Energy-intake restriction and diet-composition

effects on energy expenditure in men1’2

William V Rumpler, James L Seale, Carolyn W Miles, and CE Bodwell3

ABSTRACT Eight men were fed at maintenance for 2 wk, of diet composition to body composition in which lowering fat
followed by 4 wk at 50% of maintenance, then 1 wk at mainte- level in an individual’s diet should result in a lowering of body

Downloaded from www.ajcn.org at Univ of Colorado Hlth Sci Ctr Denison Mem Lib on September 29, 2007
nance. The diets were formulated to contain either 40% or 20% fatness. This is supported by reports that long-term maintenance
ofenergy from fat. Daily energy expenditure (24-h EE) was de- of individuals on low-fat diets results in a lowering of body fat-
termined by indirect calorimetry at the end ofthe 2-wk mainte- ness (12).
nance period; on days 1, 7, and 28 of reduced energy intake; The aim ofthis study was to determine the effect of reduction
and on days 1 and 7 of refeeding. During the reduced-energy in energy intake and the interaction with diet composition on
period, body weight decreased from 96.6 to 91.5 kg and body energy expenditure, efficiency of dietary energy use for mainte-
fat decreased from 30.4% to 27.7%. There were no significant nance, substrate use, and the composition of weight loss.
differences in 24-h EE or energy requirements per unit body
weight due to diet composition or weight loss. Maintenance me-
Subjects and methods
tabolizable-energy (ME) requirement averaged 3 1.0 kcal/kg body
wt. Overall, the efficiency of ME use relative to body stores was Eight male, moderately overweight subjects were selected from
0.87 and was greater for high-fat than for low-fat diets. There the general population. They averaged 39 y ofage, 18 1 .4 cm in
was some evidence ofan increase in the efficiency ofenergy use height, 96.6 kg in body weight, and 28% body fat when they
ofbody stores after weight loss. Substrate use reflected diet corn- started the study (Table 1). Each subject consumed three meals
position and energy-balance status independent of changes in per day provided by the Human Nutrition Research Center Diet
body composition. Am J Clin Nutr 199 l;53:430-6. Study Facility (DSF) for the duration of the study.
The high-fat diet was formulated to provide a composition
KEY WORDS Nutritional adaptation, energy metabolism, representative of diets normally consumed by the American
body composition, caloric restriction, diet composition population (1 3). It consisted of 14% of metabolizable energy
(ME) from protein, 40% from fat, and the balance from car-
bohydrate. The low-fat diet (14% from protein, 20% ofME from
Introduction
fat) was formulated to reduce the total energy intake from fat
Body fat amounts greater than ideal have both negative health by half. Subjects were permitted to consume only the food pro-
consequences (1) and social stigmas. The primary goal of re- vided by the DSF. The experimental protocol was approved by
striction ofenergy intake is the reduction in body fat mass. This the Human Studies Committee of the US Department of Agri-
is followed by the desire to maintain the body at this lowered culture-ARS.
body fatness. Cases ofindividuals seemingly resistant to slimming Four subjects consumed the high-fat and four, the low-fat diet
or unable to maintain weight loss after leaving prescribed pro- during the study. The ME value ofeach diet had been determined
grams are numerous (2). Suggested explanations for the inability in a separate study, on 42 men, by a 7-d total collection of food,
ofcertain individuals to either lose fat or maintain fat loss usually feces, and urine (14). Six of the subjects in the present study
include low metabolic rates and greater efficiency of use of diet had previously participated in long-term studies in which they
energy. Obese or postobese individuals may have lower metabolic were fed to maintain body weight. The ME intake of these pre-
rates than their lean counterparts (3-5). A lowered metabolic vious studies was used as the maintenance level of this study.
rate would result in lower maintenance energy requirements
and an apparent increase in the efficiency of energy use. This
would contribute to an ease ofweight gain or resistance to slim- I From the US Department ofAgriculture, Agricultural Research 5cr-
ming. A lowering ofmetabolic rate may be an adaptation mech- vice, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Energy and Protein
Nutrition Laboratory, Beltsville, MD.
anism to conserve energy in response to prolonged conditions
2 Address reprint requests to WV Rumpler, US Department of Agri-
of negative energy balance (6-8). Therefore, in an attempt to
culture, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Energy and Protein
reduce body fatness, individuals who restrict energy intake may
Nutrition Laboratory, Room 206, Building 308, BARC-East, Beltsville,
increase their resistance to further slimming and increase the MD 20705.
likelihood of regaining lost weight. Deceased.
Another factor contributing to degree of body fatness may be Received July 17, 1989.
diet composition. Several papers (9-11) suggested a relationship Accepted for publication May 10, 1990.

