategy for weight loss.  The rationale is something like one or more of the following:
  • A calorie is not a calorie, because two people who eat the same amount won't weigh the same, or gain or lose the same amount of weight
  • The 3500 cal/pound fat figure is wrong because with deliberate overfeeding or caloric restriction, people don't gain or lose exactly as this formula would predict 
  • If you eat less your metabolism will just slow down to compensate
  • If you move more deliberately, aka exercise, you'll just move less later in the day and/or be so hungry you'll compensate by eating more. 
So, amidst some of the pre-AHS flurry last week, two studies/blog posts were brought to my attention on Twitter.  The first one was courtesy of @BethMazur the WeightMaven:  What Infants Teach Us About Preventing Obesity which includes Lutz Kraushaar's analysis of this study.  Basically body composition was determined in 44 infants at ages 1 and 12 weeks.  Then at age 1.5 years, body composition was re-assessed and both REE (resting energy expenditure) and TEE (total energy expenditure) was measured -- indirect calorimetry and doubly-labeled water respectively.   The difference between these was calculated to assess the energy expenditure of activity, their physical activity level, PAL.  Now since we're talking babies here, we're talking non-exercise activity, a calorie-out term often referred to as NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis).   The results were that PAL/NEAT varied widely among the infants, and correlated inversely with body fat percentage.   It would appear that NEAT is "hardwired".

This does not surprise me really, I think we all know people (perhaps it's even you) who seem to constantly be moving even when sitting still.  But this fact confirms rather than refutes CICO.  The naturally more active babies put on less body fat than the naturally less active ones because they expend more energy.  Hopefully I get a chance to get back to this topic in more detail at some point, but there's a ton of research out there on the first days/weeks of life, metabolic rate, early growth rate and future susceptibility towards obesity.  The collective results of these studies indicate to me that the increased incidence of low birthweight for gestational age babies likely plays some role in the obesity epidemic.  These babies typically have an RQ>1 meaning they are laying fat down like crazy and to do so they also have lower REE.  (I don't recall any of the studies addressing activity).  

Taken together, and looking at any myriad of studies where individual data is provided for measurements of energy expenditure in children through adults of all ages, a rather depressing (for those of us who struggle with excess weight) picture emerges.  There is wide variation in both REE and NEAT between individuals, and there's not much we can do about that.  The REE especially is difficult to alter, and eating less generally reduces it to additionally widely varying degrees.  One thing we really did learn from that recent Ebbeling study is that the changes in REE following weight loss vs. baseline were widely divergent.  

The next study comes from Scotty/My College Nutrition @MCN_com:  Individual Thermogenic Responses to Mild Cold and Overfeeding Are Closely Related.  This paper looks at two phenomenon:
  • Increased energy expenditure to "waste" caloric excesses -- at least in short overfeeding bouts -- kind of TEF (thermogenic effect of food) on steroids.
  • Increased energy expenditure to create heat when exposed to cold, sometimes called shivering thermogenesis, or that cold thermogenesis we've been hearing way too much about for the past 8 months or so.
So here's the quick summary of the results in this study:
The changes in TDEE during both overfeeding and mild cold exposure showed considerable interindividual variation (respectively, 0.11 to 1.61 MJ/d and 0.19 to 1.58 MJ/d).  The individual changes in energy expenditure during mild cold exposure and overfeeding were highly correlated (P 0.005).
Whoa boy!  This sounds like one for the "Not Fair" file!!  Not only are they some people who can get away with overeating a bit more from time to time also get to benefit from a dip in the cold plunge a bit more than others.  Personally, I think I might be one of those lucky ones (shh - grin), because I do believe I lost weight on my last vacation when I know I was both eating (and drinking)  more than I usually do but used the cold plunge several times daily in addition to hanging out in the pool or ocean quite a lot.  Ned Kock has been discussing a possible strategy of overfeeding from time to time.  See here and here, but realize it may or may not be a strategy for you (see those almost 15X differences above).   Scotty wrote about this study and others on his (love the name!) Skinny White Buddha blog in Red Hot Thermogenesis ... check it out!

Bottom line, this study would seem to indicate that thermogenic responses are hardwired.   And yet, this explanation for why some people seem to get away with eating more from time to time more than others is firmly based in that supposedly debunked calorie theory.

So ... if NEAT is hardwired, and thermogenesis is hardwired, is there anything we can do about this?  Folks, there are certainly any number of gurus and diet book authors out there who will tell you that eating this or that macronutrient, taking this or that supplement, exercising or not this or that way, or adopting their "protocol" holds the magic answer for you.  Surely there are some for whom some of these strategies may work.  Where supplements are concerned, I think most of my readers are familiar with Prof. Dr. Andro over at Suppversity, if you're hearing about some supplement, I'd search his blog and see what studies he's dug up about it and what he has to say before forking over money for it.

The pessimist in me says there's not a whole lot we can do about the hardwiring.  Perhaps if I start a stimulant regime I can turn myself into a fidgeter and burn and thus be able to  consume a few hundred more calories per day.  I tend to think that's not the answer -- the naturally fidgety folks I know are rather unaware of this and/or seek calmness -- so where I'm not hardwired to caloric advantage, I'm not sure I seek becoming just flat out wired.  As mentioned, I might well be hardwired for the thermogenic component, but there are pitfalls to deliberate overfeeding that I likely don't want to "go there" .... I'll continue to be a pool rat as much as possible ... not going to be filling my bathtub with ice any time soon ...

Final thoughts:  We're all hardwired to some degree.  We mostly can't do much about that.  CICO is what it is, and there are things we cannot do much about the hardwired CO.    However we can increase CO by deliberately moving more -- whether it be formal exercise or simply engaging in more active behaviors.   The fact that we have no to little to indeterminate control over CO from "natural" activity and thermogenesis doesn't mean all is lost.  It may just be a bit more difficult ... and it may just be a bit easier if you find something you enjoy that gets you moving more.  Walk ... dance ... swim ... bike ...   It can be difficult, I know.  When I was heavier, activity was prohibitive ... but it got better, and I also think water activity is the way to go for anyone with pain and size-related mobility issues.  I've been dealing with a bad ankle that has impaired my own ability to enjoy fun stuff, and circumstances prevented getting that backyard pool this summer.  Sigh ... would have been the perfect summer for one given the heat and humidity, but t'wasn't to be. But personally I prefer to manage CO in a manner I know there is some control over rather than chase after promises of boosting metabolism through various other, largely untested/unsubstantiated, often expensive, means.


ItsTheWooo said…
If infants have a higher NEAT and are less fat, you are assuming the NEAT is hard wired and makes them less fat...maybe they store less fat and so have a higher NEAT, to get all Gary Taubes on you.

I simply RE-FUSE the premise that NEAT is "hardwired". As a child I could barely move, when I was growing fatter due to disturbed endocrine system. Now I am energetic ridiculously and am one of those wirey always active thin people. When I was a child I wouldn't / couldn't stand to obtain fluids. Compare to now where I frequently clean or kinda walk/pace just to expend energy in activity.

NEAT is a result of endocrine/nervous system fat tissue dynamics and energy use. You move around if your body makes energy. You sit like a lump if your body isn't. Innateness and hardwiredness has nothing to do with it other than the fact metabolic/nervous system conditions leading to obesity may be genetic or acquired early in life.

markgillespie said…
Small correction needed in third paragraph:

"The naturally more active babies put on less body fat than the naturally less active ones because they expend less energy."

Should say 'expend more energy' as I assume you are referring to the more active babies?
CarbSane said…
Thanks, will fix that!
markgillespie said…
For anyone who hasn't seen it already the BBC Horizon programme did an episode a couple of years ago where they showed how some people's bodies resist weight gain when overfed.

Anonymous said…
'Now since we're talking babies here, we're talking non-exercise activity, a calorie-out term often referred to as NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis). The results were that PAL/NEAT varied widely among the infants, and correlated inversely with body fat percentage. It would appear that NEAT is "hardwired".'

Can't we just come up with a better name for what babies do for 'non-exercise'?

Because then, this definition of NEAT becomes confusing!
Tom said…
I have to think that NEAT is a combination of genetics and habits. In other words, things such as exercise and diet can change your inherent NEAT over time. No data to back that up, just anecdotal evidence that when I didn't exercise in my 30s, I got very lethargic and started putting on the dreaded 1 or 2 pounds a year. Now in my 40s I'm exercising regularly and feel like I'm back in my 20s.

Also, based on personal and family history, I suspect that NEAT tends to drop with age.
Anonymous said…
Hey Evelyn,

Thanx for the shout out.

I believe that NEAT and Heat Dissipation are important factors in obesity that get overlooked. Too much attention being put on calorie counting and the misguided focus on just EAT. (instead of BMR)

The Paper also discusses the energy dissipation from skin temperature. (blood flow rate and convection i'm guessing)

"The increases of skin temperatures relative to baseline during overfeeding indicate extra dissipation of heat to the environment. To our knowledge, no other overfeeding studies registered skin temperatures."

My main hypothesis is something like this :

High Metabolic people dissipate more heat and have a higher body temperature then the obese. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19375759) Thus when they eat more (like I do on a daily basis) much of the energy is "lost" instead of stored. It's lost mostly to Heat, which is why I sweat in bed at night and remain thin. I'm not constantly fidgeting but my body temp remains high through out the day, been like this since birth.


NewMe said…
Scotty, this is only anecdotal, but fits in perfectly with your hypothesis: My late mother-in-law was painfully thin until she reached her forties and went through menopause (a whole other issue when it comes to women and weight...). She also sweated, not to put too fine a point on it, like a pig and felt hot most of the time. Her kids (my husband and his sister) used to freeze during the winter (living in Montreal, which is known for its tough winters) because she never put anything more on their beds than a cotton sheet and a a thin bedspread. My husband was blown away by flannel sheets, which he only learned about when we started living together.

CarbSane said…
Welcome NewMe! And you're welcome Scotty ...

Got many additional thoughts that are coalescing into a blog post.
James Krieger said…
What cracks me up about people who claims ELMM "doesn't work" is that they completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of the people in the NWCR, which are all examples of successful long-term weight losers, use ELMM!!!!!
Galina L. said…
Keeping my weight stable after a modest weight loss after 45 years old became possible only after I realized that the diet was the most important part of a weight management. Exercise is for health and fan. It keeps me fit, happy, flexible. I have an ample experience with both approaches - ELMM and Carbs limitation, in my case LC was more effective. ELMM did work for me till middle-age (not perfectly, I was either too hungry and deprived or gaining slowly what was lost), so it is not completely useless. Actually I eat less amount of food less often now because LCarbing controls hunger and I have more desire now to avoid sitting because my energy level is better. May be ELMM works if it is caused by a diet regiment not by an attempt to force a body to do it.
CarbSane said…
Hey Tom, Agree with what you're saying. I suppose using the term "hardwired" was not the best choice -- perhaps the qualifier "partly" could clear up confusion. I forget who wrote it, I think it was Chris Kresser, who described NEAT as otherwise known as "life". My grandmother never exercised, but she also didn't drive, and after my grandfather died supplemented her income being babysitter to the neighborhood. She walked everywhere -- mild to rather steep hills -- including to the grocery store and back, couple three miles depending and more hills. I remember my father getting mad at her sometimes for doing that and when she'd sometimes even refuse a ride if he passed her on the road! She was only a few years older than I am now. Now her activity would be NEAT and that is a deliberate/learned behavior. She was not one of those people that could eat anything and never get fat ... she wasn't overweight that I recall, but I've seen pictures of her going through pudgy times here and there.
CarbSane said…
May be ELMM works if it is caused by a diet regiment not by an attempt to force a body to do it.

Jeez -- How many of the studies touted by low carbers that demonstrate unequivocally that LC works when it produces a spontaneous reduction in intake.

Exercise if for health ... It keeps me fit.

