Can anyone tell me about the Suger Busters diet?

[chroot]

Keep in mind that 20 lbs of actual fat is equivalent to about 70,000 kcals. To burn that much fat, you'd need a calorie deficit of 2,333 kcals per day. Since the average adult female needs about 2,000 kcals/day to maintain weight, the only way such rapid weight loss could be possible is if the person literally does not eat at all for a month, and still manages to run for an hour each day.

Good luck staying alive!

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

Keep in mind that 20 lbs of actual fat is equivalent to about 70,000 kcals. To burn that much fat, you'd need a calorie deficit of 2,333 kcals per day. Since the average adult female needs about 2,000 kcals/day to maintain weight, the only way such rapid weight loss could be possible is if the person literally does not eat at all for a month, and still manages to run for an hour each day.

Good luck staying alive!

- Warren

There is a flaw in this assumption. 2000 kcals/day is to maintain a healthy weight (and, really, for most women, it's lower than that...we're not all supermodel height). If you are obese due to excessive caloric intake, and restrict your calories down to only an 1800-2000 calorie diet, you will lose weight until you stabilize at the weight those calories will support. On the other hand, unless one is morbidly obese, you would be right that they aren't going to have THAT much excess caloric intake.

If someone is only 30 lbs overweight, it wouldn't be healthy to lose all of that in one or two months, and wouldn't likely be accomplished with a diet that would inspire lasting healthy eating. It would be better for them to set a goal of 5 lbs a month and try to lose the weight over 6 months. This is an easier goal to achieve, won't require so much calorie restriction as to feel constantly hungry (the biggest foe of diets), and can be accomplished by adjusting to good, life-long eating habits.

If you're more like 300 lbs overweight, you could lose 15 lbs a month, but are going to struggle with any sort of exercise routine until some of that weight is off to what your musculo-skeletal system can support. Someone that obese should be losing weight with a doctor's supervision, because there are plenty enough health problems with just being that weight (and people that overweight often wind up with nutrient deficiencies from very unhealthy food choices).

 

[chroot]

So, Moonbear... you're saying that the larger your body, the more calories it needs to maintain energy equilibrium? That surprises me, since fat is just stored in vaculoes in fat cells; the number of fat cells does not change. Do the fat cells consume more energy just because they have a larger glob of fat in their vacuoles?

I'd also think that fat people have a lower surface-area to volume ratio, and would lose body heat less rapidly. That means they would need fewer calories for homeostasis... and a very large portion of one's calorie intake is expended in simply maintaining body temperature.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

So, Moonbear... you're saying that the larger your body, the more calories it needs to maintain energy equilibrium? That surprises me, since fat is just stored in vaculoes in fat cells; the number of fat cells does not change. Do the fat cells consume more energy just because they have a larger glob of fat in their vacuoles?

Yes, and to maintain that fat glob. You're thinking like an engineer...build the building and once the construction is done, you don't put any more energy into maintaining it for a while. Every cell in the body is constantly doing something that requires energy. If you add tissue to the body through extra caloric intake, you need extra calories to maintain it too. Fat is more than just a storage cell too, it also produces and secretes hormones.

Wang P, Mariman E, Renes J, Keijer J The secretory function of adipocytes in the physiology of white adipose tissue. J Cell Physiol. 2008 Feb 8

White adipose tissue, previously regarded as a passive lipid storage site, is now viewed as a dynamic tissue. It has the capacity to actively communicate by sending and receiving different types of signals. An overview of these signals, the external modulators that affect adipose tissue and the secreted signaling molecules, the adipokines, is presented. The secretory function is highlighted in relation to energy metabolism, inflammation and the extracellular matrix and placed in the context of adipose tissue biology. We observe that the endocrine function of adipocytes receives much attention, while its paracrine and autocrine functions are underestimated. Also, we provide examples that species specificity should not be neglected. We conclude that adipose tissue primarily is an energy storage organ, well supported by its secretory function.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

It's really not true that the number of fat cells doesn't change either; this is a commonly spread myth.

Avram MM, Avram AS, James WD. Subcutaneous fat in normal and diseased states 3. Adipogenesis: from stem cell to fat cell. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007 Mar;56(3):472-92.

