A proposal to explain the paradigm of calories and body weight

[CharonY]

That has mostly been the state in the last ten years and so far there has been (to my knowledge) no smoking gun studies who are able to clear these things up. Small wonder, metabolism is hugely complex. Especially as the effects are diffuse. Inflammation is one of these issues, for example. Almost everything modulates inflammation one way or another. In a way it is just how our system interacts with the environment and to change in general. Predicting what is going to happen and how it impacts overall health (and heck, even health can be elusive to define once we go down to the molecular level), is near impossible.

Even for individual bacterial cells we have fairly crude models, despite a glut of data (certain things are now somewhat predictable, but add a complex environment and the the models often go crazy). Medical studies on the other hand are empirical and look at overall outcome and not the mechanisms. There the issue is to identify the components that affect the outcome, which for metabolism can be fairly complicated.

[Wigberto Marciaga]

On 4/11/2024 at 4:08 PM, CharonY said:

It seems to me that you are making a conclusion that the authors are not making. The authors found similar TEE, but your assumption is because physical activity should increase TEE, but it doesn't, it means that the basal metabolism is lower (thus preserving energy). However, this is not what the authors conclude. Rather (and in agreement with other studies) the conclusion is that physical activity has little effect and that differences in adiposity is linked to calorie intake. I.e. it does not support the notion of a difference in energy expenditure (and certainly states nothing about specific anabolic or catabolic functions).

This is not what I was referring to. Studies have shown that folks with active lifestyles, on average have a slightly higher baseline metabolism (a random one is here, but there is a glut of papers like those out there https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijes/vol11/iss2/2/). However, the effect size is often fairly small and relies on longer-term activities (but it is possible that over even longer time, the body adapts). But as a whole this really just suggests again that the largest determinant is usually calorie intake. 

Another factor is that BMR is also dependent on body composition and I think studies in athletes suggest higher BMR in athletes in part because of higher fat free mass. But I am not sure what the current state of the art there is.  There is of course also a whole area where folks discuss the issues with calorig measurement techniques, but this is probably beyond the scope of this discussion.

Hello, blessings

Of course I differ, like many other experts and studies that have argued that physical exercise does influence body weight. Perhaps that is why these studies have not been given as much publicity, since they seem to contradict other studies that suggest that physical exercise influences body weight.

On the other hand, Pontzer and his group do maintain both in this summary and in other studies that the Hadza have a lower basal metabolism. This is deduced because despite doing more physical activity, in 24 hours they spend approximately the same amount of calories daily as more sedentary people.

On the other hand, if we adjust by weight, those with more muscle mass could burn more calories. For example, 100 pounds of muscle burns more calories than 100 pounds of fat. But this is not a determinant of energy expenditure either, since most of the basal metabolism is usually represented by the organs, not by muscle tissue or adipose tissue.

And this could cause variations. Something that occurs to me to mention is the demand that an organism with obesity or a lot of mass has (even if it is muscular), this should make its organs work harder than normal, especially the heart, and have greater energy expenditure.

In short, yes, those who did this study maintain that it is diet and not exercise. But that's their opinion, not necessarily what the study itself says.

Hadza men would spend around 2,600 calories daily and burn 2,600 calories. Which suggests that their bodies are designed to avoid excess. One thing that could influence this, for example, would be leptin resistance, a condition that other studies have shown exercise can improve.

My proposal, as you will understand, is that it is the dominant catabolism in the Hadza (and others), probably induced by the type of physical activity they do (compare with cyclists and marathon runners), one of the things that keeps them thin . Although, I also consider that the combination of diet and lack of physical activity is what would lead to the metabolic imbalance that I have proposed that leads to hypertrophy of adipose tissue and obesity.

Excuse me, now I'll try to rest and get some sleep. I feel sleepy.

But I hope to continue commenting to the rest and continue with this topic with you. I think your contributions help advance the issue.

Greetings and blessings in the name of Yeshu the Anointed.