430 Am iC/in Nuir 199 l;53:430-6. Printed in USA. © 1991 American Society for Clinical Nutrition
 EE AND ENERGY-INTAKE RESTRICTION 431

TABLE 1 addition, two subjects who had not been in the calorimeter for
Physical characteristics of subjects during initial maintenance period at least one previous 24-h period were measured in the chamber
before weight reduction an extra time, during the initial maintenance period.
EE was calculated by the formula described by Weir (16) and
Subject number Age Body weight Height Body fat
rates of use of substrates (carbohydrate, protein, and fat) were
y kg cm % calculated by use ofthe equations described by Consolazio et al
(17). These formulas use the daily production ofcarbon dioxide,
High-fat-diet group
I 47 93 178 32 consumption of oxygen, and excretion of urinary nitrogen
2 38 103 196 32 [Kjeldahl ( 1 8) A/SN Kjel-Foss automatic 162 10 analyzer, Foss
3 52 111 180 38 Electric, Hillerod, Denmarki. The formulas of Weir (16) and
4 35 73 166 27 Consolazio et al (17) differ slightly in the assumptions about the
Low-fat-diet group oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production associated
1 37 77 171 33 with substrate oxidation. This results in a small difference, < 2%,
2 41 105 187 26
in the calculation ofEE directly from oxygen and carbon dioxide
3 35 118 184 37

Downloaded from www.ajcn.org at Univ of Colorado Hlth Sci Ctr Denison Mem Lib on September 29, 2007
values or from substrate-oxidation values. For purposes of sub-
4 25 93 189 19
strate use and balance calculations, diet composition (fat, protein,
and carbohydrate) was estimated from Watt and Merrill (19).
No attempt was made to adjust the oxidation equations for dif-

The 24-h energy expenditure (24-h EE) ofthe two subjects who
ferences between diet and body composition, as suggested by

had not participated in a previous study was measured in a Garlick (20). This was because of the incomplete information

Beltsville room calorimeter (1 5) before the study. The mainte- available on amino acid, fatty acids, and sugar composition of
nance level ofME intake was estimated as 1 10% ofthe 24-h EE. a wide variety ofcomponents in the diet. Although several papers
This estimate was based on previous measurements (1 5) in which (20-23) point out that estimates of substrate-use rates derived
EE measurements were made on individuals on long-term from generalized equations may be subject to appreciable errors,
weight-maintenance studies. The lower EE in the chamber than depending on the composition of the diet, several workers (9,
when free-living is presumed to be a function ofthe confinement 1 1, 24-26) have obtained acceptable substrate-use estimates by
and a reduction in physical activity. All subjects were fed at employing equations similar to those used in this study.
maintenance energy intake for 2 wk. Thereafter, energy intake Subjects entered the calorimeter at 0800 and remained for
was reduced to 50% ofmaintenance for 4 wk and then increased 23.5 h. Initial and final gas compositions ofthe air in the chamber
to maintenance for 1 wk. were recorded. Data on gas composition and air flow were col-
Twenty-four-hour EE was determined by indirect calorimetry lected for the entire time the subject was in the chamber (15).
by use of the Beltsville room calorimeter. Six measurements The 23.5-h measured EE was corrected for differences in initial
were made on each subject (Fig 1): at the end of the first 2-wk and final gas composition in the chamber and for excretion of
maintenance period just before energy restriction (day 0); on urinary nitrogen, and then was adjusted to 24-h EE.
days 1, 7, and 28 of energy restriction; and on days 1 (day 29) While in the calorimeter, each subject followed the same ac-
and 7 (day 35) after return to maintenance energy intake. In tivity protocol (15), which included 4 h of desk work, 1.5 h of

100
Q)
0
C
0
C
Q)

C
0
:
0

50
ci)
0
C

>‘

ci)
C

0
-14 01 7 2829 35

Day of Experiment
Calorimeter Days LA A AA A
Body Composition A A

FIG 1 . Summary of experimental protocol, including intake levels and days of energy-expenditure and body-com-
position determinations.
432 RUMPLER ET AL

TABLE 2
Body weight, metabolizable energy (ME) intake, 24-h energy expenditure (24-h EE), basal EE, exercise EE, respiratory quotient (RQ), and urine
nitrogen of men before, during, and after weight loss fed high- or low-fat diets, by day of experiment