Oh but it does nothing for your weight? Sigh.
bentleyj74 said…
I think when people try to ELMM they run smack into all the reasons they have been EMML and those things are not so easily sorted out as the physics of burning a calorie.
v/vmary said…
my two brothers are farmers. they are doing heavy lifting sporadically throughout the day. the one brother who has always been thin, but who has a touch of ab weight, loses it all during the summer. he is thin and muscled. the other brother doing the same work develops muscle but still has a huge belly. they eat the same lunch and having grown up with both of them, the thinner one has a good appetite. it's a genetic difference.

i recently found out i was diabetic. i have been doing "paleo" for 3 years, meaning eating till up full, but avoiding grains, dairy most of the time, processed food, working out once a week with weights and sprints for a total 30 min. i maintained a 10% weight loss for 3 years doing this, although i still have lower ab fat. all my blood work for lipids, fasting blood glucose (86-90), and A1c (5.9,5.6) have been good. It's only when i tested myself with a meter after eating 60 grams of fast acting carbs and the meter hit 219 that i realized i was diabetic.

so now i still eat paleo foods, but to get a close to normal blood sugar reading of 90 after i hour, i have to limit the portion and feel a little uncomfortable. my body is used to a higher blood sugar level.

both my parents are diabetic. i'm not overweight. i did not have frequent urination/thirst. my problem is mostly genetic. i encourage people to borrow someone's meter and test yourself or ask a doctor for an oral glucose tolerance test- especially if you have diabetes in your family.

if i had counted calories, but ate oatmeal as part of my meal plan, i think my blood sugars would be too high and i would gain weight.
v/vmary said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
v/vmary said…
PS If you find from a glucose meter that you handle carbs well, i don't see any reason why you should't eat them to whatever level keeps you feeling energetic.
Gianni said…
What cracks me up about people who claims ELMM "doesn't work"...

I'd say ELMM approach still doesn't work.
Because those who try to do it without any change in macronutrients ratios (and partially food quality), fail to lose weight. The few who don't generally cannot show up the best body composition possible (skinny-fat etc.)
Unknown said…
I think the trap a lot of people fall into is

"What worked for me is what works"

"What didn't work for me is what doesn't work"

Imo the chance that someone will ever find a one-size-fits-all solution is about 1 in 100,000,000,000.
Gianni said…
Funny then how so many competitive bodybuilders get absolutely ripped using some variation of ELMM.

Reading that, at the end of all the above, was quite weird to me.
So I'm afraid there's a risk of simply arguing about semantics, doing which in a language that isn't even my first would be twice as foolish on my part.

To be clear, what I mean as the EL part of ELMM, is how most people who know nothing about nutrition do it.
So if they usually eat:
BF: cereal + orange juice (or donut + coffee); Lunch: pasta , a little cheese, and a fruit; supper: bread , meat and a vegetable; plus snacks,
when trying to do a diet they simply attemps to lose weight eating less of mostly the same. So cooking 30 grams less of pasta etc.
That is what I'd call real EL(MM).

If someone begins to avoid or restrict some specific food (/macronutrient), in my mind, it's another thing.

Bodybuilders, many showgirls etc. at the end do to some sort of degree a "Faileo Diet" or anyway reduce the ratios of the 2 macronutrients (which one is better to restrict the most is another discussion) that aren't protein.
Good luck with doing it simply (/only) trying to eat few total calories but of bacon and fructose.
bentleyj74 said…
I'm not aware of any clinical evidence that supports the notion a person can't lose weight eating less total cals of whatever. *How* they prefer to eat less is individual. Variations on the same general theme.
CarbSane said…
How do you explain those who lose weight on Jenny Craig and NutriSystem? Or myself who got to my lowest adult weight in 1991 while training for a sprint triathlon and an ad libitum "normal food" diet including pizza and beer at least twice a week after intramural volleyball or softball games.

I've known a number of habitual eaters who've had success in losing weight by cutting portions -- one egg vs. two, one slice of bread vs. two, skip the dessert, etc.

