Why is it that some people remain thin while others pile on the pounds? This week I take my hat off to researchers at The Mayo Clinic for a unique experiment that didn’t cost millions of dollars or involve thousands of patients. That’s a pleasant change. But what caught my eye about the report in The Medical Post was the underwear. How it has helped to solve the obesity dilemma. and not being a linguist, I wondered what the phrase "non-exercise activity thermogensis (NEaT)" meant.
The explanation is that NEaT is the amount of energy we all lose in the course of a day. Not the energy consumed during a planned five-mile walk. Rather, the energy we lose from sitting, walking, standing and fidgeting in a day’s normal activity.
To explore NEaT, investigators recruited 20 volunteers half of whom were thin and the others slightly obese. Then to determine the effect of NEaT on obesity they designed special underwear. It would never win a beauty contest, and participants had to wear it 24 hours a day except for a 15 minute shower.
This specially designed underwear was wired to record every move they made during the day and night. In addition, every calorie consumed by the volunteers was counted meticulously by researchers. Then they analyzed participants’ movements.
Both groups were found to lie down the same amount of time. But then differences emerged. Those overweight sat down for an average of 9.5 hours a day. In contrast, the lean ones sat down only 6.8 hours a day. Moreover, the lean ones spent 2.7 more hours walking or standing than those who were obese.
The wired underwear showed one vital fact. The sum of all the small physical things we do during the course of a day contributes to the burning of calories. and this total is not an insignificant amount. The less active obese group each burned 350 fewer calories per day. These people, researchers said, had a lower "non-exercise activity theromgenesis". and this lower NEaT burned 127,750 fewer calories each year, a whopping amount. That should make us all a little fidgety and set us off walking around the room as a good start.
Researchers then posed the next question. Was NEaT the cause of obesity or the effect of it? To find out they gave more calories to the thin group and fewer calories to the overweight ones.
The lean group did gain some weight, but still maintained their same level of activity. The overweight group did lose a few pounds but they still remained seated for the same length of time.
Dr. James Levine, an endocrinologist at The Mayo Clinic, says, "Our patients have told us for years that they have a low metabolism and, as caregivers, we have never quite understood what that means." Now he says, "The answer is that they have a low NEaT and have a biological urge to sit more and that the calories we burn up in everyday activities are far, far more important in obesity than we ever imagined."
Levine says doctors must help obese patients overcome a low NEaT by focussing on NEaT-seeking behaviours as well as food consumption.
The good news is no one has to run a 10 mile marathon every week to lose weight. Rather, the answer is to get more fidgety. But the question that Mayo researchers don’t answer is how to change a placid personality into a fidgety one.
My wife, after living with me for many years, would tell Mayo researchers that it can’t be done. That I have a super high NEaT which keeps me tapping my fingers and toes, getting up from the computer dozens of times a day and constantly moving about.
I agree it’s hard to change the stripes on a tiger and genetically we are what we are. But the metabolic underwear study hasn’t been a complete waste of time. It proved that if someone with a low NEaT makes a conscious effort to increase this number, it can result in loss of weight. and hopefully, for those overwight, it may be a little easier to speed up than it is for the lean to slow down.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement