A Thought Experiment
Published March 1, 2013; reformatted 9.17.2015I belong to My Fitness Pal (MFP) although I don't actually use their tools much any more. I do read in their forum— selectively. Like most internet discussion boards, there is much more heat generated than light. And the MFP boards are moderated!
Anyway, I read a post from a 40 year old librarian who was looking for answers to her stalled weight loss. She weighs 167 lbs and is 5 foot 3 inches tall. She wants to weigh 130 again, which is what she used to weigh. I didn't answer her query because I long ago stopped contributing to chat boards. But I decided it would make a thought experiment.
Disclaimer: I am not a dietician, nutritionist nor a physician. However, I decided to head to my favorite BMI simulator (http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov) to see what it's model would suggest for her. Although seemingly precise calorie counts are listed in this experiment, there is always some error when calculating calorie totals. This is a thought experiment, nothing more. Except for using the stated age, height and weight for the example in this exercise NOTHING in this post relates to any actual person.
The first thing I did was input her current information and have the model calculate a baseline calorie total for her. At her height and weight, the model calculates that she needs to eat 1959 calories to maintain that weight. That number assumes she sits at a desk all day (not a bad assumption for a librarian) and does no exercise.
I also had the model calculate how much she would eat if she were already 130 and just as sedentary. The total calories needed in that case was 1724. In the table below are the model predictions if our imaginary woman was to try and lose the desired weight in two years. The change and final delta columns are difference from the calorie intake required to maintain her current weight of 167 lbs.
2 Year Diet Model (Calories)
| Sedentary (1959 @167lbs) | ||||
| 30 min. walk/day | ||||
| Moderate Exercise | ||||
| Both | ||||
| NEAT Effect (2099@167lbs) | ||||
| 30min.walk/day | ||||
| Moderate Exercise | ||||
| Both |
In the model, moderate exercise is defined as regular activity at last once a week, such as the gym.
If she makes no changes to her sedentary lifestyle, the model predicts that she can reach her goal weight in two years if cuts 388 calories from her daily intake and eats 1571 calories per day. Once she reaches her goal weight, she will be able to maintain it if she eats 1663 calories, which is 292 calories less than if she had never been overweight.
Moving More Matters
If she is open to changing her sedentary lifestyle and were to add 30 minutes of light walking (think dog walking, or after dinner stroll) to her daily routine, then while losing the weight she would be able to eat slightly more calories (1651). Once she reached her goal, and assuming she maintains her new daily walking habit, she can maintain her lower weight eating 1738 calories. Please note that in all cases, I assume that the choice to move more is a lifestyle change. That once moving more becomes her habit, she will continue to do so even after reaching her goal weight. If she were to revert to her sedentary habits, then she must eat the lower calorie total listed for a sedentary woman.That total is slightly more than she would have been eating if she'd never gotten fat. Granted that's as a thin sedentary woman, but it's still a powerful demonstration how a small amount of movement can have a real effect.
If instead of a daily walk our librarian decides to go to the gym once a week (described in the model as moderate exercise), then she can eat 1795 calories per day while losing weight and 1869 while maintaining-- if she continues her gym membership.
Just to complete the circle, I ran the model assuming our librarian adopted both lifestyle changes for good. If she walks 30 minutes a day and hits the gym once a week, then she can ingest 1876 calories per day, and maintain her new weight (and new active lifestyle) while eating (or drinking) 1945 calories per day.
I hope what this shows is the power of moving a bit more. Too many dieters and too many dieting sites neglect the crucial fact that moving matters. And note, I deliberately chose minor changes. Walking a dog twice a day will get you 30 minutes of walking (for years that was my daily exercise.) And although I chose to send our librarian to the gym, the model actually defines moderate exercise as including gardening once a week.
The Stand up Fitness Plan Version
I have written about my treadmill desk. It is truly my "secret" to success and what allows me to eat with much less attention to the details I'm slogging through here. However, not many people can use a treadmill desk. Before I started using the treadmill desk though, I created a standing desk at which to work. Standing burns more calories than sitting, and once standing I found that I moved more. I called it my "stand up" fitness plan.It took some time to be able to stand up all day while working. Though the actual working while standing part for me came easily. I actually found that I concentrated more whiles standing than sitting. In fact, sometimes when I need to concentrate particularly closely on a topic, I stop the treadmill and simply stand at the desk.
Overall, I much prefer walking to standing. I do think the transition to walking and working was easier because I was used to standing and working. I think standing desks may come back into vogue in office furniture. No more expensive chairs, instead people will be standing at their desk or sitting on stools.
That's a fairly long winded digression, but I wanted to see how the model would change if our librarian could alter her work environment so that she stood most of the day rather than sitting. And as I was preparing this article, an article just published in PLoS shows the power of NEAT. Essentially they were looking to see if an hour of rigorous exercise would offset the effects of sitting all day. Other than the hour of exercise, subjects were told to sit. One hour a day of exercise did not offset the negative effects of sitting. Not sitting all the time did though.