The quest for effective strategies to treat obesity has propelled fat research into an exploration of the molecular processes that drive adipocyte formation, and hence body fat mass. The development of obesity is dependent on the coordinated interplay of adipocyte hypertrophy (increased fat cell size), adipocyte hyperplasia (increased fat cell number), and angiogenesis. Evidence suggests that adipocyte hyperplasia, or adipogenesis, occurs throughout life, both in response to normal cell turnover as well as in response to the need for additional fat mass stores that arises when caloric intake exceeds nutritional requirements. Adipogenesis involves two major events-the recruitment and proliferation of adipocyte precursor cells, called preadipocytes, followed by the subsequent conversion of preadipocytes, or differentiation, into mature fat cells. In vitro studies using experimental and primary preadipocyte cell lines have uncovered the mechanisms that drive the adipogenic process, a tightly controlled sequence of events guided by the strict temporal regulation of multiple inhibitory and stimulatory signaling events involving regulators of cell-cycle functions and differentiation factors. This article reviews the current understanding of adipogenesis with emphasis on the various stages of adipocyte development; on key hormonal, nutritional, paracrine, and neuronal control signals; as well as on the components involved in cell-cell or cell-matrix interactions that are pivotal in regulating fat cell formation. Special consideration is given to clinical applications derived from adipogenesis research with impact on medical, surgical and cosmetic fields.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I'd also think that fat people have a lower surface-area to volume ratio, and would lose body heat less rapidly. That means they would need fewer calories for homeostasis... and a very large portion of one's calorie intake is expended in simply maintaining body temperature.

They lose heat less rapidly because they're well-insulated too. But, they're also using a lot of calories just to maintain things like blood flow through all that tissue. And, body cooling can also be an active process if they're too well insulated, pumping more blood into the cutaneous vessels (which now meet more resistance having to pass through all that fat compressing them) to cool the body core.

And, that doesn't even account for the extra body weight you have to move with every step you take. Try carrying even 20 lbs extra in a backpack while you do your next workout and you'll appreciate the extra energy it takes an obese person to do something like climb a flight of stairs. (This is getting more to the exercise issue too.) It's hard to get someone started exercising when they are very quickly fatigued due to carrying around this excess weight (not to mention due to insufficient cardiovascular functioning due to fat around the heart itself...not just IN the vessels, but literally surrounding the heart muscle itself).

 

[DaveC426913]

Fat bodies consume the addtional energy simply hauling their own weight around. They have bigger muscles, bigger organs, etc. and everything has to work harder.

 

[chroot]

You're thinking like an engineer...

Damn! I hear that all the time. Usually I'm being praised, though, since, well, I'm an engineer. *meek*

Thanks for the explanations. I suppose for every trend working in one direction, there's some other trend working against it.

- Warren

 

[Poop-Loops]

o and poop-loops, people who are trying to lose 20 pounds in a month are already unhealthy, so how could losing the 20 pounds make an unhealthy person even more unhealthier? not quite understanding your logic, please explain.

Over-training can lead to injury. If you get injured, forget about working out (at least that type of exercise) for a while.

Under-eating can lead to nutrient deficiency or anemia. You need to make sure you eat enough to still get a net calorie deficiency, but still get all your nutrients.

Moreover, a lot of the time when you lose a lot of weight, you're losing water and muscle. That's why it's pointless to try and go fat when losing weight. Your body would prefer to eat its own muscle than to use up the fat. That's why you have to keep doing resistance training (like weight lifting, for example), so you lose fat, which is your goal.

 

[grant9076]

o and poop-loops, people who are trying to lose 20 pounds in a month are already unhealthy, so how could losing the 20 pounds make an unhealthy person even more unhealthier? not quite understanding your logic, please explain.

To begin he/she can injure or kill himself/herself.

Also, here is a rough synopsis of the caloric nutrients needed for human function:

1. Carbohydrates for the central nervous system (including the brain), the red blood cells (erythrocytes), and the kidneys. A shortage will cause the body to break down protein in order to make carbs for this role in a process called gluconeogenesis via the glucose-alanine cycle.

