Women Physicians Weigh In

The Biggest Loser Study: Overrated???

As many know, I now specialize in treating obesity. In the last couple of years, another physician started selling a book promoting fasting. Within the book are accusations that calorie restriction hurts people, a source he leans on to make this argument is the “biggest loser study.” This accusation has been in the back of my mind for a while now. But I have not been able to put a finger on exactly why it is wrong. What specifically is wrong? How was it that I even used calorie restriction to lose a good 80lbs lbs (the last 20 using nutritional ketosis), yet my metabolic rate is normal? I think I now have a better grasp of the discrepancies. So here we go… 

Please keep in mind, I believe in “adaptive metabolic changes” in response to weight loss. I write this article to look at whether the “biggest loser study” can be used to make the argument one method (like fasting) is better than calorie restriction. Or really is it that all methods are the same; that really metabolic changes are due to the actual weight loss/loss of fat mass (usually more than 10%) not due to the way/method in which a person loses weight (eg calorie restriction, fasting, keto, etc). 

Two studies evaluated these contestants: 
The 1st: evaluated them at them from day 1 of the competition to week 30.
The 2nd: evaluated them out to 6 years beyond the end of the competition. Study 1:
Johannsen DL, et al. JCEM 2012;97:2489‐96. N= 16 contestants
Average baseline BMI = 49.4
7 males, 9 women
They exercised 90min a day 6 days a week at a vigorous intensity
All consumed about 70% of their baseline requirements.
Each contestant had different metabolic measurements taken, each value point was monitored through time.

***(Truthfully, I could probably stop here since just looking at this study’s methods we know this is not a study comparing different types of diets; this study looks at people with Class III obesity and how their bodies reacted to losing a massive amount of weight in a relatively short amount of time WHILE ALSO undergoing a vigorous exercise routine. But I’ve put too much time into this so let’s keep going.)***

By week 30: Average weight went from 328lbs to 199.7lbs 
(ie the ave wt loss was ~128lbs over ~7 months)
Note: 
Gastric bypass surgery MAY lead to a weight loss of 60-80% over a 12 to even an 18month period
Gastric sleeve may lose 60 to 70%over a 12-18 month period
When they remeasured the RMR(resting metabolic rate):

First, we need to review RMR:

The potential problem with this equation: the equation used was discovered using data comparing different WEIGHT NEUTRAL people of different BMIs and different lean body masses. Weight neutral, meaning the people used to create this equation were not people who had undergone a recent weight loss, like these contestants. 

The equation to calculate “predicted” RMR:

RMR predicted (Cal/day) = 1,001 + 21.2 X FFM(kg) +1.4 X FM(kg) – 7.1 X age(yr) + 276 X sex(F=0, M=1).

 -I don’t think a calculation made to predict RMR in WEIGHT NEUTRAL ppl should be applied to people who are now biologically different due to a significant weight loss.  And not only did they lose weight, these contestants lost a significant amount of weight never really seen before in a short amount of time WHILE also undergoing an extensive strenuous exercise routine.

 – The way I see it, using this equation is a study flaw. It’s comparing apples to oranges; sure they are all fruit (humans), but they are different biologically speaking. 

-If the biggest loser study had calculated each individual’s RMR using a standard method like indirect calorimetry (not just some plug and chug generalized equation) and compared those results to another group’s RMR who lost a similar amount of weight via another method (like fasting or surgery or calorie restriction) , then this study could be used to discuss the pros and cons of different methods. As this later type of study would now be comparing navel orange to valencia oranges….ie comparing endpoints after a significant weight loss in people who used different methods to lose that weight. But no,  this study is looking at is the existence of our bodies ability to change it’s metabolic rate, it is in no way evaluating if one method will have a different level of metabolic adaption compared to another method.

Study #2

n=14

Results:

  ***Wow, wait:

   -at baseline RMR was 2,607 and TEE 3,804

   -at 30 weeks RMR was 1,996 and TEE 3,002

    -at 6 years their RMR was 1900 but TEE was 3,429???

  Very strange: as their RMR went down there TEE went down but then up??? 

Anyway… let’s go to other issues:

Difference in methodology used to calculate RMR at 30 weeks and 6 years

A quote from the study: “We cannot rule out the possibility that the original Max II cart became more accurate at the time of testing compared with 6 years earlier, but this seems unlikely.” 

Variability:

It would have been nice to know more details about the variability seen between the contestants. I was not able to find a published list showing each individuals specific changes over time. I imagine for privacy reasons. 

 In conclusion:

This study does support the idea of “metabolic adaption.” However I don’t see anything in this study that points to calorie restriction as being the culprit for the change. 

Can this study really be compared to “normal” methods of weight loss?

All food for thought 😉

 

Some sources:

https://www.upmc.com/services/bariatrics/surgery-process/surgery-options/bypass-vs-sleeve

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.21538

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1957828?dopt=Abstract

Rosenbaum M et al. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Physiol 20

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2305711?dopt=Abstract

Exit mobile version