DayO Day I Day7 Day28 Day29 Day 35

High-fat diet
Weight(kg) 97±8 97±8 94±8 92±8 91±8 91±8
ME intake (kcal/d) 3095 ± 94 1538 ± 49 1538 ± 49 1542 ± 49 3073 ± 94 3076 ± 94
24-h EE (kcal/d) 2902 ± 160” 2872 ± l5l . 2867 ± 147’’ 2759 ± 130k’ 2988 ± 139k 298 ± 156’
EE,,,(kcal/d) 1884 ± 95’ 1773 ± 95’ 1704 ± 94#{176}” 1673 ± 93C 1826 ± 98’’ 1782 ± 95
EEez,ci.(kca1) 276±61 303± 14 355±26 343±37 323±34 350±30
RQ (C02/02) 0.860 ± 0.003’ 0.835 ± 0.003k’ 0.804 ± 0.006c 0.822 ± 0.012c 0.837 ± 0.009k’ 0.871 ± 0.012’
Urinenitrogen(g/d) 13±1 11±1 10±1 10±1 11±1 12±2
Low-fat diet
Weight(kg) 99±9 99±9 97±9 93±8 93±8 94±8

Downloaded from www.ajcn.org at Univ of Colorado Hlth Sci Ctr Denison Mem Lib on September 29, 2007
ME intake(kcal/d) 3182 ± 100 1594 ± 50 1590 ± 50 1590 ± 50 3189 ± 50 3189 ± 50
24-h EE (kcal/d) 2989 ± 218” 2795 ± l60tc 2709 ± l99 2561 ± 151cx 2930 ± 205ab 3037 ± 192’
190672b
EE,,(kcal/d) 2044± 118’ 1891 ±94k 1839± I08 1795±97” 1978± ll7’’
EEe,,(kca1) 238±39 257±25 274±71 239±49 331 ±43 273±41
RQ (CO2O2) 0.917 ± 0.007’ 0.881 ± 0.0l4’ 0.833 ± 0.009c 0.840 ± 0.OlOc 0.885 ± 0.012” 0.925 ± 0.002’
Urine nitrogen (g/d) 16 ± 2 16 ± 2 1 1 ± 0.5 10 ± 0.5 14 ± 1 17 ± 1

* . ± SEM. Values within rows with same superscript letter do not differ significantly, P < 0.05.

meal consumption, 1 h of exercise, 7.5 h of sleeping, and the diet, and subject number were used as class variables. The vari-
balance of the time spent as the subject desired (eg, watching able day represented the measurements in the calorimeter as
television, listening to the radio, reading, desk work). The 1 h follows: 0, day 7 of initial maintenance period; 1, first day of
ofexercise was divided in to two 30-mm sessions on an exercise 50% maintenance; 7, day 7 of 50% maintenance; 28, day 28 of
bicycle. Sleep EE (EE,) was calculated by multiplication of maintenance; 29, day 1 ofreturn to 100% maintenance; and 35,
the hourly rate of EE during sleep by 24 h. The amount of
energy expended for the two bicycling sessions was
determined by subtracting the sleep rate from the energy cx-
TABLE 3
pended during the exercise periods.
Body composition changes and energy balance during 50%
Efficiency ofenergy use (km) and energy requirement (MErn)
maintenance period on high- and low-fat diets*
as described by DeBoer et al (27) was calculated before and after
weight loss as follows: High-fat diet Low-fat diet Combined
(n=4) (n4) (n=8)
RE RE2
Weight (kg)
km = W, _ W2 = efficiency
efficiency ofof use
use ofof dietary
body energy
energy Day 1 95.2 ± 16.4 98.0 ± 17.5 96.6 ± 15.8
Day 27 89.9 ± 16.0 93.0 ± 17.0 91.5 ± 15.4
W, W2
Difference -5.2 ± 1.2 -5.0 ± 1.2 -5.1 ± 1.1
RE, Total body fat (%)
Day I 32.2 ± 4.3 28.7 ± 8.0 30.4 ± 6.2
MEmMEI1 W,
Day 27 29.6 ± 5.2 25.7 ± 8.4 27.7 ± 6.8
W, W, km Difference -2.5 ± 1.3 -3.0 ± 1.3 -2.8 ± 1.2
Fat-free mass (kg)
where rnetabolizable energy intake (MEl) and retained energy
Day 1 64.1 ± 7.9 69.6 ± 12.5 66.8 ± 10.1
(RE, which equals MEl - 24-h EE) are expressed in kcal/d, and
Day 27 62.8 ± 8.6 68.7 ± I 1.9 65.8 ± 10.1
body weight (W) is expressed in kilograms. Subscripts 1 and 2 Difference -1.3± 1.9 -0.9±0.7 -1.1 ± 1.3
refer to measurements made on day 0 and day 7 (before weight Total body fat (kg)
loss) and on day 35 and day 28 (after weight loss). When body Day I 31.1 ± 9.1 28.4 ± 10.8 29.7 ± 9.4
stores and diet ME are used equally to meet energy requirements, Day 27 27.1 ± 8.9 24.3 ± 10.6 25.7 ± 9.2
km equals I .0. Values of km greater or less than 1 .0 represent Difference -3.9 ± 1.0 -4.1 ± 1.0 -4.0 ± 0.9
diet ME being used either more or less efficiently, respectively, Total body energy
than body stores (28). (Mcal)
Body weights of the subjects without clothing were obtained Day I 353.1 ± 91.6 333.5 ± 102.8 343.3 ± 90.7
Day 27 315.2 ± 88.6 294.4 ± 100.8 304.8 ± 88.5
once a week after a 12-h fast. Body composition was determined
Difference -37.9 ± 7.6 -39.1 ± 9.8 -38.5 ± 8.1
by hydrodensitornetry [underwater weighing (UWW) (29)] at
Total percent
the beginning and end ofthe reduced-energy period. body energy
Statistical analysis was performed by using the general-linear- lost as fat (%) 96 ± 5 98 ± 2 97 ± 4
models procedure (GLM) ofthe SAS/STATpackage for personal
computers (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). Measurement day, *j±SEM
 EE AND ENERGY-INTAKE RESTRICTION 433