2. Essential amino acids (from protein) for tissue repair, enzyme manufacturing, and countless other reactions.

3. Dietary fats for a supply of omega 3 & 6 fatty acids, as well as a transport mechanism for fat soluble nutrients.

4. Unspecified calories for fueling the Krebs cycle. The amount depends on many factors such as lean mass, thyroid function, activity level, etc. This can use sources such as carbs, amino acids, fats, and even alcohol. However alcohol floods the system with acetaldehyde which slows down the metabolism.

If someone consumes a shortage of #4 while eating enough of the first 3, the body can tap into its fat stores to make up for the shortage. This is a caloric deficit without starvation and it results in fat loss. However, if there is a shortage of the others, especially the first 2, the body is forced to cannibalize living tissue in order to satisfy the deficiency. This is called starvation and will lead to loss of lean mass as well as a reduction in the resting metabolic rate.

The trouble with rapid weight loss programs is that they demand caloric deficits which exceed the calorie burning capability of the Krebs cycle. The only way to do this is to short the caloric nutrients that are needed for the other vital functions with starvation being the result. The person lose muscle along with the fat (even if he/she is lifting weights), the metabolic rate will slow, and the person will be back in a caloric equilibrium (weight loss stops). Does any of this sound familiar?

Basically, although the other explanations are not detailed (and neither is mine), Chroot and the others are right.


By the way, lifting weights everyday and just alternating muscle groups is not very good and here is why:

The body also needs full rest (no exercise) days in order to replenish liver glycogen. The reason is because a low liver glycogen level is one of the triggers for gluconeogenesis (as previously mentioned). Tearing down muscle tissue for amino acids to make glucose is incompatible with repairing muscles. This is why lifting everyday can quickly lead to over training.

 

[mheslep]

True but only once you have a significant anount of muscle.Most strength workouts do not use much energy - you aren't going to lose weight bench pressing.

Sure you can if its 700cals of weight lifting. You're a little too quick to dismiss the cals from metabolic increase. That 700cal work out will boost the metabolic rate an average 20cals per hour for the next ~20 hours as the body works to repair the break downs done in the workout. So now the total result of your single workout is 1100cals. And no you don't have to have that much muscle mass. Whatever size body did that 700cal workout will need ~20cal/hr to fix it.

 

[Poop-Loops]

By the way, lifting weights everyday and just alternating muscle groups is not very good and here is why:

The body also needs full rest (no exercise) days in order to replenish liver glycogen. The reason is because a low liver glycogen level is one of the triggers for gluconeogenesis (as previously mentioned). Tearing down muscle tissue for amino acids to make glucose is incompatible with repairing muscles. This is why lifting everyday can quickly lead to over training.

The way I was told, on rest days you can still do some light cardio, just don't overdo it.

But you're right, the body NEEDS a rest day or else you won't get anywhere.

Sure you can if its 700cals of benching. You're a little too quick to dismiss the cals from metabolic increase. That 700cal work out will boost the metabolic rate an average 20cals per hour for the next ~20 hours as the body works to repair the break downs done in the workout. So now the total result of your single workout is 1100cals. And no you don't have to have that much muscle mass. Whatever size body did that 700cal workout will need ~20cal/hr to fix it.

I think your numbers are a bit high. Well, a lot actually. I wouldn't expect to burn 1100Cal from a full body weight lifting work out, much less just bench pressing.

Plus, if you do that much of one exercise, it no longer adds muscle, but just works endurance. Sort of like running.

 

[mheslep]

I think your numbers are a bit high. Well, a lot actually. I wouldn't expect to burn 1100Cal from a full body weight lifting work out, much less just bench pressing.

? I said 700cal from an hour of weight lifting, or whatever. Its no problem to do that with medium to light loads and high reps, not so much w/ very high weight/low reps w/ and time on your butt between sets. You'll burn the extra 400 by the time you wake up the next day.

Plus, if you do that much of one exercise, it no longer adds muscle, but just works endurance. Sort of like running.

Ok of course I didn't mean an hour of a single weight exercise.