If our librarian were to incorporate standing into her daily routine, her current weight of 167 would require 2100 calories to maintain. This assumes no added exercise. If she's willing to stand most of the day rather than sit, the model predicts she can meet her goal in two years eating 1683 calories/day and then maintain eating 1766 calories per day. And that's with the ONLY change in lifestyle is that she stands rather than sits.
If she's got a dog she can walk twice a day to get in 30 minutes of walking, she can eat 1792 calories per day (which is more the sedentary calorie limit for a 130 lb woman of her height.) And after reaching her goal of 130 after 2 years, she maintain her new lower weight eating 1868 calories/day.
If instead of a dog she gets a gym membership and goes once a week after standing all she can eat 1907 per day while dieting. Her maintenance intake rises to 1973 calories per day. If she walks her dog daily and also visits the gym once, her intake while dieting can be 2003 calories per day, with her maintenance intake increasing to 2064 calories per day.
The NEAT part of the Energy Balance
Standing up seems like a simple and useless thing to do, but it makes a huge difference over time. Even when I'm not walking at my desk a try to stay on my feet all day. Standing up is obviously not exercise, but it is an example of non-exercise activity thermogenesis or NEAT.The NEAT factor on the "Calories out" side of the energy balance is too often overlooked. The human body (as anyone who's tried to lose weight can attest) tries to defend the fat stores that it has. There are a variety of ways the body does this, and Carbsane and others have discussed this with much more rigor than I ever will. But reduction of NEAT is one way that the body tries to offset the effect of whatever calorie reduction or increased exercise regimes you've started. And NEAT includes subtle movements that many don't notice. So (for example) after working out, you sit down as you normally would in front of the TV, but you move less in your seat. Or you feel like sitting much more than you normally would.
Part of the goal of the "Stand up" fitness plan was to fight against this. Standing more (including in the evening, sometimes I stand while watching TV) was my way to try and force my NEAT levels to not decline. Of course, reducing NEAT isn't the only way the body responds to weight loss efforts, but discussion of the others is beyond the scope of this article. But my view is that simply standing was a powerful tool in my weight loss journey.
My point- NEAT is neat!
My point here is to show how a small changes can have such huge changes. I realize that not everyone can alter their work space so that they can stand rather than sit, but I assert that many, many office workers could do so. Particularly those with laptops.I simple box on top of your desk could elevate your laptop to the perfect height for typing, and at zero expense.
Modeling Faster Results
Of course, most people don't want to wait 2 years to lose the weight. In the table below are the model numbers if she chooses to try and lose the weight in a year. Naturally to lose weight faster, the calories allowed during the diet phase will be less.
1 Year Diet Model (Calories)
| Sedentary (1959@167lbs) | ||||
| 30min.walk/day | ||||
| ModerateExercise | ||||
| Both | ||||
| NEAT Effect (2099@167lbs) | ||||
| 30min. walk/day | ||||
| ModerateExercise | ||||
| Both |
If she wanted to try and lose all 37 pounds in a year without moving any more, then the model calculates that she'd need to eat 1388 calories. To maintain that weight she'd need to eat 1667 calories/day, according to the model. Note that the amount of calories to maintain don't really differ much in the model.
The effect of moving more
If she does 30 minutes of light walking per day (again assuming she is sedentary now), then the calorie allowance is 1468 to get to her goal weight in one year. If she continues to walk 30 minutes a day even after reaching that goal, she can eat 1743 calories/day, which is about what she could have eaten to maintain that weight if she'd never been fat.
If instead of walking each day she goes to the gym once a week for moderate exercise, she can eat 1619 calories a day to lose the weight in a year. The she can maintain at 1873 calories per day so long as she continues going to the gym once a week, or adopts some other moderate, regular exercise. If she both walks and goes to the gym she can eat 1700 calories while losing weight and then maintain at 1949 calories
The Power of NEAT
If she chooses not to change any aspect of her life except she stays on her feet most of her work day, then the model predicts she can reach her goal eating 1500 calories/day and then maintain the lower weight eating 1770 calories/day. Standing most of the day and then walking the dog for 30 minutes would mean she can eat 1612 calories while dieting, and then if she keeps up that level of movement she can eat 1873 calories while maintaining her new 130 lb body. If she stands all day and hits the gym once a week, the numbers are 1734 calories while losing and 1976 while maintaining. And if she does it all, the numbers are 1832 calories and 2067 calories.
Just for completeness (I certainly would not have done anything this extreme, nor would I ever recommend it) in the table below is the model predictions if our librarian was to try and lose the weight in six months. As in the other two scenarios, the effect of exercise and NEAT are included.
6 Month Diet Model (Calories)
| Sedentary (1959@167lbs) | ||||
| 30min.walk/day | ||||
| Moderate Exercise | ||||
| Both | ||||
| NEAT Effect (2099@167lbs) | ||||
| 30 min walk/day | ||||
| ModerateExercise | ||||
| Both |
Once again, moving more increases the amount of calories that can be eaten, but in all cases, the total is lower than would be comfortable for most. In fact, most people would be miserable eating this amount of food, and in being miserable would be less likely to adhere to the program.
I think maintaining after rapid short term weight loss is more difficult, because the changes are again extreme.
Disclaimer
One Mom in the Middle…
of parenting… of her career… of life…