TABLE 4 a smaller decline in 24-h EE in response to the reduction in

Relative efficiency of ME use for maintenance (km) and energy ME! and maintained a slightly higher 24-h EE throughout the
requirement (MEm)*
reduced-calorie phase.
Efficiency of use (km ) for maintenance of ME relative to body
km MEm
tissue and energy requirement (MEm ) are presented 4. in Table
Overall average (n = 16) 0.87 ± 0.04 31.0 0.6± The km was higher for the high-fat than for the low-fat diet and
High fat (n = 8) 0.93 ± 0.06 31.4 ± 1.2 was greater before weight loss than after. There was no significant
Low fat (n = 8) 0.82 ± 0.04t 30.6 ± 0.6t interaction of diet composition and weight loss on km . Energy
Before weight loss (n = 8) 0.94 ± 0.05 30.3 ± 0.8 requirement per unit body weight was not affected by diet corn-
After weight loss (n = 8) 0.81 ± 0.0Sf 32.5 ± 0.9
position or weight loss. The best-fit regression model related EE
High-fat-diet group
and body weight (Fig 2). Diet and weight loss terms had non-
Before (n = 4) 0.99 ± 0.08 30.3 ± 1.7
significant coefficients.
After (n = 4) 0.87 ± 0.05 32.6 ± 1.6
Low-fat-diet group
Sleep-rate energy expenditure
Before (n = 4) 0.90 ± 0.06t 29.9 ± 0.4