If your answer is that they (and I) didn't sustain it, that's fair, but the sustainability of macro-restricted approaches is no better nor is rate of maintenance rates.
CarbSane said…
Very insightful as usual bentley.
James Krieger said…
There are scientific studies that show people successfully losing weight simply by cutting portion sizes and making no other change. Again, someone might argue whether this is sustainable, but, as you say, that argument could apply to any type of program, including one that changes macronutrient content.

This is why adherence is the most important predictor of success...not macronutrient content or anything else. If changing macronutrient content helps you adhere better, then great. But if it doesn't, you won't have any more success than any other approach.
Gianni said…
Weight. I'd argue I'd be afraid it will/would be anyways harder, more possibly prone to failure long term, but who cares:

when I think about men with the "rock abs" and women with the "steel ass", I'm under the impression the VAST majority uses that method.
I personally "have abs" (no huge muscles though) and have to stay not to far away from a higher protein ratio diet to keep them that visible. It sucks but at least because it's boring, not because I'm hungry all the time. Which would happen to me in the other ways.

If you'd say you can obtain some kind of those type of results, and without suffering even more, with a totally other approach, I'd be either really envious or skeptic.

To remember someone once commented about here: I doubt Jessica Biel does the "chicken-broccoli diet", for not so short time spans, because she is simply masochistic.
P2ZR said…
Ah-ha. This is where I think that in addition to interTEMPORAL discounting, we need a concept of interPERSONAL discounting.

'My anecdote constitutes all the scientific evidence the world needs.'

'Any other evidence (regardless of quality or quantity) is BS.'
Anonymous said…
I've had many, many patients that have lost weight by not drinking soda or sweet tea anymore. No other changes just drop 400-500 calories of sugary beverage from their diet per day and weight starts coming off. That's not a macronutrient change that's a EL change. Or they drop a few of the snacks out of their diet (i.e. stop eating that afternoon cookie every day) and weight comes off (thinking of the interview I heard from the author of this book on NPR):

I myself have continued to lose weight by making no other change then eating dessert only a few times per week instead of more days than not and ramping up my exercise again.

Back to James point above that in the NWCR the majority did it through low fat diet and exercise 1 hour per day with less than 10 hours of TV per week.
P2ZR said…
Two issues of interest:
(1) baseline levels of NEAT/body heat production
(2) sensitivity to stimuli (foods, environment, etc.)

As a naturally *tired and cold* skinny person, I notice that caffeine and sugar are amazing for energy (though not without attendant crashes). Overfeeding also does make me lots warmer. Low baseline, high sensitivity, it seems.
P2ZR said…
Probably another thing to keep in mind is that for people who aren't amazingly healthy, it's important to set yourself right (diet, sleep) so that your body will be amenable to exercise. It's frustrating sometimes to hear the 'exercise makes you feel better/more energized!' trope when in fact you truly feel too crappy to exercise.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to people who never/rarely exercise and whose bodies and brains revolt at the slightest exertion.

But anyway, this is where it all comes down to a 'life hack' again (as opposed to a 'paleo hack', or a way to hack a supposedly awesome lifestyle). So many paleos get caught up in whether the people around them, or their own lifestyles, support their WOE. Isn't what matters *getting the WOE to support the lifestyle that one aspires to*?

Carbs make you sluggish? Reduce them. LOW carbs make you a miserable nonfunctional wreck? Eat more of them. Acellular/fibrous/FODMAPpy carbs do X/Y/Z to you? Tailor accordingly! And goodness gracious, if LC (or whatever else) prevents you from getting a good night's sleep--how do you expect your body to move well the next day?!
Craig said…
I came across a couple of interesting news stories this week that represent extreme examples of ELMM (and EMML):

#1) Sally Adams - Extreme Makeover, Weight Loss Edition


"Sally Adams was an active child who grew up to be a slim, athletic woman, but a severe leg injury changed her life.

As a result of the injury, Adams, a Washington, D.C., tour guide, gained 200 pounds. She consumed 10,000 calories each day."

#2) Neil Burns of Kentucky loses 370 lbs.


"A man who once clocked in at 680lbs has told how he lost over half his body weight with a simple diet and exercise regime.

