The energy expenditure of postmenopausal women classified as restrained or unrestrained eaters

Abstract

Objective: Restrained eating is a common dietary practice among individuals who are attempting to prevent weight gain, but little is known about differences in energy physiology and regulation between restrained and unrestrained eaters. We investigated this issue in non-obese free-living postmenopausal women classified as longterm restrained (n ¼ 26) or unrestrained (n ¼ 34) eaters group matched for body mass index (BMI). Measurements: Measurements were made of total energy expenditure (TEE), resting energy expenditure (REE), body composition, reported leisure time activity, maximal aerobic capacity (VO 2max ) and weight change during the study period. In addition, physical activity level (PAL) and nonexercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) were calculated from measured variables. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups in body composition, weight change, aerobic capacity or total leisure time activity. Relationships between fat-free mass (FFM) and both REE and TEE, and the relationship between work load and energy expenditure in the test of maximal oxygen consumption, were also not different between groups. However, restrained eaters had a significantly lower PAL (equal to TEE=REE, 1.72 AE 0.04 vs 1.84AE 0.04, P < 0.05). In addition, in multiple regression models predicting NEAT, NEAT was significantly lower in restrained eaters than unrestrained eaters and there was a positive relationship between NEAT and weight change in unrestrained eaters but no relationship in restrained eaters (P < 0.05). Conclusions: In contrast to a previous report, we found no significant difference in TEE between restrained and unrestrained eaters. PAL was slightly lower in restrained eaters, apparently due to reduced NEAT, and restrained eaters also lacked the positive association between NEAT and body weight change seen in unrestrained eaters. This latter finding, if confirmed in future studies, could help explain an increased susceptibility of restrained eaters to weight gain. Sponsorship: NIH grants AG12829, DK46124 and T32AG00209, and US Cooperative Agreement number 58-1950-9-001. Descriptors: energy metabolism; total energy expenditure; resting energy expenditure; doubly labeled water; respiratory quotient; body composition

Association of cognitive restraint with ghrelin, leptin, and insulin levels in subjects who are not weight-reduced

“…In identical twin pairs, a restrictive/overeating eating style predicted excess weight even when genetic background was controlled for [42]. Interestingly, restrained eaters are not consistently found to be in energy deficit [43], as documented by stable lifetime maximum weight in this study and resting energy expenditure in other studies [44][45][46]. However, alterations in hormones such as ghrelin suggest a biological impetus for weight gain despite energy balance -a loophole of sorts in the body weight regulatory system.…”

Restrained Eating Behavior and the Metabolic Response to Dietary Energy Restriction in Women

“…Platte et al (17) found that resting metabolic rate was reduced significantly in restrained eaters. It should be noted that, similar to our findings, other investigators have failed to find an effect of restrained eating behavior on resting metabolic rate (18, 19) or the thermic effect of food (17, 18).…”

Neuroregulation of nonexercise activity thermogenesis and obesity resistance

“…Individual differences in spontaneous physical activity and NEAT have important implications for energy balance (89), but the mechanisms underlying spontaneous physical activity and NEAT are still unknown. A study of the response to overfeeding in self-reported restrained and unrestrained eaters indicates that restrained eaters have reduced NEAT, which may contribute to enhanced susceptibility to weight gain in restrained eaters (8). In mice, levels of spontaneous physical activity cluster within strain (22,146), and in humans, within families (22,155,163), suggesting that inherent differences may account for variance in NEAT.…”