Downloaded from www.ajcn.org at Univ of Colorado Hlth Sci Ctr Denison Mem Lib on September 29, 2007
After(n=4) 0.75±0.06t 31.2±1.6 On the first day of low energy intake, the EE, was “-7%
lower than at maintenance. EE, declined 3% from days 1
*i±5EM
to 7 and an additional 2% by day 28. Thus, EE,, was 12%
t Significantly different from corresponding high-fat-diet group, P lower at the end of the reduced-energy-intake phase than at
<0.05.
maintenance. at maintenance ME intake, however, was
t Significantly different from before-weight-loss group, P < 0.05.
significantly lower (4%) after the reduced-energy phase than
during the initial maintenance period of the experiment, both
at 1 d and 1 wk of refeeding.
day 7 of return to maintenance. The model consisted of day, There was no significant difference in EE,, between diet
diet, subject within diet, and the interaction of day and diet. groups. The low-fat group tended to have a greater EE, at
Diet effects were tested
by the use of the subject-within--diet maintenance and throughout the reduced-calorie phase.
term. A probability level of P < 0.05 was chosen as statistically
significant. The Duncan multiple-range test was used to compare Respiratory quotient and substrate use
means of variables with significant model terms. There was a significant difference between diets in RQ (Table
2). RQ was higher on the low-fat than the high-fat diet, reflecting
the greater use of carbohydrate. There was also a significant
Results
effect ofenergy intake on RQ. On day 1 of reduced energy, RQ
ME intake (ME!), body weight, 24-h EE, EE,,, was lower in both diet groups and continued to decline through-
respiratory quotient [RQ, which equals (CO2 production)/(02 out the low-energy phase of the experiment. On return to
consumption)], and urine nitrogen excretion during the 24 h in maintenance ME intake, RQ was significantly lower on day 1
the calorimeter are reported in Table 2 for the high-fat and the but had returned to the maintenance level by 1 wk. There was
low-fat diet groups. no significant (P = 0.09) interaction between calorie intake and
diet, but the RQ in the low-fat group tended to decline more
Body weight and composition than in the high-fat group.
There were significant differences in total use and net balance
Table 3 presents changes
in weight, fat mass, and fat-free mass
(intake - use) between diets and before and after weight loss
(FFM) over the 4 wk of 50% maintenance intake. There were
no significant differences between the low-fat and high-fat diets
in the extent or composition of body-weight loss. Body weight
decreased 5.2 kg for the high-fat group and 5.0 kg for the low-
fat group by day 27. However, subjects on the low-fat diet tended
to lose more fat and less FFM than did the high-fat-diet subjects. 3400 -
x
Assuming 9.25 kcal/g for fat and 1 kcal/g for FFM, total-body-
a
x x
energy content declined 37.9 Mcal (96% as fat) and 39. 1 Meal 3200
(98% as fat) for the high- and low-fat groups, respectively. w

3000 -
Twenty-four-hour EE, efficiency ofME use, z
a.
and energy requirement ><
LJ
>. 2800
There were marked changes in EE during the low-energy phase (2 x 0
of the experiment (Table 2). Twenty-four-hour EE was “-4% w
z
lower than at maintenance on the first day, 5% lower after 1 wk, 2600 -

and 10% lower at the end of the 28-d low-energy period. Upon
return to maintenance ME intake, 24-h EE was the same as 0

before the reduced-energy-intake phase. 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

WEIGHT (kg)
There was no significant difference in 24-h EE between the
diet groups. The high-fat group tended to have a lower 24-h EE FIG 2. Relationship of daily energy expenditure to body weight in
at maintenance. However, the high-fat group also tended to have men before (0) and after (X) weight loss.
434 RUMPLER ET AL

(Table 5). However, there was no significant interaction between ME requirement after weight loss but the difference was not
diet composition and weight loss on substrate use. significant. Ravussin et al (30) also found no reduction in EE
Both the high- and low-fat groups were in positive protein, with weight loss that could not be explained by reductions in
carbohydrate, and fat balance while in the calorimeter consuming body mass, energy intake, or lowered activity. Some studies have
the weight-maintenance intake level before and after weight loss. demonstrated or implied a difference in energy requirement after
However, carbohydrate balance was significantly lower in the weight loss. Geissler et al (3) found a 1 5% lower EE in postobese
high-fat group after weight loss. than in lean individuals matched by body composition. However,
After 7 d at 50% MEl, protein balance was near zero and fat measurements were made on the postobese individuals while
balance was markedly negative in both diet groups but was not they were in negative energy balance, which would tend to lower
significantly different between diet groups. Carbohydrate balance the metabolic rate. Also, it cannot be determined ifthe postobese
was negative for the high-fat group and positive for the low-fat individuals had a lower metabolic rate before weight loss. Several
group. studies report a reduction in resting EE in response to rapid
Some significant differences in use and balance occurred on weight loss (6-8). These studies use very-low-calorie diets ( 800
the first day ofreduced intake (day 1) and the first day of return kcal/d) to achieve weight loss. These very low energy intakes

