Other/Mixed NEAT Non-exercise activity thermogenesis: underestimated role in weight loss and health.

[guardian7]

One thing I miss about moving from the field (underground construction) to the office as a supervisory role is all the calories I burned “gettin it” every day at work. Always on my feet outside moving. I miss it but my body doesn’t hurt like it used to and it’s tough to shovel and run a jack hammer forever. I never worried about the gym (I’d go but not religiously) I got my workouts at work and I always felt strong.

Even in academic jobs I feel the difference between doing elearning and teaching in the class room, standing up for hours a day. Manual work must have a much greater effect.

 

[guardian7]

Beneficial opportunity costs!

Yeah, this is the irony I was trying to get at. Doing a HIIT workout and then collapsing on the couch and watching TV for the evening is likely worse than just pottering around the house throughout the day if you primary goal was weight control.

 

[guardian7]

There is a lot of inference here that isn’t supported by the studies that drew the original conclusions on thermogenesis of protein and the correlation with satiety hormones. To start with, they used whey, casein and pea protein isolates which are about the most processed foods you can find. The next being that pea protein was found to have an AA profile that created more satiety than dairy proteins (sorry carnivore) and the third being that the thermogenic impact of protein is already built into its kcal count, the measured unit of 4 kcals is the net energy after full conversion into energy. The study more focused on the thermogenic effect of processing proteins has an impact on satiety hormones, if you eat 100 kcals of protein or carbs you net the same energy to your body.

Both are factors. I am not sure about this study you mention but it seems that there is a consensus that protein especially high protein consumption burns more calories. Protein choices targeting thermogenesis and metabolism - PubMed

The point of my original post is that there are many variables, NEAT most likely to be underestimated.

 

[guardian7]

Has anyone read Burn by Pontzer? We might need to reconsider a lot of what we know about caloric burn. Here's a good summary from Joel Jamieson.

All Pain, No Gain: Why the High-Intensity Training Obsession Has Failed Us All - 8 Weeks Out

Why training hard doesn't guarantee you'll see results and why recovery is the game-changing component that will supercharge any training program.

www.8weeksout.com

I listened to a podcast about Burn. This article nicely brings together a few things I have read or heard recently., especially the role of stress.

The book Exercised: Why Something We Never Evolved to Do Is Healthy and Rewarding by Daniel Lieberman
has some interesting research on things like the myth of hunter-gatherers expending much higher levels of energy.

 

[watchnerd]

NEAT most likely to be underestimated.

I'm not sure how NEAT is being underestimated when most TDEE calculators will spit out a basal metabolic rate (BMR) that is typically at least 2/3 of your TDEE, and then adds another 15-50% on top of that for your self-rated NEAT activity level.

 

[Hrungnir]

Both are factors. I am not sure about this study you mention but it seems that there is a consensus that protein especially high protein consumption burns more calories. Protein choices targeting thermogenesis and metabolism - PubMed

That’s not actually what your linked study concluded.

Conclusion: The results suggest that different protein sources could be used to modulate metabolism and subsequently energy balance.

This study was comparing thermic effect of proteins vs other proteins, which comes down to the individual bioavailability of the protein sources. You’re inferring things in these studies that they didn’t actually track or weren’t designed to study.

The 4 kcals per gram of protein already accounts for proteins energy conversion; it’s accounted for in the Atwater general factor formula . Calories in nutrition aren’t the same as calories in physics, bioavailability is accounted for in a very loose way. If you wanted to try and track caloric consumption with the Atwater specific factor formula, you could try but it would be ridiculously tedious.

The Atwater general factor system was developed by W.O. Atwater and his colleagues at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Experiment Station in Storrs, Connecticut at the end of the nineteenth century (Atwater and Woods, 1896). The system is based on the heats of combustion of protein, fat and carbohydrate, which are corrected for losses in digestion, absorption and urinary excretion of urea. It uses a single factor for each of the energy-yielding substrates (protein, fat, carbohydrate), regardless of the food in which it is found.

CHAPTER 3: CALCULATION OF THE ENERGY CONTENT OF FOODS - ENERGY CONVERSION FACTORS

www.fao.org

 

[guardian7]

I'm not sure how NEAT is being underestimated when most TDEE calculators will spit out a basal metabolic rate (BMR) that is typically at least 2/3 of your TDEE, and then adds another 15-50% on top of that for your self-rated NEAT activity level.

The original post was just the idea that we talk so much about exercise selection and diet and nutrition but this NEAT factor is rarely discussed in the general population and even among those who exercise as a key component.

 

[guardian7]

That’s not actually what your linked study concluded.



This study was comparing thermic effect of proteins vs other proteins, which comes down to the individual bioavailability of the protein sources. You’re inferring things in these studies that they didn’t actually track or weren’t designed to study.

The 4 kcals per gram of protein already accounts for proteins energy conversion; it’s accounted for in the Atwater general factor formula . Calories in nutrition aren’t the same as calories in physics, bioavailability is accounted for in a very loose way. If you wanted to try and track caloric consumption with the Atwater specific factor formula, you could try but it would be ridiculously tedious.

CHAPTER 3: CALCULATION OF THE ENERGY CONTENT OF FOODS - ENERGY CONVERSION FACTORS

www.fao.org

If you reread the OP you will see the intention of the post.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Even in academic jobs I feel the difference between doing elearning and teaching in the class room, standing up for hours a day. Manual work must have a much greater effect.

IDK. I think much like the hunter gatherers in the oft quoted study, you become accustomed to it and burn less over time. I have days at work where I sweat from unaccustomed work, and those feel like I’m burning the goods.
But, every day I’m walking about 1/3 of my day and it doesn’t seem like it does much for my base metabolism compared to 12 minutes of HIIT.

I’m a bit skeptical of the numbers from the original study, but haven’t enough familiarity to say one way or the other.

 

[watchnerd]

The original post was just the idea that we talk so much about exercise selection and diet and nutrition but this NEAT factor is rarely discussed in the general population and even among those who exercise as a key component.

I guess I don't buy into the assertion that NEAT is underestimated, when most online calorie calculators have an activity aspect in the calculation.

It may not be *discussed*, but it's certainly often calculated or at least approximated.

 

[guardian7]

IDK. I think much like the hunter gatherers in the oft quoted study, you become accustomed to it and burn less over time. I have days at work where I sweat from unaccustomed work, and those feel like I’m burning the goods.
But, every day I’m walking about 1/3 of my day and it doesn’t seem like it does much for my base metabolism compared to 12 minutes of HIIT.

I’m a bit skeptical of the numbers from the original study, but haven’t enough familiarity to say one way or the other.

It is certainly worth reviewing the idea in the book Burn that we have a limited amount of energy and we just divert it in response to extreme demands, and also adapt as you said. It would help explain why, for example, I have difficulty deadlifting when job stress demands are high. Interpreting it in terms of recovery only may not be enough, as lack of sleep is not an issue for me, but including recovery and energy demands (total metabolic requirements) would make more sense.

If an HIIT program results in some hypertrophy that would divert some calories (although that also tends to be exaggerated).