One possible reason for the #obesity pandemic is ⬇️expenditure. @WHO for example cites "physical inactivity due to the increasingly sedentary nature of many forms of work" as a major cause of obesity. But has Activity Expenditure really declined? 2/ who.int/news-room/fact…
The dlwdatabase.org allows us to test that idea, with >7,000 measures of daily expenditure starting in 1982. For this study, we had >4,000 adults including >1,400 with BMR to test for declines in expenditure 3/
Looking at raw numbers, Total daily expend (TEE) and Activity Expend (AEE) didn't change from 1980's today in men or women. But BMR declined! 4/
When we adjust for body size and composition, a pattern emerges: ⬇️ Total expend due to⬇️BMR... but⬆️Activity Expenditure. The effects aren't strong, typically r^2 < 0.05, but they're there. Here's adjusted data for men 5/
Why the decline in BMR?? That's the big question. The pattern in the dlwdatabase.org data match what we see in BMR records since the early 1900's, a steady decline in BMR. This is a long term change. 6/
⬇️BMR could be due to diet changes. Others have argued for this like @fire_bottle . @JohnSpeakman4 led additional analyses showing ⬇️BMR with less saturated fat in mice 🐭but not clear yet in humans. 7/
In any case, the ⬇️over the past century corresponds nicely w the ⬇️in body temperature. Both are interesting puzzles at the moment. Solve one and you might solve the other. 9/ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31908267/
What does all this mean for #obesity ? First, it strongly challenges the idea that ⬇️physical activity has caused the obesity crisis. By these measures, daily activity expenditure is *higher* today than it was 40 years ago. Time to rethink the guidelines @WHO@CDCgov & others 10/
Second, it could rescue the idea that ⬇️expenditure is a factor in global obesity. Energy imbalance hinges on Total expend : Intake, and total expend is⬇️. Still, I'm skeptical 11/
The reduction in BMR seems to start before the obesity crisis. More importantly when we look at people with obesity today we *don't* find that they have ⬇️total expend. This was true in the 1980's too. 12/ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3083978/
More to do, as always, and the paper points to intriguing next steps: testing the factor(s) that ⬇️BMR, whether ⬇️total expend is causal for obesity in longer longitudinal studies, and looking again at how/whether changes in lifestyle cause BMR or total expend. 14/
A big thanks to everyone who has contributed data to the dlwdatabase.org ! This dataset has opened up a world of cool and useful analyses that weren't possible before. If you have an idea for an analysis, check out the website - the dataset is free to use! 15/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ excited to share paper from our lab led by Chris Klasson (@DukeU undergrad during the project) and PhD student @srishti_sadhir@EvAnthDuke on the association of daily physical activity w immune biomarkers and thyroid hormones 🧵 journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…
2/ some background: we're intrigued by the body's metabolic response to exercise. ⬆️activity is great for health! but doesn't impact daily expenditure as much as we'd expect. Really activity folks often burn the same kcal/day as sedentary. How does the body do that??
3/ Covid put our lab and fieldwork on hold, so we turned to the NHANES dataset, a large representative sample of US adults. Recent rounds of NHANES have accelerometry measures of activity, not just self-report. (Happily we found self-report is reasonably correlated w accel)
2/ We start w a seemingly unrelated puzzle: We've got all these costly traits (big brains, big babies, long lives, high physical activity) at the core of what makes us human.
But how do we get all that energy?! nature.com/articles/natur…
3/ Lots of ideas out there over the decades on how we afford such extravagance. Not much data though.
Our new paper uses hard data on the energy and time costs of foraging in humans (hunter-gatherers, farmers) & 3 apes: chimps, gorillas, orangutans.
2.We’ve known for over a century that larger people (& larger organisms in general) use more energy. Some evidence that age is important. But it was unclear just how size affected energy, or what those age effects are.
3.Most past work had focused on Basal or Resting Metabolic Rate – which is only a portion (~55 – 70%) of total daily energy exp. DLW studies – the gold standard for TDEE - were too small to parse effects of size & age, which of covary
2.First, anat & phys: Humans often touted as having small GI tracts. Evidence says… sort of. We’re in the primate spectrum. Total length = primate. Large intestine= primate w high diet quality. Not carnivore.
⚫️=primates 🔺=human
3.Stomach ph? Really low for humans, similar to scavengers, not like carnivores. Why so low? @bendormiki argues Paleo humans fed on large game for days, had to deal w high pathogen loads. Maybe. Could also be scavenging old carcasses from other carnivores, etc.
Still wrong, even in less “humorous” form. This sort of poor evolutionary thinking is a big problem esp as medicine adopts a more evolutionary perspective (which is great when done well).
Argument is: Species X needed to evolve trait Y, and so adopted behavior Z. Folks, doesn’t work that way.
First, for any “crucial” trait, there are 10000s of species that lack it. Theres always many solutions. Thinking the trait was inevitable / necessary is wrong. 2/
In the specific case of hominins it’s clearly false that Australopithecus (ancestral genus to Homo) *needed* to get bigger. They lasted 3+ million years, longer than Homo has. And lots of other species (like baboons) thrive on savannah at small body size 3/
Great to see discussion generated by this. One common complaint: “yeah but living hunter gatherers aren’t good models of the past”. Often followed by some version of “Surely in the good old days we ate more meat”. Very flawed argument. Here’s why 1/
1. First, totally correct that *no* HG population is a perfect model for *all*. Tons of diversity across the HG world just as today. 2. Also true that no pop today is a time machine, stuck in amber as a model of the Paleolithic
BUT
2/
3. There is no empirical evidence from the 2 million years of fossil & archeological evidence of our genus Homo that we were ever “carnivores” or “facultative carnivores”. Teeth and tools have wear and microfossils of plants, even cereals. We’ve always eaten a mixed diet
3/