Downloaded from www.ajcn.org at Univ of Colorado Hlth Sci Ctr Denison Mem Lib on September 29, 2007
to maintenance after weight loss (day 29) when compared with result in significant loss of FFM and may not be comparable to
measurements made at the same intake level. On day 1 when situations on slow weight loss with minimal changes in FFM.
compared with day 7 or 28, carbohydrate use was greater and Diet did not affect 24-h EE or energy requirements. However,
balance was much more negative; fat use was lower and balance sleep EE tended to be greater on the low-fat than on the high-
was much less negative; protein balance was more negative on fat diet (Table 2). A probable explanation for this is that the
the low-fat diet than on either the high-fat diet or during any increase in EE associated with the meal (thermic effect) was
other measurement made during the study. On day 29 when prolonged on the low-fat diet, perhaps lasting until the next
compared with days 0 and 35, protein balance was higher, fat morning. This would elevate EE during sleep, which was the
balance was lower, and carbohydrate balance was lower. In ad- basis ofthe estimate of sleep EE, but it would not affect the 24-
dition, carbohydrate balance was significantly more positive on h total. Hurni et al (31) also reported higher EE during sleep
the low-fat diet than on the high-fat diet after weight loss. but not over 24 h on a low-fat diet vs a high-fat diet.
The efficiency of diet ME use relative to body stores was
Discussion markedly different between diets and after weight loss. This
higher-efficiency value ofthe high-fat diet implies that at or below
EE declined during the reduced-energy-intake period. How- maintenance, high-fat diets will tend to be more efficiently used
ever, ME requirement was not affected by weight loss. In studies for meeting maintenance requirements than low-fat diets, re-
with women, DeBoer et al (27) reported a lower EE and a lower quiring slightly less energy intake of the high-fat diet for weight

TABLE 5
Total substrate use and net substrate balance before, during, and after weight loss in men on high- and low-fat diets, by day of experiment

DayO Dayl Day7 Day28 Day29 Day35

g/d

Protein
Use
High-fat diet 84 ± 7’ 60 ± 8’ 61 ± 8” 61 ± 8” 70 ± 6” 73 ± 12”
Low-fatdiet 100± 12”t 89± 1” 67±2ct 64±2ct 90±5”t l06±6’t
Net
High-fatdiet 31±6’ 2±lO” -3±4.1” 45±6’ 42±4’
Low-fatdiet 28± 14sb 25±2dt 3±2c 1 ±2.7c 39±5k 22±6”t
Carbohydrate
Use
High-fat diet 347 ± 25ab 290 ± 15”’ 216 ± 19 251 ± 32& 3() ± 3oC 386 ± 33’
Low-fatdiet 488±39’t 379±44”t 264±27c 266±25ct 403±3l”t 5l4±33’t
Net
High-fatdiet 2g25ab -100± 14d -26± l8C -62±31.l” 68±31’ -l2±33
Low-fat diet 75 ± 27” -98 ± 38’ 18 ± 23C 15 ± 19.8ct 159 ± 20’t 49 ± 18t
Fat
Use
14811b 15210b
High-fatdiet lls±3c 179±13’ l48±IOb lll±13c
Low-fat diet 55 ± l3Ct 88 ± lsbt 139 ± 17’t 124 ± l4’t 91 ± l8”t 46 ± 6Ct
Net
High-fatdiet 30±5’ 34±14’
Low-fatdiet 12± 14’ -54± l4C -105± 17” -90± 14” -24± l9’ 21±6’

S SEM. Values within rows with different superscripts differ significantly, P < 0.05.
t Significantly different from high-fat-diet value, P < 0.05.
 EE AND ENERGY-INTAKE RESTRICTION 435

maintenance. Van Es et al (28) reported the efficiency values of for the slower response of body fat stores to changes in energy
0.87-0.94 on a diet similar in composition to the high-fat diet intake. Carbohydrate oxidation was greater on the first day of
of this study. The lower efficiency, of ME for maintenance rel- reduced energy intake (day 1 ) and storage was greater on the
ative to body stores, after weight loss suggests that individuals first day of the refeeding at maintenance (day 29) than during
having lost weight use body stores more efficiently than they do subsequent days at the same ME intake.
before weight loss. DeBoer et al (27) reported efficiency values In this experiment, a significant reduction in EE occurred
measured in women that were higher after weight loss than before after the reduction of MEt and during the weight-loss period.
weight loss and were lower than the efficiency for maintenance However, energy requirements on a body-weight
basis were not
values of the high-fat diet in this study. significantly effected by weight reduction. This does not refute
As pointed out earlier, the estimates of substrate oxidation observations of lower metabolic rate in obese or postobese in-
and balance must be viewed with an awareness of their limita- dividuals (3, 4). However, it does suggest that ifobese individuals
tions. However, the general pattern and even the magnitude of have lower metabolic rates, it probably is not a function of recent
the changes in substrate balance are reflected in the changes in moderate weight loss.
body composition. During the weight-loss phase of the study, There were significant differences in efficiency of use of diet
by day 7, protein ME relative to body stores. The high-fat diet was more efficiently