 

[mheslep]

So, Moonbear... you're saying that the larger your body, the more calories it needs to maintain energy equilibrium?

Yes, and to maintain that fat glob. You're thinking like an engineer...build the building and once the construction is done, you don't put any more energy into maintaining it for a while. Every cell in the body is constantly doing something that requires energy. If you add tissue to the body through extra caloric intake, you need extra calories to maintain it too. Fat is more than just a storage cell too, it also produces and secretes hormones.

I'm sure all tissues contribute, but at least for athletes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate" is primarily a function of muscle mass.

BMR decreases with age and with the loss of lean body mass. Increased cardiovascular exercise and muscle mass can increase BMR

 

[Poop-Loops]

? I said 700cal from an hour of weight lifting, or whatever. Its no problem to do that with medium to light loads and high reps, not so much w/ very high weight/low reps w/ and time on your butt between sets. You'll burn the extra 400 by the time you wake up the next day.

The problem is that if you do low weight, high rep stuff it becomes more like cardio than weight lifting.

But also, "interval" training like that (with rest periods) is beneficial because your heart rate is still up during that time.

That's why high intensity interval training (i.e. running sprints) is a lot better cardio than just one long run.

Ok of course I didn't mean an hour of a single weight exercise.

Oh, okay.

 

[mheslep]

I think your numbers are a bit high. Well, a lot actually. I wouldn't expect to burn 1100Cal from a full body weight lifting work out, much less just bench pressing.

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm"

Weight lifting or body building, vigorous effort 354 422 518

700 cal in 1:26 for me.

I was high on the elevated RMR after exercise. Its more lhttp://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0120.htm", and then typically you are going burn a little more from energy to digest the additional food to cover the 700cal workout.

 

[Moonbear]

? I said 700cal from an hour of weight lifting, or whatever. Its no problem to do that with medium to light loads and high reps, not so much w/ very high weight/low reps w/ and time on your butt between sets. You'll burn the extra 400 by the time you wake up the next day.

If someone can do that sort of weight lifting routine, they are probably already in decent shape. If you're just 10 lbs overweight and want to tone and work on cardiovascular health, sure, this is no problem. But, if you're obese, you may not even get through the first set of reps before getting winded. When someone has been sedentary for a long time and is just hitting the gym for the first time after doing little more than lifting the TV remote for years, your expectations of what they can do are unreasonable. Think about the person who NEEDS to lose weight to get IN shape, not the one who just wants to tone up to get in BETTER shape. Also see what I've posted further down on increased energy efficiency in obese adolescent children.

Luís Griera J, María Manzanares J, Barbany M, Contreras J, Amigó P, Salas-Salvadó J. Physical activity, energy balance and obesity. Public Health Nutr. 2007 Oct;10(10A):1194-9.

Obesity appears when energy intake exceeds energy expenditure. The most important variable compound of energy expenditure is physical activity. The global epidemics of obesity seem closely related to reduced physical activity and sedentariness widely increasing nowadays. Once obesity has developed, caloric intake becomes similar to energy expenditure. To lose weight, besides decreasing energy intake, energy expenditure must be increased. The promotion of physical activity is difficult and so the results of treatment of obesity are discouraging for doctors, other health professionals and patients. Proactive efforts from patients and health providers with an intensive feedback between them may be extremely helpful. Nevertheless, more studies are needed to provide better approaches on the role of physical activity for the prevention and treatment of obesity and for long-term weight-loss maintenance.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I'm sure all tissues contribute, but at least for athletes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate" is primarily a function of muscle mass.

Not true. Basal metabolic rate is the energy required for ALL basal body functions...digestion, heart rate, breathing, all cellular functions.

: Gummesson A, Jernås M, Svensson PA, Larsson I, Glad CA, Schéle E, Gripeteg L, Sjöholm K, Lystig TC, Sjöström L, Carlsson B, Fagerberg B, Carlsson LM. Relations of adipose tissue CIDEA gene expression to basal metabolic rate, energy restriction, and obesity: population-based and dietary intervention studies. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Dec;92(12):4759-65. Epub 2007 Sep 25.

