Theory of Weight Set Point: Should we be shooing to LOWER our BMR?

(Ethan) #1

WARNING: Algebraic-based theories will be expressed in this post!

I have often pondered about @richard’s theory that the body maintains a weight set point based on its ability to pull from fat from stores:

Let x be the number of Calories your body can reduce its BMR to when fasting
Your body will strive to keep storage of y pounds of fat such it can draw x Calories from that fat for z days of fasting.

This cab be summaries with an relationship equation:

x = ayz,

where a is a constant (less than 1) based on your chronic/fasting insulin level and determines how much of your fat storage is actually available to you. For simplicity, we can set z to 1 to get

x = ay.

The goal here is to minimize y, which is how much fat you keep stored on your body. To do this, @richard has focused on the supply-side of the equation. That is, he has discussed maximizing a by lowering insulin levels so that more fat is available for burning. However, there is also a demand aspect to the equation: Minimizing x also has the effect of minimizing y. That is, since x is directly related to your basal metabolic rate (BMR), you can minimize your fat storage (y) by reducing your Caloric demand. You should be able to lose weight by reducing your need–reducing your BMR!

I am curious what the @dudes, Dr. Fung, and @meganjramos think about that theory.

(Banting & Yudkin & Atkins & Eadeses & Cordain & Taubes & Volek & Naiman & Bikman ) #2

I think your equation is a flawed model.

Reducing your BMR will never burn more fat.

(Ethan) #3

Can you provide a little more information? The formula suggests that reducing BMR would reduce demand for stored fat, and your body would draw down fat stores. Yes, you still need to eat less for that to happen, but it seems reasonable from a hypothetical standpoint. You can eat a lot less, your BMR goes down, your body needs less storage of fat, your body reduces stored fat levels. This also depends on the original assumption that your body keeps fat storage based on insulin levels and caloric requirements.

(Banting & Yudkin & Atkins & Eadeses & Cordain & Taubes & Volek & Naiman & Bikman ) #4

If the goal is to minimize Y, Y should be the dependent variable, by itself, on one side of the equation.

At no point will reducing your basal metabolic rate increase X in relation to Y.

Now, these poor souls were not ketogenic dieters:

Screen%20Shot%202016-05-02%20at%2010.28.17%20AM.jpg436×512 27.9 KB

They were Biggest Loser contestants.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oby.21538

Of the 16 “Biggest Loser” competitors originally investigated, 14 participated in this follow‐up study. Weight loss at the end of the competition was (mean ± SD) 58.3 ± 24.9 kg (P < 0.0001), and RMR decreased by 610 ± 483 kcal/day (P = 0.0004). After 6 years, 41.0 ± 31.3 kg of the lost weight was regained (P = 0.0002), while RMR was 704 ± 427 kcal/day below baseline (P < 0.0001)

That’s probably not where we want to go.

(Ethan) #5

What side of the equation y is on isn’t really relevant. We can restate it that way anyway:

y = x/a

Now y is the dependent variable. We can approach this the same way: minimize y by maximizing a, the ability to pull fat from storage, or minimizing x, a function of your BMR.

Theoretically, reducing your BMR reduces the demand for fat storage under the initial assumption that your body holds onto storage necessary to keep some level of caloric draw when fasting.

This theory all came from my thoughts on Richard’s theory. I began to wonder why I reduced my insulin, but stalled and stopped losing weight. I can lose 20 pounds in a fast, but I am gaining it all back afterwards–complete stall. I posited that it may be because my BMR is now so high that my body purposely keeps a very high weight/fat storage set point to offset its perceived requirement.

(Doug) #6

Ethan, interesting thought. To what extent our bodies have a ‘mind’ like that seems very mysterious to me, along with all the other many variables that may be affecting things, there. If it’s like, “We have to be good for so many days, just in case,” then I could see it.

I see age as being a huge thing, here - when much younger and with a vastly higher BMR, very little fat was in storage. My brother and I were really skinny kids; brutally so compared to kids today in the U.S.

(Ethan) #7

@OldDoug, age is accounted for in the variable a. As you age, you might lose the ability to extract the fat from storage efficiently. Then you will store more fat, too.

(Doug) #8

Agreed, Ethan - I’m just saying that a may be profoundly variable itself here, perhaps to the point of swamping any “lower BMR means lower fat storage requirements” effect. Man, I am sounding like a real grouch - I don’t mean to be overly argumentative (I love this stuff and our “set point” has always been of great interest to me).