Downloaded from www.ajcn.org at Univ of Colorado Hlth Sci Ctr Denison Mem Lib on September 29, 2007
and carbohydrate balance were not significantly
different from zero whereas fat balance was markedly negative. used than was the low-fat diet relative to body stores. The effi-
However, FFM in the high-fat group tended to decrease more ciency of ME use relative to body stores was lower after weight
than in the low-fat group, which is reflected in the more negative loss in both diets, suggesting that either body stores were more
carbohydrate balance in the high-fat group. Similarly, losses of efficiently used after weight loss than before or that the efficiency
fat mass tended to be greater in the low-fat group and fat substrate of use of ME decreased. If body stores were more efficiently
balance was more negative. used, this would contribute to a resistance to slimming while in
Substrate use and balance generally reflected energy balance. negative energy balance without changing the energy require-
When subjects were fed at a weight-maintenance intake, before ments of the individual.
weight loss, substrate use reflected the diet composition, with In this study, the rate of fat oxidation responded within 1d
the high-fat group using more fat and less carbohydrate daily to changes in energy status. There was no evidence of large
than the low-fat group. After the subjects had been fed at an changes in carbohydrate stores in response to short-term (l-d)
energy intake level of 50% of maintenance for 28 d, substrate changes in energy availability. Clearly, in this study, the com-
use still reflected diet composition. However, fat use increased position of substrate used for meeting energy needs reflects en-
and carbohydrate use decreased in both groups, reflecting the ergy-balance status and diet composition and was not markedly
increased contribution of body fat stores in meeting the mdi- affected by changes (weight loss) in body stores. 0
vidual’s energy requirements.
Upon refeeding (return to 100% maintenance level after References
weight-loss period) for 7 d (day 35), protein, carbohydrate, and
fat balance were not significantly different from before the weight- 1 . Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon General’s
loss period. However, carbohydrate balance tended to be lower report on nutrition and health. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office, 1988. [DHHS publication (PHS) 88-50210.)
and fat balance tended to be higher after weight loss than before
2. Miller DS, Parsonage S. Resistance to slimming: adaptation or il-
weight loss, suggesting a fat-sparing effect of weight loss.
lusion? Lancet 1975;l:773-5.
Overall, substrate use reflected diet composition at intakes 3. Geissler CA, Miller DS, Shah M. The daily metabolic rate of the
both near maintenance and at 50% of maintenance. The change post-obese and the lean. Am J Clin Nutr l987;45:9l4-20.
in body composition corresponding to the loss of body weight 4. Ravussin E, Lillioja S, Knowler WC, et al. Reduced rate of energy
had no influence on substrate use outside ofthe contribution of expenditure as a risk factor for body weight gain. N EngI J Med
body fat to the energy-substrate pool. In a series of papers Flatt 1988;3l8:467-72.
and coworkers (9- 1 1 ) suggested that changes in intake of car- 5. Shah M, Miller DS, Geissler CA. Lower metabolic rates of post
bohydrate and fat influence the oxidation rates ofthese substrates obese versus lean women: thermogenesis, basal metabolic rate and
only relative to their body stores. Small changes in carbohydrate genetics. Eur J Clin Nutr l988;42:74l-52.
6. Hill JO, Sparling PB, Sheilds TW, Heller PA. Effects ofexercise and
intake result in corresponding inverse changes in carbohydrate
food restriction on body composition and metabolic rate in obese
oxidation rates because of the limited capacity of the body to
women. Am J Clin Nutr 1987;46:622-30.
store carbohydrate. However, oxidation rates offat are relatively 7. Weighle DS, Sande KJ, Iverius PH, Monsen ER, Brunzell JD. Weight
insensitive to changes in intake of fat because of the large stores loss leads to a marked decrease in nonresting energy expenditure in
ofenergy available from fat. This implies short-term energy def- ambulatory human subjects. Metabolism l988;37:930-6.
icits would be compensated for by depletion of carbohydrate 8. Elliot DL, Goldberg L, Kuehl KS, Bennett WM. Sustained depression
stores, and fat mobilization would be slower to respond. In this of the resting metabolic rate after massive weight loss. Am J Clin
study, when 24-h oxidation rates are compared between days 0 Nutr 1989;49:93-6.
(last day of maintenance) and I (first day of reduced calories), 9. Flatt JP, Ravussin E, Acheson KJ, Jequier E. Effects of dietary fat
fat oxidation rates had increased markedly and carbohydrate on postprandial substrate oxidation and on carbohydrate and fat
balances. J Clin Invest l985;76:lOl9-24.
oxidation had declined nearly the same amount (on an energy
10. Flatt JP. The difference in the storage capacities for carbohydrate
basis rather than on a mass basis). The opposing response is seen
and for fat and its implications in the regulation of body weight.
when day 28 (last day of reduced energy intake) and day 29 Ann NY Acad Sci l987;499:l04-23.
(first day of maintenance after weight loss) are compared. Fat 1 1. Schutz Y, Flatt JP, Jequier E. Failure ofdietary fat intake to promote
oxidation declines and carbohydrate oxidation increases in re- fat oxidation a factor favoring the development of obesity. Am J
sponse to greater dietary energy intake. There is some support Clin Nutr l989;50:307-l4.
436 RUMPLER ET AL