CONTEXT: Cell death-inducing DNA fragmentation factor-alpha-like effector A (CIDEA) could be a potential target for the treatment of obesity via the modulation of metabolic rate, based on the findings that CIDEA inhibits the brown adipose tissue uncoupling process in rodents. OBJECTIVES: Our objects were to investigate the putative link between CIDEA and basal metabolic rate in humans and to elucidate further the role of CIDEA in human obesity. DESIGN: We have explored CIDEA gene expression in adipose tissue in two different human studies: a cross-sectional and population-based study assessing body composition and metabolic rate (Mölndal Metabolic study, n = 92); and a longitudinal intervention study of obese subjects treated with a very low calorie diet (VLCD) (VLCD study, n = 24). RESULTS: The CIDEA gene was predominantly expressed in adipocytes as compared with other human tissues. CIDEA gene expression in adipose tissue was inversely associated with basal metabolic rate independently of body composition, age, and gender (P = 0.014). The VLCD induced an increase in adipose tissue CIDEA expression (P < 0.0001) with a subsequent decrease in response to refeeding (P < 0.0001). Reduced CIDEA gene expression was associated with a high body fat content (P < 0.0001) and high insulin levels (P < 0.01). No dysregulation of CIDEA expression was observed in individuals with the metabolic syndrome when compared with body mass index-matched controls. In a separate sample of VLCD-treated subjects (n = 10), uncoupling protein 1 expression was reduced during diet (P = 0.0026) and inversely associated with CIDEA expression (P = 0.0014). CONCLUSION: The findings are consistent with the concept that CIDEA plays a role in adipose tissue energy expenditure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Pietiläinen KH, Kaprio J, Borg P, Plasqui G, Yki-Järvinen H, Kujala UM, Rose RJ, Westerterp KR, Rissanen A. Physical Inactivity and Obesity: A Vicious Circle.
Obesity. 2008 Feb;16(2):409-414.

Objective:Physical activity (PA) begins to decline in adolescence with a concomitant increase in weight. We hypothesized that a vicious circle may arise between decreasing PA and weight gain from adolescence to early adulthood.Methods and Procedures:PA and self-perceived physical fitness assessed in adolescents (16-18 years of age) were used to predict the development of obesity (BMI >/=30 kg/m(2)) and abdominal obesity (waist >/=88 cm in females and >/=102 cm in males) at age 25 in 4,240 twin individuals (90% of twins born in Finland, 1975-1979). Ten 25-year-old monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs who were discordant for obesity (with a 16 kg weight difference) were then carefully evaluated for current PA (using a triaxial accelerometer), total energy expenditure (TEE, assessed by means of the doubly labeled water (DLW) method), and basal metabolic rate (BMR, assessed by indirect calorimetry).Results:Physical inactivity in adolescence strongly predicted the risk for obesity (odds ratio (OR) 3.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-10.9) and abdominal obesity (4.8, 1.9-12.0) at age 25, even after adjusting for baseline and current BMI. Poor physical fitness in adolescence also increased the risk for overall obesity (5.1, 2.0-12.7) and abdominal obesity (3.2, 1.5-6.7) in adulthood. Physical inactivity was both causative and secondary to the development of obesity discordance in the MZ pairs. TEE did not differ between the MZ co-twins. PA was lower whereas BMR was higher in the obese co-twins.Discussion:Physical inactivity in adolescence strongly and independently predicts total (and especially) abdominal obesity in young adulthood, favoring the development of a self-perpetuating vicious circle of obesity and physical inactivity. Physical activity should therefore be seriously recommended for obesity prevention in the young.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Butte NF, Puyau MR, Vohra FA, Adolph AL, Mehta NR, Zakeri I. Body size, body composition, and metabolic profile explain higher energy expenditure in overweight children. J Nutr. 2007 Dec;137(12):2660-7.

