【Full text】

The conventional prescription that people with obesity should “eat less and exercise more” remains widely used as a standard approach to weight management, despite repeated reports of its low long-term success rate [1].

At the same time, recent findings from genetics, epidemiology, physiology, and related fields have increasingly shown that body weight and body fat are biologically regulated within a certain range. These findings are helping to establish a biological framework that may explain why long-term success with weight-loss dieting is so difficult to achieve.

Following weight loss, adaptive responses are triggered through coordinated changes in metabolism, neuroendocrine function, autonomic nervous system activity, and even behavior. These responses have been shown to resist the maintenance of weight loss [4].

In this article, I will briefly introduce the biological mechanisms that may promote post-weight-loss weight rebound—or, in some cases, further weight gain. I will also explain how these mechanisms relate to, and differ from, my proposed “intestinal starvation” theory.

【Related Article】
The Spread of Dieting May Be Fueling the Rise in Obesity

Energy restriction is associated with a reduction in resting energy expenditure (REE) [5]. Many studies have reported that behavioral weight loss leads to a greater decrease in both resting and total energy expenditure than would be predicted based on changes in body composition and the thermic effect of food [4,6]. 

However, regarding the timing of its onset, the evidence is inconsistent [9]. Some studies have detected adaptive thermogenesis (AT) within a week of energy restriction, which has been associated with rapid declines in insulin secretion, depletion of glycogen stores, and loss of intracellular and extracellular fluid [10].

In contrast, a growing body of evidence suggests that underfeeding-associated AT takes weeks to develop, in association with reduced leptin secretion following the loss of body fat, among other physiological adaptations [9,11,12].

   
Although the persistence of AT also remains a subject of debate [7], some studies indicate that this metabolic adaptation may continue for years even after energy balance has been reestablished at a lower weight [13]. 
       

A number of hormones secreted from the gastrointestinal tract and adipose tissue are known to play key roles in regulating appetite, food intake, energy expenditure, and body weight [14,15].

     
Leptin is a hormone secreted by fat cells that helps regulate body weight by suppressing appetite and influencing energy expenditure. High leptin levels signal to the brain that energy stores are sufficient, whereas low leptin levels indicate that energy stores are low [16].

It has been shown that leptin levels drop within 24 hours of energy restriction [17]. Interestingly, many studies have reported a greater reduction in leptin levels than would be expected based on the loss of body fat [18,19].

It has been suggested that the primary role of leptin may be the prevention of starvation, rather than weight regulation per se [15,20]. When leptin levels fall below a certain threshold—the point at which specific physiological responses are triggered (Note1)—starvation defense mechanisms are activated, even if substantial fat stores remain [17]. This leads to a reduction in metabolic rate and physical activity, as well as an increase in hunger [21,22].

       
Furthermore, in individuals who have lost weight, an increase in the appetite-stimulating hormone ghrelin, along with decreases in the post-meal satiety signals peptide YY (PYY) and cholecystokinin (CCK), has been observed [23]. As a result, diet-induced weight loss may simultaneously reduce satiety and increase hunger, potentially promoting overeating [15].

Note 1: It has been suggested that this threshold rises as fat mass increases [17].

Food reward refers to the brain's reward response to food, which generates pleasure and satisfaction from eating, as well as the motivation to eat again. This process involves activation of the brain's reward circuitry, where neurotransmitters such as dopamine are released, leading to feelings of pleasure and increased appetite.

Modern neuroimaging studies using fMRI have shown that both nutritional status (e.g. hunger vs. satiety) and different food stimuli (e.g. high- vs. low-calorie foods, appetizing vs. bland foods) can alter activity in the brain's reward circuitry [27–29].

Recent studies in healthy individuals indicate that short- or long-term caloric restriction, as well as fasting, may increase the reward value of food—especially high-calorie, palatable foods [27,30].

These findings may help explain why calorie-restricted diets often fail in the long term [28,30].

Food addiction: similarities and differences from drug addiction

While drugs and food share certain characteristics, they also differ in important ways.

Drugs of abuse, such as cocaine, act directly on the brain's dopamine circuitry, whereas food influences these circuits more indirectly. Signals from taste and smell, nutrient sensors in the digestive tract [31], and hormones released during digestion and nutrient absorption all communicate with the brain, thereby influencing the dopamine system [25].

Food intake is primarily regulated by three interacting neural systems: the homeostatic, reward-related, and inhibitory systems [15].

The inhibitory system—mainly involving the brain region responsible for self-control and decision-making—helps regulate eating behavior and inhibit excessive food intake [34].

Cognitive control of food reward

In humans, the urge to seek and consume palatable foods can be moderated by executive functions—the cognitive processes involved in self-control and decision-making.

