Catia Martins1,2,3, Jessica Roekenes4, Barbara A Gower5, Gary R Hunter5. 1. Obesity Research Group, Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Forsyningssenteret, Prinsesse Kristinas Gate 5, 7030, Trondheim, Norway. catia.martins@ntnu.no. 2. Centre for Obesity and Innovation (ObeCe), Clinic of Surgery, St. Olav University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. catia.martins@ntnu.no. 3. Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama At Birmingham, Birmingham, USA. catia.martins@ntnu.no. 4. Obesity Research Group, Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Forsyningssenteret, Prinsesse Kristinas Gate 5, 7030, Trondheim, Norway. 5. Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama At Birmingham, Birmingham, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The practical relevance of metabolic adaptation remains a controversial issue. To the best of our knowledge, no study has properly evaluated the role of metabolic adaptation in modulating weight loss outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the association between metabolic adaptation, at the level of resting metabolic rate (RMR), and weight and fat mass (FM) loss after low-energy diets (LED), after adjusting for dietary adherence and other confounders. METHODS:71 individuals with obesity (BMI: 34.6 ± 3.4 kg/m2; age: 45.4 ± 8.2 years; 33 males) were randomized to one of three 1000 kcal/day diets for 8 weeks. Body weight, FM and fat-free mass (FFM) (air displacement plethysmography), RMR (indirect calorimetry) and physical activity level (PAL) (armbands) were measured at baseline and at week 9. Metabolic adaptation at week 9 was defined as measured RMR minus predicted RMR at week 9. An equation to predict RMR was derived from baseline data of all participants that were part of this analysis and included age, sex, FM and FFM as predictors. Dietary adherence was calculated from RMR, PAL and body composition changes. Linear regression was used to assess the potential role of metabolic adaptation in predicting weight and FM loss after adjusting for dietary adherence, average PAL, sex, baseline FM and FFM and randomization group. RESULTS:Participants lost on average 14 ± 4 kg of body weight (13 ± 3%) and presented with metabolic adaptation (-92 ± 110 kcal/day, P < 0.001). Metabolic adaptation was a significant predictor of both weight (β = -0.009, P < 0.001) and FM loss (β = -0.008, P < 0.001), even after adjusting for confounders (R2 = 0.88, 0.93, respectively, P < 0.001 for both). On average, an increase in metabolic adaptation of 50 kcal/day was associated with a 0.5 kg lower weight and FM loss in response to the LED. CONCLUSION: In individuals with obesity, metabolic adaptation at the level of RMR is associated with less weight and FM loss in response to LED. Trial registration ID: NCT02944253.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The practical relevance of metabolic adaptation remains a controversial issue. To the best of our knowledge, no study has properly evaluated the role of metabolic adaptation in modulating weight loss outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the association between metabolic adaptation, at the level of resting metabolic rate (RMR), and weight and fat mass (FM) loss after low-energy diets (LED), after adjusting for dietary adherence and other confounders. METHODS: 71 individuals with obesity (BMI: 34.6 ± 3.4 kg/m2; age: 45.4 ± 8.2 years; 33 males) were randomized to one of three 1000 kcal/day diets for 8 weeks. Body weight, FM and fat-free mass (FFM) (air displacement plethysmography), RMR (indirect calorimetry) and physical activity level (PAL) (armbands) were measured at baseline and at week 9. Metabolic adaptation at week 9 was defined as measured RMR minus predicted RMR at week 9. An equation to predict RMR was derived from baseline data of all participants that were part of this analysis and included age, sex, FM and FFM as predictors. Dietary adherence was calculated from RMR, PAL and body composition changes. Linear regression was used to assess the potential role of metabolic adaptation in predicting weight and FM loss after adjusting for dietary adherence, average PAL, sex, baseline FM and FFM and randomization group. RESULTS:Participants lost on average 14 ± 4 kg of body weight (13 ± 3%) and presented with metabolic adaptation (-92 ± 110 kcal/day, P < 0.001). Metabolic adaptation was a significant predictor of both weight (β = -0.009, P < 0.001) and FM loss (β = -0.008, P < 0.001), even after adjusting for confounders (R2 = 0.88, 0.93, respectively, P < 0.001 for both). On average, an increase in metabolic adaptation of 50 kcal/day was associated with a 0.5 kg lower weight and FM loss in response to the LED. CONCLUSION: In individuals with obesity, metabolic adaptation at the level of RMR is associated with less weight and FM loss in response to LED. Trial registration ID: NCT02944253.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adaptive thermogenesis; Metabolic adaptation; Resting metabolic rate; Weight loss
Authors: Fernando Vidal-Ostos; Omar Ramos-Lopez; Susan A Jebb; Angeliki Papadaki; Andreas F H Pfeiffer; Teodora Handjieva-Darlenska; Marie Kunešová; Ellen E Blaak; Arne Astrup; J Alfredo Martinez Journal: Nutr Metab (Lond) Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Collin J Popp; Boyan Zhou; Michaele B Manigrasso; Huilin Li; Margaret Curran; Lu Hu; David E St-Jules; José O Alemán; Sally M Vanegas; Melanie Jay; Michael Bergman; Eran Segal; Mary A Sevick; Ann M Schmidt Journal: Curr Dev Nutr Date: 2022-03-29