Neil Burns, 44, from Richmond, Kentucky, was so morbidly obese he was virtually housebound, describing his home as his 'prison'.

Now, two years on, at 310lbs, the 6ft 4in father-of-one is well on his way to reaching his goal weight of 270lbs.

In a new interview with Good Morning America, he described how he found the impetus to cut a 21-year fast food habit that saw him consume 10,000 calories a day in value meals from McDonalds and Dairy Queen."

#3) Micheal Phelps diet (from 4 years ago):


"Swimmer Michael Phelps’s next career may be in competitive eating. Besides grabbing five gold medals at the Beijing Olympics so far, making him the winningest Olympic athlete ever, he’s got to be setting new marks on the chow line.

A New York Post account of Phelps’s… wait for it… 12,000-calorie-a-day diet, gave us a stomachache. Could one human being really consume that much and still be in Phelps’s shape? And could this possibly be healthy for Phelps, even considering his five-hours-a-day, six-days-a-week exercise regimen?"
NewMe said…
OK, another anecdote:

When I met my husband 23 years ago, he was not slim. He had a bit of a paunch, but he wasn't huge either. Over the years, he gained weight. Again, nothing huge, but a definite weight gain and a bigger paunch. He would not weigh himself so who knows what the weight gain was.

About a year ago, I finally convinced him to go to my GP just for a check-up. He'll be 50 this year and in all the time I'd known him, he'd been healthy as a horse but never went to the doctor for even a yearly check-up. BTW, this had nothing to do with cost. We're Canadian and have universal health care (which we fully support).

So, finally he went to see the GP. He didn't say much to me about the check-up but suddenly cut out his one small glass of juice in the evening, stopped eating second helpings of the generally healthy food we normally eat and started drinking several large glasses of water every day.

And bang, he lost weight. Not scads of weight but he did lose. Yes, he's still got his paunch, but it's noticeably smaller.

I don't think after the first month or two he lost any more weight, but he's kept off the 20 or so pounds he lost (this is my guesstimate) for about a year.

For me to lose weight is a much bigger deal which I won't go into here. For him, it was just cut out the small amount of (non-sweetened) juice, reduce portions somewhat and drink more water. On the exercise front, he now uses the elliptical trainer for about 30 minutes twice a week. He's always been a big walker. Easy-peasy for him. And it proves different approaches work for different people. And for some people, nothing works. There are no easy answers.
Rad Warrier said…
I keep wondering if religious extremism and diet extremism are controlled by the same area of the brain. These two (behavioral) aberrations appear so similar, including the irrational underpinnings on which they stand and the illogical extents to which the respective proponents go to argue their case, that it is very difficult to them apart.

Rad Warrier said…
Please read "difficult to them apart" as "difficult to *tell* them apart." What do we call missing whole words while typing? Not "typo", I guess. :)

CarbSane said…
Interesting ... Another similarity, identifying oneself by how one eats! Hi, I'm Joe and I'm a Christian Low-Carb African-American. ;)
CarbSane said…
I wonder what will happen to Phelps. Though I imagine he is forcing food at this point to keep from withering down to nothing with all of his training, his habits are still for eating a lot of crap.