Reference:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-exercise-paradox/

Edited April 12 by Wigberto Marciaga

[CharonY]

16 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

On the other hand, Pontzer and his group do maintain both in this summary and in other studies that the Hadza have a lower basal metabolism.

Please quote the part in the study where the author make this claim.

[Wigberto Marciaga]

On 4/13/2024 at 9:56 AM, CharonY said:

Please quote the part in the study where the author make this claim.

Hi, blessing in the name of Yeshu,

Quote

These metabolic changes may be behavioral, such as sitting instead of standing or moving less, but may also include reductions in other non-muscular metabolic activities. For example, men and women enrolled in a long-term exercise study showed a reduced basal metabolic rate in the week.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01577-8

Quote

We also measured daily walking distances (km/day) using wearable GPS devices, and the cost of walking (kCal kg−1 m−1) and resting metabolic rate (RMR, kCal kg−1 s−1) using a portable respirometry system (Text S1). Because it was not feasible to measure basal metabolic rate (BMR, kCal/day), we calculated physical activity level (PAL) as TEE/estimated BMR (Methods). Institutional approval and informed consent were obtained prior to data collection.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040503

It is a simple deduction. If by doing physical activity the Hadza burn noticeably more calories, but in 24 hours they end up being practically the same, then the explanation would be that they have a lower metabolism, including their basal metabolism.

How would this be explained? I think it's relatively easy, although I recognize that I can be wrong. The hearts of exercised people, for example, beat slower at rest (and may even be noticeably more efficient during physical activity). The higher the heart rate, the more calories are being burned because the heart is one of the organs that consumes the most calories.

And that could be the main explanation for why active people have lower energy expenditure at rest. Although there could be more.

On 4/12/2024 at 5:32 AM, John Cuthber said:

Just a thought.
As far as I can tell,  there could be two "versions" of me.
One has a tendency to open the blood vessels near the skin, and the other tends to restrict them.
Both are capable of maintaining the same core body temperature ; but they have different "power requirements" (because they have different skin temperature).

If both versions consumed the same number of calories, either one would gain weight, or the other would lose it.

There are, of course, other possibilities for how a similar outcome could occur; gut bacteria variation would be an obvious place to look.

Hello, blessing for you,

I think it's something like that, yes (if I understand correctly). Although genetics would have a lot to do with it. There are people who have genetic tendencies to one thing or another, some have a hard time gaining weight (which is a minority, apparently) and others have a hard time losing weight (who are the majority) and there are also those who find it easy to gain weight ( These are the obese, especially stage 2 onwards and they are neither the majority nor the minority).

On 4/12/2024 at 7:31 AM, swansont said:

OTOH if that fraction of calories utilized is roughly constant, then eating more/fewer calories means you are absorbing more/fewer calories. 

Blessing,

Yes swansont, although some people absorb more or fewer calories, excessive calorie consumption would still be involved in overweight and obesity.

Obese people often have a condition called leptin resistance that prevents the brain from receiving the satiety signal and that is why they feel hungry even when they have consumed enough calories.

Reasonably, one could deduce or understand that one has eaten too much, but it is also understandable that working or carrying out other activities with the annoying feeling of hunger can affect performance or even quality of life.

And it seems to me that in the case of obesity a chocolate bar will not work, it would take more than that to suppress hunger.

It doesn't surprise me that there are those who classify obesity as a pathology, because it seems that way. Especially an endocrine disease.

However, the origin seems to be genetics and bad eating habits in childhood (a stage where it seems to me that it is still reversible).

On 4/12/2024 at 9:39 AM, TheVat said:

Similar points seem to recycle in this thread.  12 days ago I posted

And a person's weight relates to more than one cause.  Faster metabolism can be one, balance of intestinal microflora and efficiency of gut absorption can be another.  Autoimmune disorders can also factor in, through inflammatory response in the small intestine and induced lesions.   Also, hormone levels, environmental toxins, fiber consumption, sensitivity to fermentable polysaccharides, etc.