One of the central dilemmas in daily life is balancing one's internal goals (e.g. cutting back on sweets to maintain health and weight control) against the immediate reward of eating tempting foods. This conflict is particularly challenging when highly desirable foods, such as donuts or pizza, are readily available [25].

Prospective studies in young individuals, as well as rodent experiments, suggest that severe caloric restriction, characterized by 24-hour fasting or fat-free diets, may increase the risk of developing binge eating and bulimia in the future [37,38].

Weight-loss dieting may reduce the size, but not the number, of fat cells [39]. It remains unclear whether hyperplasia (an increase in adipocyte number) contributes to weight rebound in weight-suppressed individuals [15]. However, in a study of obese rats, adipocyte hyperplasia was observed following refeeding after fasting [40].

In humans, a similar possibility has been suggested.

The mechanisms described in Sections (1)–(5) are generally thought to represent a series of anti-starvation (or anti-weight-loss) responses (Note 2) that occur in association with energy restriction and weight loss [15].

In contrast, my intestinal starvation hypothesis proposes that when all ingested food is completely digested and no undigested matter remains in the intestinal tract, the body may interpret this condition as a starvation signal.

Intestinal starvation may occur not only during strict dietary restriction for weight loss (e.g. skipping meals or eating extremely small amounts of food), but also during more moderate dieting or even everyday eating habits that are not intended for weight loss, such as skipping breakfast, eating a light lunch, having dinner late at night, or eating only two meals a day.

Furthermore, in my intestinal starvation hypothesis, adaptive responses to intestinal starvation may lead to weight gain suggestive of an upward shift in the body-weight set point. This weight gain may involve not only body fat but also lean body mass, including skeletal muscle. Therefore, this mechanism may differ from conventional models of obesity, in which weight gain is explained primarily by an increase in body fat.

【Related article】
How Intestinal Starvation Can Lead to Weight Gain

Note ２: Because these responses are activated despite adequate energy stores, some researchers prefer the term “anti-weight-loss” rather than anti-starvation mechanisms [15].

At present, the causal relationship between the biological responses described in Sections (1)–(5) and post-weight-loss weight rebound has not yet been fully established [15]. Nevertheless, many people who have experienced weight rebound after dieting may find that these mechanisms are consistent with their own experiences.

Some researchers have pointed out that the biological forces that resist weight loss and promote the recovery of lost weight are extremely powerful and difficult to overcome for most individuals attempting to lose weight through behavioral interventions. They have also suggested that achieving long-term weight loss will require the development of interventions that weaken these biological responses themselves [15].

　　　
I generally agree with this perspective, although my approach differs somewhat. 

In my opinion, achieving long-term weight loss depends not only on developing interventions that weaken these biological responses, but also on adopting dietary and lifestyle habits that minimize activation of the body's anti-starvation (or anti-weight-loss) mechanisms in the first place. 

Maintaining this type of dietary pattern may help prolong satiety and reduce feelings of hunger. Over the long term, I propose that it may also facilitate the transmission, via the gut-brain axis, of information to the brain indicating that food remains sufficiently available.

Note 2. I do not believe that foods high in fat should necessarily be avoided. Depending on the overall composition of the diet and how such foods are consumed, they can be incorporated appropriately.

　　　
【Related Article】
Weight Loss Without Rebounding Requires Two Steps

<References>
[1] Bacon L, Aphramor L. Weight science: evaluating the evidence for a paradigm shift. Nutr J. 2011 Jan 24;10:9. 

[2-3] Deleted

[4] Rosenbaum M, Leibel RL. Adaptive thermogenesis in humans. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010 Oct;34 Suppl 1(0 1):S47-55. 

[5]Jiménez Jaime T et al. Effect of calorie restriction on energy expenditure in overweight and obese adult women. Nutr Hosp. 2015 Jun 1;31(6):2428-36. 

[6]Johannsen DL et al. Metabolic slowing with massive weight loss despite preservation of fat-free mass. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Jul;97(7):2489-96. 

[7]Hall KD, Guo J. Obesity Energetics: Body Weight Regulation and the Effects of Diet Composition. Gastroenterology. 2017 May;152(7):1718-1727.e3. 

[8]Leibel RL, Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J. Changes in energy expenditure resulting from altered body weight. N Engl J Med. 1995 Mar 9;332(10):621-8. 

[9]Egan AM, Collins AL. Dynamic changes in energy expenditure in response to underfeeding: a review. Proc Nutr Soc. 2022 May;81(2):199-212. 

[10]Heinitz S et al. Early adaptive thermogenesis is a determinant of weight loss after six weeks of caloric restriction in overweight subjects. Metabolism. 2020 Sep;110:154303. 