12. Conway JM. Body composition in adult females at two levels of etry: evaluation oferrors with special reference to the detailed corn-
dietary fat. Fed Proc 1986;45:Al879(abstr). position of fuels. Am J Clin Nutr l988;47:608-28.
13. National Research Council. Diet and health: implications for re- 23. Elia M, Livesey G. Theory and validity ofindirect calorimetry during
ducing chronic disease. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, net lipid synthesis. Am J Clin Nutr l988;47:59l-607.
1989. 24. Acheson KJ, FlattJP, Jequier E. Glycogen synthesis versus lipogenesis
14. Miles CW. Metabolizable energy of human diets differing in fiber after a 500 gram carbohydrate meal in man. Metabolism l982;31:
and fat content. FASEB J 1989;3:A l065(abstr). 1240-3.
15. Rumpler WV, Scale JL, Conway JM, Moe PW. Repeatability of 25. Acheson KJ, Schutz Y, Bessard T, Anantharaman K, flast JP, Jequier
energy expenditure measurements in human subjects by indirect E. Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive
calorimetry. Am J Clin Nutr l990;51:l47-52. carbohydrate overfeeding in man. Am J Gin Nutr 1988;48:240-7.
16. Weir JB. New methods for calculating metabolic rate with special 26. Acheson KJ, Schutz Y, Bessard T, Ravussin E, Jequier E, Flatt JP.
reference to protein metabolism. J Physiol l949;109:l-9. Nutritional influences on lipogenesis and thermogenesis after a car-
17. Consolazio CF. Johnson RE, Recora U. Measurements of metabolic bohydrate meal. Am J Physiol l984;9E:62-70.
functions in man. New York: McGraw Hill, 1963. 27. Dc Beer JO, van Es AJH, Roovers LCA, van Raaij JMA, Hautvast
18. AOAC. Official methods ofanalysis. 12th ed. Washington, DC: As- JGAJ. Adaptation of energy metabolism of overweight women to
sociation ofOfficial Analytical Chemists, 1980. low-energy intake, studied with whole body calorimeters. Am J Gin

Downloaded from www.ajcn.org at Univ of Colorado Hlth Sci Ctr Denison Mem Lib on September 29, 2007
19. Watt BK, Merrill AL. Composition of foods: raw, processed, pre- Nutr l986;44:585-95.
pared. Agricultural handbook no. 8. Washington, DC: US Govern- 28. Van Es AJH, Vogt JE, Niessen CH, et al. Human energy metabolism
ment Printing Office, 1963. below, near and above energy equilibrium. Br J Nutr 1984;52:429-
20. Garlick PJ. Evaluation of the formulae for calculating nutrient use 42.
rates from respiratory gas measurements in fed subjects. Hum Nutr 29. Akers R, Buskirk ER. An underwater weighing system utilizing force
Clin Nutr l987;4lC:165-76. cube transducers. J AppI Physiol l969;26:649-52.
21. Garlick PJ, McNurlan MA, McHardy KC, et al. Rates of nutrient 30. Ravussin E, Burnan B, Schutz Y, Jequier E. Energy expenditure
use in man measured by combined respiratory gas analysis and stable before and during energy restriction in obese patients. Am J Gin
isotopic labeling: effect of food intake. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr Nutr l985;4l:753-9.
l987;4lC: 177-9 1. 31. Hurni M, Burnand B, Pittet P, Jequier E. Metabolic effects of a
22. Livesey G, Elia M. Estimation of energy expenditure, net carbo- mixed and high carbohydrate low-fat diet in man, measured over
hydrate use and net fat oxidation and synthesis by indirect calorim- 24h in a respiration chamber. Br J Nutr l982;47:33-43.