Many studies have shown that the usual suspects in weight control are consistently factors - overall average level of physical activity, total calorie intake, proportions of fiber and anti-nutrients (like lectins, phytates, agglutinins, raffinose, protease inhibitors, alpha-amylase inhibitors, et al), types of protein consumed (fish takes less energy to catabolize than red meat, e.g.) and as oft-repeated....balance of gut bacteria.  My career intersected with this area of study for about four years and I learned again and again how complex is the matter of metabolizing food and how little we still know.  For example, I learned that Caesarian birthed children often diverge considerably from their parents in metabolism because their gut bacteria are less derived from the maternal gut colony.  (I'll spare you the details)  

Generally, based on what we've found so far:  walk everywhere, eat lots of plants with lots of fiber, and skip desserts and sweet juices.  If you have a choice between ultra processed food and something yanked from the ground, pick the latter.  Rakes not leaf blowers.  Stairs not elevators.  Etc.  It's mostly sticking with the game plan and getting a little closer to the hunter -gatherer that is your DNA blueprint.  Good luck.

 

Hello, blessing,

I always hear that obesity or simply fatness is a multifactorial problem. And I think so, although there are also factors that influence more.

Cultural habits, diets, level of physical activity could have a lot to do with it.

For example, look, in Latin America there used to be much less of these cardiometabolic problems, overweight, obesity. But as they began to consume more meats, vegetable oils and refined foods, these problems increased. I heard that in Mexico 70% of the population would be overweight, and in Panama more than half of the population.

The purchasing power of Latino consumers and the arrival of inexpensive industrial products led Latinos to go from being a malnourished group to which doctors prescribed iron for their hemoglobin, to a group with an excess of health problems related to consumption. excessive food, meats and sweets.

Latin America is filling up with gyms and places that sell nutritional supplements. A commercial whey protein is a processed product, it may not be so negative for health, but it is not in its natural state, sweeteners or sugar are used to sweeten it with artificial flavors. It is a commercial product and it does not seem that the increase in consumption of these products is related to a decrease in overweight or obesity rates in Latin America, as is the case with light and low-calorie products that have been very present in stores.

On 4/12/2024 at 12:44 PM, TheVat said:

For sure.  I saw a good review of the current published material on this a few years back.  Found it. June 2020.

Here is abstract and link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333005/

The Influence of the Gut Microbiome on Obesity in Adults and the Role of Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics for Weight Loss

The link between the gut microbiome and obesity is not well defined. Understanding of the role of the gut microbiome in weight and health management may lead to future revolutionary changes for treating obesity. This review examined the relationship between obesity and the gut microbiome, and the role of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics for preventing and treating obesity. We used PubMed and Google Scholar to collect appropriate articles for the review. We showed that the gut microbiome has an impact on nutrient metabolism and energy expenditure. Moreover, different modalities of obesity treatment have been shown to change the diversity and composition of the gut microbiome; this raises questions about the role these changes may play in weight loss. In addition, studies have shown that supplementation with probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics may alter the secretion of hormones, neurotransmitters, and inflammatory factors, thus preventing food intake triggers that lead to weight gain. Further clinical studies are needed to better understand how different species of bacteria in the gut microbiome may affect weight gain, and to determine the most appropriate doses, compositions, and regimens of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics supplementation for long-term weight control.

I have also read studies on the microbiota. Bacteria can help you lose weight, but also gain weight.

It would not just be about more or less bacteria, but mainly about the type of bacteria. In the meat production industry I understand that bacteria are used to help animals gain weight.

Edited April 15 by Wigberto Marciaga

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

It is a simple deduction

In other words, it is your claim, not that of the authors. Read the discussion, they come to a different conclusion.

[Wigberto Marciaga]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

In other words, it is your claim, not that of the authors. Read the discussion, they come to a different conclusion.

