Dataset Information

Metabolic adaptation is associated with less weight and fat mass loss in response to low-energy diets.

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.

SUBMITTER: Martins C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8196522 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of isocaloric, energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate ketogenic (VLCK) and low-fat (LF) diets on weight loss, body composition, trunk fat mass, and resting energy expenditure (REE) in overweight/obese men and women. DESIGN: Randomized, balanced, two diet period clinical intervention study. Subjects were prescribed two energy-restricted (-500 kcal/day) diets: a VLCK diet with a goal to decrease carbohydrate levels below 10% of energy and induce ketosis and a LF diet with a goal similar to national recommendations (%carbohydrate:fat:protein = ~60:25:15%). SUBJECTS: 15 healthy, overweight/obese men (mean +/- s.e.m.: age 33.2 +/- 2.9 y, body mass 109.1 +/- 4.6 kg, body mass index 34.1 +/- 1.1 kg/m2) and 13 premenopausal women (age 34.0 +/- 2.4 y, body mass 76.3 +/- 3.6 kg, body mass index 29.6 +/- 1.1 kg/m2). MEASUREMENTS: Weight loss, body composition, trunk fat (by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), and resting energy expenditure (REE) were determined at baseline and after each diet intervention. Data were analyzed for between group differences considering the first diet phase only and within group differences considering the response to both diets within each person. RESULTS: Actual nutrient intakes from food records during the VLCK (%carbohydrate:fat:protein = ~9:63:28%) and the LF (~58:22:20%) were significantly different. Dietary energy was restricted, but was slightly higher during the VLCK (1855 kcal/day) compared to the LF (1562 kcal/day) diet for men. Both between and within group comparisons revealed a distinct advantage of a VLCK over a LF diet for weight loss, total fat loss, and trunk fat loss for men (despite significantly greater energy intake). The majority of women also responded more favorably to the VLCK diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss. The greater reduction in trunk fat was not merely due to the greater total fat loss, because the ratio of trunk fat/total fat was also significantly reduced during the VLCK diet in men and women. Absolute REE (kcal/day) was decreased with both diets as expected, but REE expressed relative to body mass (kcal/kg), was better maintained on the VLCK diet for men only. Individual responses clearly show the majority of men and women experience greater weight and fat loss on a VLCK than a LF diet. CONCLUSION: This study shows a clear benefit of a VLCK over LF diet for short-term body weight and fat loss, especially in men. A preferential loss of fat in the trunk region with a VLCK diet is novel and potentially clinically significant but requires further validation. These data provide additional support for the concept of metabolic advantage with diets representing extremes in macronutrient distribution.

Project description:BackgroundWeight loss reduces body fat and lean mass, but whether these changes are influenced by macronutrient composition of the diet is unclear.ObjectiveWe determined whether energy-reduced diets that emphasize fat, protein, or carbohydrate differentially reduce total, visceral, or hepatic fat or preserve lean mass.DesignIn a subset of participants in a randomized trial of 4 weight-loss diets, body fat and lean mass (n = 424; by using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) and abdominal and hepatic fat (n = 165; by using computed tomography) were measured after 6 mo and 2 y. Changes from baseline were compared between assigned amounts of protein (25% compared with 15%) and fat (40% compared with 20%) and across 4 carbohydrate amounts (35% through 65%).ResultsAt 6 mo, participants lost a mean (±SEM) of 4.2 ± 0.3 kg (12.4%) fat and 2.1 ± 0.3 kg (3.5%) lean mass (both P < 0.0001 compared with baseline values), with no differences between 25% and 15% protein (P ≥ 0.10), 40% and 20% fat (P ≥ 0.34), or 65% and 35% carbohydrate (P ≥ 0.27). Participants lost 2.3 ± 0.2 kg (13.8%) abdominal fat: 1.5 ± 0.2 kg (13.6%) subcutaneous fat and 0.9 ± 0.1 kg (16.1%) visceral fat (all P < 0.0001 compared with baseline values), with no differences between the diets (P ≥ 0.29). Women lost more visceral fat than did men relative to total-body fat loss. Participants regained ~40% of these losses by 2 y, with no differences between diets (P ≥ 0.23). Weight loss reduced hepatic fat, but there were no differences between groups (P ≥ 0.28). Dietary goals were not fully met; self-reported contrasts were closer to 2% protein, 8% fat, and 14% carbohydrate at 6 mo and 1%, 7%, and 10%, respectively, at 2 y.ConclusionParticipants lost more fat than lean mass after consumption of all diets, with no differences in changes in body composition, abdominal fat, or hepatic fat between assigned macronutrient amounts. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00072995.