[11] Dulloo AG, Seydoux J, Jacquet J. Adaptive thermogenesis and uncoupling proteins: a reappraisal of their roles in fat metabolism and energy balance. Physiol Behav. 2004 Dec 30;83(4):587-602. 

[12]Müller MJ, Enderle J, Bosy-Westphal A. Changes in Energy Expenditure with Weight Gain and Weight Loss in Humans. Curr Obes Rep. 2016 Dec;5(4):413-423. 

[13]Fothergill E et al. Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after "The Biggest Loser" competition. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2016 Aug;24(8):1612-9. 

[14]Schwartz MW et al. Central nervous system control of food intake. Nature. 2000 Apr 6;404(6778):661-71. 

[15]Ochner CN et al. Biological mechanisms that promote weight regain following weight loss in obese humans. Physiol Behav. 2013 Aug 15;120:106-13. 

[16]Hebebrand J et al. The role of hypoleptinemia in the psychological and behavioral adaptation to starvation: Implications for anorexia nervosa. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022 Oct;141:104807. 

[17]Leibel RL. The role of leptin in the control of body weight. Nutr Rev. 2002 Oct;60(10 Pt 2):S15-9; discussion S68-84, 85-7. 

[18]Löfgren P et al. Long-term prospective and controlled studies demonstrate adipose tissue hypercellularity and relative leptin deficiency in the postobese state. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Nov;90(11):6207-13. 

[19]Rosenbaum M et al. Effects of weight change on plasma leptin concentrations and energy expenditure. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1997 Nov;82(11):3647-54. 

[20]Ahima RS et al. Role of leptin in the neuroendocrine response to fasting. Nature. 1996 Jul 18;382(6588):250-2. 

[21] Rosenbaum M et al. Energy intake in weight-reduced humans. Brain Res. 2010 Sep 2;1350:95-102. 

[22]Kissileff HR et al. Leptin reverses declines in satiation in weight-reduced obese humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Feb;95(2):309-17. 

[23] Sumithran P et al. Long-term persistence of hormonal adaptations to weight loss. N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 27;365(17):1597-604. 

[24]Chaptini L, Peikin S. Neuroendocrine regulation of food intake. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2008 Mar;24(2):223-9. 

[25]Alonso-Alonso M et al. Food reward system: current perspectives and future research needs. Nutr Rev. 2015 May;73(5):296-307. 

[26]Begg DP, Woods SC. The endocrinology of food intake. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2013 Oct;9(10):584-97. 

[27]Goldstone AP et al. Fasting biases brain reward systems towards high-calorie foods. Eur J Neurosci. 2009 Oct;30(8):1625-35. 

[28]Siep N et al. Hunger is the best spice: an fMRI study of the effects of attention, hunger and calorie content on food reward processing in the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex. Behav Brain Res. 2009 Mar 2;198(1):149-58. 

[29]Haase L, Cerf-Ducastel B, Murphy C. Cortical activation in response to pure taste stimuli during the physiological states of hunger and satiety. Neuroimage. 2009 Feb 1;44(3):1008-21. 

[30] Stice E, Burger K, Yokum S. Caloric deprivation increases responsivity of attention and reward brain regions to intake, anticipated intake, and images of palatable foods. Neuroimage. 2013 Feb 15;67:322-30. 

[31] de Araujo IE et al. Food reward in the absence of taste receptor signaling. Neuron. 2008 Mar 27;57(6):930-41. 

[32]Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. Sugar and fat bingeing have notable differences in addictive-like behavior. J Nutr. 2009 Mar;139(3):623-8. 

[33]Berthoud HR, Zheng H, Shin AC. Food reward in the obese and after weight loss induced by calorie restriction and bariatric surgery. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012 Aug;1264(1):36-48. 

[34]Pannacciulli N et al. Less activation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in response to a meal: a feature of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Oct;84(4):725-31. 

[35]DelParigi A et al. Successful dieters have increased neural activity in cortical areas involved in the control of behavior. Int J Obes (Lond). 2007 Mar;31(3):440-8. 

[36]Burger KS, Stice E. Relation of dietary restraint scores to activation of reward-related brain regions in response to food intake, anticipated intake, and food pictures. Neuroimage. 2011 Mar 1;55(1):233-9. 

[37]Stice E, Davis K, Miller NP, Marti CN. Fasting increases risk for onset of binge eating and bulimic pathology: a 5-year prospective study. J Abnorm Psychol. 2008 Nov;117(4):941-6. 

[38]Ogawa R et al. Chronic food restriction and reduced dietary fat: risk factors for bouts of overeating. Physiol Behav. 2005 Nov 15;86(4):578-85. 