Maybe I like being recognized for that. But in reality, it is simple and the authors have said it in their own way. I have, for example, 1000 total calories expended per day, I spend 500 on exercise, compared to someone who expends 1000 total calories per day and spends 100 calories on exercise. It is simple.

But if you still want it to be said directly somewhere, what I have now is a CNN publication:

Quote

Despite having lower metabolisms, hunter-gatherers eat less, and more unprocessed, food. Getty Images

https://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/27/health/hunter-gatherers-burn-calories/index.html

It is logical to think that if the Hadza did not have a low basal metabolism then they would burn many more calories daily than they burn due to their abundant physical activity.

Quote

Although we lack measurements of BMR for the subjects in this study, humans and other species have been shown to reduce BMR when activity demands are increased (e.g., Heini et al., 1991; Westerterp et al., 1992; reviewed in Pontzer H. Constrained total energy expenditure and the evolutionary biology of energy balance. Exerc Sport Sci Rev, manuscript in press).

https://www.raichlen.arizona.edu/DavePDF/PontzerEtAl2015.pdf

As you can see, the reviewer mentioned in that post is the same author of the Hadza study.

[CharonY]

47 minutes ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

But in reality, it is simple and the authors have said it in their own way. I have, for example, 1000 total calories expended per day, I spend 500 on exercise, compared to someone who expends 1000 total calories per day and spends 100 calories on exercise. It is simple.

This is not how this works. You cannot simply claim something like:

On 4/12/2024 at 4:15 PM, Wigberto Marciaga said:

On the other hand, Pontzer and his group do maintain both in this summary and in other studies that the Hadza have a lower basal metabolism.

While the authors state that:

Quote

Our results indicate that active, “traditional” lifestyles may not protect against obesity if diets change to promote increased caloric consumption. Thus, efforts to supplement diets of healthy populations in developing regions must avoid inundating these individuals with highly-processed, energy-dense but nutrient-poor foods. Since energy throughput in these populations is unlikely to burn the extra calories provided, such efforts may unintentionally increase the incidence of excess adiposity and associated metabolic complications such as insulin resistance. Indeed, processed, energy-dense foods have been linked to insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease among Australian foragers transitioning to village life

Not only is this misquoting the paper, but it is actually drawing the opposite conclusion. Misunderstanding, or even worse, misrepresentation of citations is failure of science 101. So specifically for the population outlined in OP there are no such conclusions. Again, this is science 101, we do not jump to conclusions by cherry-picking bits and pieces from different papers. 

The main gist of Pontzer's work is fundamentally that energy expenditure remains constant and that (as mentioned before) PA does not increase expenditure by much. So the key element here is really that energy consumption is the key factor in terms of obesity (or lack thereof). The body has a lot of capabilities to regulate expenditure and it even factors such as stress can increase the expenditure. Now if you look at other papers from the same author in follow-up papers on Hadza populations (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12785) there are several hypotheses:

Quote

Rather than changing the amount of energy expended each day, exercise may improve health by affecting the allocation of energy among physiological tasks. For example, increased physical activity expenditure might reduce energy expended on inflammation and other deleterious activity 26. Exercise may also help to regulate appetite, improving the balance between energy expenditure and intake 34, 48, and exercise has been shown to help maintain weight loss 34. The regulatory effects of exercise warrant further attention.

The lack of correspondence between objectively measured physical activity and TEE, AEE or PAL (Fig. 2) suggests caution is warranted when interpreting these metabolic measures. Conversely, converting objective measures of physical activity to estimates of TEE, AEE or PAL should be performed with an understanding of the weak and sometimes non-intuitive relationships among these measures. As noted by Pontzer and colleagues 27, there is typically a significant but weak (r² ≈ 0.10) relationship between accelerometer measurements of physical activity and TEE or AEE in large human samples, with far more TEE variation within quantiles of activity than between them. Among populations, there is no clear correspondence between objectively measured activity and daily expenditure (Fig. 2).