Lower relative rates of energy expenditure (EE), increased energetic efficiency, and altered fuel utilization purportedly associated with obesity have not been demonstrated indisputably in overweight children. We hypothesized that differences in energy metabolism between nonoverweight and overweight children are attributable to differences in body size and composition, circulating thyroid hormones, sympathetic nervous system, and adrenomedullary activity. A total of 836 Hispanic children, 5-19 y old, participated in 24-h calorimetry, anthropometric, and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements. Biochemistries were determined by standard techniques. Absolute total EE (TEE) and its components (sleep EE, basal EE, sedentary EE, cycling EE, walking EE, activity EE, nonexercising activity thermogenesis) were higher in overweight children (P = 0.001). Net mechanical energetic efficiency of cycling was lower in overweight children (P = 0.001). Adjusting for body size and composition accounted for differences in TEE, its components, and energetic efficiency. Net carbohydrate and fat utilization did not differ between groups. TEE was independently influenced by sex, Tanner stage, fat free mass, fat mass (FM), fasting serum nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA), leptin, free thyroxine, triiodothyronine, and 24-h urinary norepinephrine and epinephrine. Fat utilization was independently associated with age2, sex, FM, fasting serum NEFA, triacylglycerol, adiponectin, leptin, total thyroxine, and free triiodothyronine. Higher EE in overweight children was largely explained by differences in body size and composition, with minor contributions of thyroid and sympathoadrenal systems. Alterations in EE, energetic efficiency, and substrate utilization were not evident in the overweight children.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/137/12/2660

Bottom line is that trying to apply the same concepts from an already healthy-weight adult engaging in an exercise routine to obese adults and children do not take into account the changes that have already occurred in their bodies. It's easier to maintain a healthy weight and body fat composition than it is to lose fat once you've put it on. It's NOT easy, and to tell someone it should be easy is only going to set them up for failure when they realize that the fat really isn't going to just melt off quickly.

There is also a lot more myth than fact spread around about obesity, weight loss and nutrition, much of it originating from fad diets. Be very careful about sources. Even M.D.s can get this stuff wrong. I'd stick with someone with a degree in nutritional sciences to help formulate a diet and weight-loss program, and stick with the M.D. to monitor your health during that program to ensure there isn't some underlying condition that's making the weight loss program unsafe for you.

One should also be careful about too loosely using terms like body weight when it's body composition that's also important. Some very petite looking people who would be considered a "healthy" weight according to indices such as BMI, have a disproportionate amount of fat to muscle (small, underdeveloped muscles, and a lot of fat surrounding them). In contrast, some very obese people also have large, well developed muscles, but they are also surrounded by large amounts of fat. Those muscles are large from carrying around all that excess weight. And, some very fit people would register as "obese" according to BMI, but are actually very lean (though there are also a lot of overweight people who prefer to delude themselves into believing they aren't fat, it's really all muscle).

 

[mheslep]

I'm sure all tissues contribute, but at least for athletes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate" is primarily a function of muscle mass.

...Not true. Basal metabolic rate is the energy required for ALL basal body functions...digestion, heart rate, breathing, all cellular functions.

Wait - 'resting' rate by definition excludes major digestion? - usually measured after a fast? No quarrel that all bodily functions contribute to metabolic rate, I only assert that muscle mass dominates the others in terms of percentage of body energy required to maintain the tissue per kg of tissue. Consequence: adding 5kg of muscle will elevate MBR more than 5kg of fat.

 

[Moonbear]

Wait - 'resting' rate by definition excludes major digestion? - usually measured after a fast? No quarrel that all bodily functions contribute to metabolic rate, I only assert that muscle mass dominates the others in terms of percentage of body energy required to maintain the tissue per kg of tissue. Consequence: adding 5kg of muscle will elevate MBR more than 5kg of fat.

No, basal metabolic rate does not exclude digestion. That's going on all the time. A fast is going to change your physiology considerably (and unless it's a very prolonged fast, you're still going to have digestive processes going on), so that would be a very inaccurate time to measure anything physiological.

And, if you look at my other references cited, you'll see that your assumption of muscle raising BMR more than fat is inaccurate. I understand this is widely accepted as "fact," and I believed it too until looking into what the scientific studies really had to say about it. It also seems to depend on factors like age. I think it's more that those who are maintaining a large amount of body fat are also consuming a large amount of calories to maintain it.