How many retired athletes who balloon up do we need for some people to accept the reality that activity energy expenditure plays a role in weight?
Josh said…
Yep definitely. There are even genetic predispoitions to being more religiously inclined (see 'The Believing Brain' by Michael Shermer). People like Evelyn and James do a great job of explaining the evidence to people but most peoples brains prioritise beliefs over evidence - something Shermer calls 'belief dependent realism' in which beliefs come first, and then explanations for beliefs follow. Taubes is a classic example of this as he lost weight on a low carb diet before he started writing his science fiction novels. The belief came first, then the explanations for the belief followed. Most nutritional debates on the internet are more about beliefs than they are about evidence, which is exactly what you would expect in light of how most humans form beliefs and opinions, and the many cognitive biases that they susceptible to. I like how Chris Masterjohn put it - "bias is human nature, and anyone who isn't engaged in a devoted battle to overcome their own bias will be its prisoner"
bentleyj74 said…
Yeah, I'd be wary for sure of using anyone at an extreme point on the bell curve so to speak as a mentor figure. The goal of professional athletes is to shine brightly for a very short period of time whatever the long term costs. Their health is not generally awesome in later years, they do engage in both CI and CO that falls outside the reasonable norm for ordinary people who have lives and demands that are not so hyper focused.
Anonymous said…
I looked into the story of Phelps and he denied eating 12,000 calories a day. My memory was that he basically implied that he'd be fat if he ate that much. I didn't feel like listening to Ryan Seacrest again but here's the link:
Rob said…
There's an interview he did with Anderson Cooper sometime ago and he dispelled that myth then too. I believe he said his actual intake on training days was something like 8-10k, still insanely high.
P2ZR said…
As there is apparently a need for Communion wafers to be LC, it is clear that the LC religion takes precedence over any other religion. As in, 'I'm a HFVVVVVVLC--hoo yeahh, babyyyyy--[religion] [ethnicity] [nationality].'

That Masterjohn quote is truly awesome. Great reminder of the necessity of humility and the importance of questioning oneself (not just others!) in the pursuit of knowledge. Go Chris!
Diana said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diana said…
@bentley; "I think when people try to ELMM they run smack into all the reasons they have been EMML and those things are not so easily sorted out as the physics of burning a calorie."

AMEN! And the totally bizarre thing is that ELMM gets the results but....habits are refractory.

I'm a perfect example of that. Got fantastic results with ELMM...and then my 'food issues' kicked up.

I've become a firm believer in Guyanet's food reward theory. I think he hit upon something quite profound there - but the reason I go to food for comfort lies deeper than that.
Diana said…
Gianni, not to get personal here but something tells me that you are obsessed with working out, young, male, and obsessed with a certain kind of Hollywood good looks.

Speaking only for myself - but venturing a guess about the commenters here, please anyone correct me if I am wrong - we are not about that at all.

We are people who have had to struggle with weight, and want to maintain a healthy normal weight.

There is a huge difference between that and the 'buns of steel' Hollywood bullshit image you are talking about.

Eat less, move more, may very well not make you as ripped as a professional body builder, or as skinny as a supermodel. For that, you probably need drugs.

But ELMM, consistently applied, equals weight loss. It does. Been there, done that. Actually, doing that.
bentleyj74 said…
ELMM will make you as ripped as you decide to commit to being. Body fat is determined by calorie excess, muscle mass is developed with exercise. There are absolutely completely shredded body builders and athletes of all flavors who profess every imaginable dietary philosophy. You should get out more Gianni :).
Diana said…
I deleted a question to Evie about the gender of the babies because I stupidly put it before looking at the study itself, which gave the breakdown: 23 boys and 21 girls. But I'd still like to know the ethnicity of the babies.
CarbSane said…

Right now I'm behind in responding to comments due to that thing called life ... in a good way, as I plan on having a relaxing day.

Some may have noticed some disappearing comments, and I'll apologize to James Krieger because it wasn't his fault he spent so much time engaging the person who precipitated this action.

All comments by people who cross post in two-faced fashion on the blog in question have been moved to spam. They may or may not be reinstituted as time and consideration allow, but here's the bottom line.

If the blogger in question wants to participate here, she'll cease and desist the shadow blogging and commenting. That goes for those commenting as well. I have no time for jr high nonsense.

Can we get back to constructive discussion about the STUDIES in this post PLEASE?
Anonymous said…
Ok to continue the discussion on the paper. I'm a little confused about Whoo's statement here:

Whoo: If infants have a higher NEAT and are less fat, you are assuming the NEAT is hard wired and makes them less fat...maybe they store less fat and so have a higher NEAT, to get all Gary Taubes on you.

Is she trying to imply that the diet of the 12 week old infants is what makes the store less fat and drives their higher NEAT? Isn't that what we are talking about? That's what Taubes says about adults no? I really doubt the 12 week old have significant different dietary choices from each other.