I was also thinking that it’s likely not a linear relationship, even if your posited effect operates. Aaaacckkkk! We’re going to eat oysters and my wife is pressing me like a maniac…

(Banting & Yudkin & Atkins & Eadeses & Cordain & Taubes & Volek & Naiman & Bikman ) #9

I’d be curious if you can find any bit of literature that associates lower BMR with better fat burning.

(Ethan) #10

I’m having trouble understanding the issue. Nobody said anything about superior fat burning.

(Banting & Yudkin & Atkins & Eadeses & Cordain & Taubes & Volek & Naiman & Bikman ) #11

I guess I’m unclear on the whole question. Lowering BMR has never really been shown to be advanatageous, vis a vis weight loss, AFAIK. BUT, I don’t claim to know even a sizable fraction of everything.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #12

Seems to me that we would want to increase our BMR, not minimize it. When the body has enough energy coming in, it is not averse to wasting energy by metabolizing fat in excess of perceived requirement. It is when the energy supply gets tight and incoming calories are restricted that the body responds by reducing BMR and hanging on to its fat stores, no? At least this is how I’ve learned it from the good folks on these forums.

(Ethan) #13

That’s exactly what we all think…but science is about being objective. Given the initial assumption that the body creates a set point for weight based on insulin levels and the ability to go some time without food, we know there are two parts to the story: insulin levels and BMR. The good folks here have only considered the first part in this idea.

(Ethan) #14

And that may be true. It would also be a counter to @richard’s theory then.

(Banting & Yudkin & Atkins & Eadeses & Cordain & Taubes & Volek & Naiman & Bikman ) #15

As I understand Richard’s theory, it’s that the insulin resistance of folks who are stalled has reached equilibrium with their fasting glucose/insulin. I find this theory to work for a good number of stalls, and unrelated to basal metabolic rate. The stall breaker in a case where Richard’s theory is correct would be to do something to either A: lower fasting glucose/insulin (hard) or B: increase insulin sensitivity of the fat cells.

Woo Hoo… I found Charles Poliquin after my 8 year hiatus from giving Fs about my health:

http://main.poliquingroup.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/1267/Nine_Things_that_Improve_Insulin_Sensitivity_Accel.aspx

I talk about the stall I had back at the end of 2006 into 2007, where I was 232.5-230 for about 3 months whenever anyone asks about stall breaking. I changed up a lot of things, but if I was stalled due to Richard’s theory and we look at the Poliquin Group’s advice linked above,
I was already doing the workouts in #1, the diet in #3, the fat intake and omega balance in #6, and eliminated liquid fructose in #9. I had also largely eliminated higher carb foods, so recooking starches was a loser.

What I did do that would work under Richard’s theory was: increasing magnesium in a ZMA supplement stack, and ate some foods that helped improve my insulin sensitivity. From his list, green tea, almonds, lime juice, and cinnamon.

I guess where I’m unclear is how Richard’s theory factors basal metabolism at all. I think that’s where the flaw in the equation is. Perhaps I have misunderstood Richard’s theory of stalls.

(Adam Kirby) #16

This is exactly my interpretation of his theory.

(Ethan) #17

But he has several times said that in these cases, the body holds onto fat storage so that it has sufficient access to pull some amount of fat for some time of fasting. That in itself is directly related to basal metabolic rate.

(Banting & Yudkin & Atkins & Eadeses & Cordain & Taubes & Volek & Naiman & Bikman ) #18

Hmmm… we’re back to a sentient body there… but even allowing some form of sentience and future proofing, I just don’t think it works the way you are thinking, as a straight equation. We’re dealing with hormones here. Lowering demand for calories will not increase utilization. But we’re in CICO land there.

(Liz ) #19

I think I’ve heard almost everything @richard has said on the topic and I have not heard him say that. Can you cite?

(Ethan) #20

I’d have to relisten to every episode to pull the citations, but he has said he theorizes that the body seems to maintain fat storage to be able to have calories for 1 day of fasting. I disagreed with the 1 day, but I think it was more arbitrary than anything else.

EDIT: I believe he also mentioned that this is why the body maintains so much mass with high insulin levels. He talked about it being a defense mechanism from famine. With high insulin levels, you cannot access the fat, so it needs to have more of the fat to give you caloric access.