The constancy of TEE among a diverse range of lifestyles, including living hunter-gatherers and other small-scale societies, strongly suggests that the modern obesity pandemic stems from increased energy intake rather than decreased energy expenditure. But other than reducing calorie consumption, it is not immediately clear what aspects of traditional diets are most important to emulate to promote health. The idea that there is one true, natural human diet to which we might all aspire is negated by the incredible variety of hunter-gatherer diets recorded by early ethnographers and researchers today. Specifically, the suggestion that Palaeolithic cultures invariably had low-carbohydrate diets is strongly challenged by detailed dietary assessments among living groups and in the fossil record 45.

 

[Wigberto Marciaga]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

This is not how this works. You cannot simply claim something like:

While the authors state that:

Not only is this misquoting the paper, but it is actually drawing the opposite conclusion. Misunderstanding, or even worse, misrepresentation of citations is failure of science 101. So specifically for the population outlined in OP there are no such conclusions. Again, this is science 101, we do not jump to conclusions by cherry-picking bits and pieces from different papers. 

The main gist of Pontzer's work is fundamentally that energy expenditure remains constant and that (as mentioned before) PA does not increase expenditure by much. So the key element here is really that energy consumption is the key factor in terms of obesity (or lack thereof). The body has a lot of capabilities to regulate expenditure and it even factors such as stress can increase the expenditure. Now if you look at other papers from the same author in follow-up papers on Hadza populations (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12785) there are several hypotheses:

 

Yes, Pontzer mentions that diet is the cause of obesity and that exercise has nothing to do with it. But that's their opinion, not necessarily what their study says. Other studies don't support this and his study doesn't actually contradict it. The point is that Pontzer relies on more or fewer calories being the cause of the problem, without considering how those calories are burned.

As I said, the evidence seems to indicate that people who do cardiovascular exercise could benefit from exercise to lose weight, although Pontzer believes that his study contradicts this.

Realizing that perhaps there is not really a contradiction between Pontzer's study and those who promote exercise to lose weight, I proposed as part of the explanation the way in which calories are burned, whether it is catabolic or anabolic.  (This is my proposal, which tries to reconcile the apparent contradictions).

As for the different papers, yes, I presented you 3 in which the same author H. Pontzer intervenes so that you could read his point of view on the subject. However, the CNN news is about the investigation with the Hadza that we were talking about, I understand, because it is from the same dates.

Quote

This counterintuitive finding is explained by the foragers’ lower basal metabolic rate: they expend less energy while at rest, even when we compare people of the same size and age.

This also seems to be what the CNN journalist who published the news about the study with the Hadza understood. What other explanation would there be?

I have seen many times the old scientific positions based on intuition crumble and on this topic you find several examples. But honestly, in this case with the Hadza, is there any other explanation that indicates that their resting metabolism is not lower?

Blessing

Edited April 15 by Wigberto Marciaga

[Wigberto Marciaga]

Among the things that Pontzer mentions in one of his studies (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040503), is that the Ache Indians of Paraguay had low levels of leptin and of testosterone compared to Westerners. Leptin is probably the hormone most related to obesity, while testosterone is related to muscle mass.

Although leptin would not be an anabolic hormone itself, the condition known as leptin resistance (common in obese people) would be.

It seems that the catabolic tendency in the Ache, possibly related to their long-term cardiovascular physical activity, would lead them to reduce their anabolic processes and maintain an adequate weight without necessarily having to burn more calories after completing 24 hours.

Low levels of leptin are an indication that they do not have resistance to leptin and that their anabolic processes related to fat sequestration, therefore, are within the appropriate balance. Similarly, we noticed that relatively low levels of testosterone are related to fewer anabolic processes related to muscle mass gain.

In summary, here we have other evidence within a study that maintains that the Hadza, despite spending more calories doing physical activity, do not spend many more calories in 24 hours, that it is anabolic and catabolic processes that make the difference in body weight at a metabolic level and not metabolic acceleration as previously thought.