In the wake of the recent The Biggest Loser Regain study, there has been a lot of doom-and-gloom reporting, led by Gina Kolata and Sandra Aamodt in the New York Times. I've distilled the results down to the bare bones:
|Summarized from Table 1 from Fothergill et.al. 14 Contestants (6 Men , 8 Women)|
The "alarming outcome" was that resting metabolic rate was reduced as might be expected, but seemingly remained suppressed and even further declined despite significant re-gain (70% re-gain/loss for the mean) after 6 years. However the TEEs -- the TOTAL energy expenditures for the day -- tell a different tale. These were measured over a roughly two week period by doubly labeled water in free-living conditions.
- The TEEs remained high at 30 weeks
- The TEEs increased with concomitant re-gain
And most importantly of all to the big picture
- The TEEs are substantial ... averaging over 3000 calories per day at all time points in a study group that is 43% male, 57% female.
This post is about the RMR and TEE data from another study looking at discrepancies in weight status and reported intake. When compared to predictions from regression lines (similar method as used in Fothergill) the relative RMR did not track to relative TEE.
- It's TEE that matters when considering caloric intake for weight goals.
- Using generally predicted RMRs to set individual total energy intake goals is somewhat "foolproof".