Interesting study of weighted vests


(Bob M) #1

This group got the idea that weight loading caused an increase in “leptin-independent homeostatic regulation, the gravitostat, of body weight” for rodents. So, they did an RCT with weighted vests for humans. One group wore heavier (11% body weight) and one group wore lighter (1% body weight) vests. And the group wearing the heavier vests lost more weight.

(I can see the CICO folks coming out of the woodwork for this one…but there’s no way to know if it was more calories burnt, a higher “gravitostat”, or both.)


(Bacon by any other name would taste just as great.) #2

Well, obviously, if they lost weight, then they had to be taking in less food than they were metabolising. Even us hormonal-regulation-model folks agree on that point. The question is how they got into weight-loss mode. This is an intriguing study, though I’m not sure I would put too much faith in the conclusion. One possible explanation is that hauling around more weight requires more energy expenditure, but the question then arises about why the rats didn’t compensate for the higher expenditure by increasing their intake. (Normal, healthy rats generally don’t over- or under-eat, if their diet is properly balanced—this is the personal experience of every rat owner.)


(Joey) #3

Taken out of context, this might suggest that the more obese we become, the more weight we should lose… all else equal, hauling around more weight requires more energy expenditure. :wink:

Another possible explanation: Wearing a heaver weight vest helps you reach your “target” weight without having to add body fat. Since you’ve already achieved your target, you can just excrete the excess calories. :roll_eyes:

A third explanation: The rats are clearly messing with our heads. That’s why they’re called rats. :rat:


(Bacon by any other name would taste just as great.) #4

This is true, actually. You need more muscle to haul around hundreds of pounds of excess fat than you do to haul around the normal 12% body fat that a guy has, or the normal 21-23% that a woman normally carries. The problem is that your hormones are requiring the storage of a great deal of unneeded fat, and the metabolism is not free to draw on any of that excess fat, until serum insulin drops low enough to permit it. This, I suspect, is just another of the reasons that obese people are hungrier than lean people (in addition to all the disruption of the appetite hormones by insulin, I mean). But as we shed all that excess fat, we also shed some of the muscle we needed to carry it around. This is not unhealthy muscle loss, however.

Rats are very sweet, loving creatures. But that doesn’t mean they are averse to messing with our heads, as any rat-owner can tell you, lol! :rat::rofl:


(Joey) #5

[Low pitched soothing voice] The story of a boy… his dream… and his beloved rat…


(Bob M) #6

A point of clarification: The study was done on HUMANS. Not rats.

They did a previous study on rats, which led them to try a study on humans.

I think it’s true that if you’re heavier, you will have a higher TEE (see link below for definition), and if you’re lighter, you’ll have a smaller TEE. This is what makes any measurement of this fraught with error: you have to take this into account.

The theory behind the study is that you have a “set point” that takes this into account: as you get heavier, you burn more calories. They gave weighted vests to humans to try and test this. (Note: too bad they didn’t use DEXA scans. Or put them in one of those metabolic chambers. Probably too much money.) And the humans with the heavier vests lost more fat mass.

Anyway, I find studies like this interesting. Not only have I asked for a cold vest for Christmas (would use this to active brown fat), but I could add some weights and see what happens.

If we ignore extra calories (likely to be tiny, see link below) from carrying the vest, it’s possible there is an increase in TEE. Whether that’s caused by a “set point” or not is hard to tell.

Link for TEE:


#7

Question is, does my 20lb baby that is continually around neck count as a weight vest? :rofl:

Seriously though I swear carrying babies has done 10x’s more than all the squats I ever did because, I think, its constant…


(Bob M) #8

So, I have a stand up desk. It keeps track of how much I stand up and sit down, and estimates calories burnt. It tells me I’ve burnt something like 700 calories/day because I stand instead of sit. How accurate is that? It’s not.

But if you weigh 200 pounds, they gave you a vest weighing 22 pounds. How many calories would you burn wearing such a vest? Near to zero, I suspect. And why wouldn’t your body compensate for that when you weren’t wearing the vest, if the calories were high?

If you look at the Dr. Fung article, they did a study with kids. Some went to gym class, some did not. Which one exercised more? It was the same. How can that be? The kids who exercised did less when not exercising. The kids who didn’t go to the gym went home and did more.

Your body isn’t stupid. There’s only so many calories to go around.


(Joey) #9

Understood. Sorry to have sidetracked the thread. It is an interesting study. Thanks for posting :+1:


#10

IDk how much science there is behind it but there is a guy named Cole on youtube, he was interviewed by Mikhaila Peterson and he talks about “Snake Walking” which is a gimmicky name for don’t sit down basically. He tells really overweight people to fast and to never sit down as a weight loss strategy…his Instagram is full of results. Its hard to know though maybe how much is down to their never sitting vs the fasting. Warning if you google him: Cole is very rude.


#11

Omigosh! Is he!

Everybody has to earn a living somehow. :woman_shrugging:

NB: He is not selling “Snake Oil” but rather “Snake Juice” (electrolyte powder)