[39]Gurr MI et al. Adipose tissue cellularity in man: the relationship between fat cell size and number, the mass and distribution of body fat and the history of weight gain and loss. Int J Obes. 1982;6(5):419-36. PMID: 7174187.

[40]Yang MU, Presta E, Björntorp P. Refeeding after fasting in rats: effects of duration of starvation and refeeding on food efficiency in diet-induced obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990 Jun;51(6):970-8. 

[41]Arner P. Control of lipolysis and its relevance to development of obesity in man. Diabetes Metab Rev. 1988 Aug;4(5):507-15. PMID: 3061758.

[42]MacLean PS et al. The role for adipose tissue in weight regain after weight loss. Obes Rev. 2015 Feb;16 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):45-54.

[43]MacLean PS et al. Peripheral metabolic responses to prolonged weight reduction that promote rapid, efficient regain in obesity-prone rats. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2006 Jun;290(6):R1577-88.

【 Full text 】

I view the human body as possessing a homeostatic system that attempts to maintain body weight within a certain range, and from this perspective, I believe that the concept of a body-weight set point carries important implications.

In this article, I will discuss the background and challenges of set-point theory, which has received renewed attention in recent years. I believe that understanding the environmental and behavioral factors that may contribute to upward shifts in the body-weight set point is important for addressing the growing problem of obesity.

Obesity and weight loss attempts

♦An obese individual who insists that a lean friend has consistently eaten more than the fat person does, may well be telling the truth.（*snip*）

The group of obese patients who are greatly in need of our understanding are those who keep to a calorie intake of perhaps 1,000 kcal per day, yet lose less than one kg per week. There is no doubt whatsoever that such people exist, and can be studied in a metabolic ward under conditions where 'cheating' is virtually impossible without being detected.

Usually these are middle-aged women who have been perhaps 40 kg overweight, and who have already lost about 20 kg. They are often depressed, hypothermic, and have a low metabolic rate. The nature of this metabolic adaptation to a low-calorie diet is not known (as of 1973), but it is a phenomenon  that has been recognized since before the 1920s (J S Garrow, 1973)[1].　

     
♦For obese individuals, a certain amount of weight loss is possible through a range of treatments, but long-term maintenance of weight loss is much more challenging, and in most cases, the weight is regained [2]. In a meta-analysis of 29 long-term weight loss studies, more than half of the lost weight was regained within two years, and by five years, more than 80% of lost weight was regained [3,4].

In addition, studies of those who are successful at sustained weight loss indicate that the maintenance of reduced body fat will probably require close attention to energy intake and expenditure, perhaps for life [5].

Contrary to popular belief, people with obesity generally have a higher absolute REE compared to leaner subjects. This is because obesity increases both body fat and metabolically active fat-free mass [7,8].

PAEE can be subdivided into "voluntary exercise" and “activities of daily living.” Despite typically engaging in less physical activity, obese individuals often have a daily energy cost for physical activity similar to that of non-obese individuals since PAEE is proportional to body weight [7,9]. Additionally, due to greater food intake, their DIT also tends to be higher [7].

Dynamic changes in energy expenditure

♦Obesity prevention is often erroneously described as a simple bookkeeping matter of balancing caloric intake and expenditure [10].

In this model, energy intake and expenditure are considered independent parameters determined solely by behavior. It is assumed that an obese person can steadily lose weight by eating less and/or moving more at a rate of one pound for every 3,500 kcal (or one kg for every 7,200 kcal) of accumulated dietary caloric deficit [7,11]. This view has been referred to as a “static model” of weight loss, but it has been shown to be physiologically impossible [7,12]. 

Body weight set point theory

♦In recent years, the influence of homeostatic control has become increasingly recognized, and growing evidence suggests that the body employs physiological mechanisms to regulate energy balance and maintain body weight around a genetically and environmentally determined set point [12].

In 1953, Kennedy proposed that body fat storage is regulated [15]. In 1982, nutritional researchers William Bennett and Joel Gurin expanded on Kennedy's concept when they developed the set-point theory [16]. The model has been widely adopted, and strengthened particularly after the discovery of leptin in the 1990s [7,12].

When an individual loses weight, the body significantly reduces energy expenditure to a degree that is often greater than predicted based on changes in body composition or the thermic effect of food. This process also causes an increase in appetite through hormonal regulation and alters food preferences through behavioral changes, to drive body weight back toward its set-point range[7,16]. 

♦Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by about 20 to 25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure.  This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10–15% greater than predicted based solely on changes in fat and lean mass [17,18].

Since obese individuals also display these compensatory metabolic adjustments in response to dietary restriction, obesity may be considered a natural physiological state for some people. Experimental studies on obesity in animals similarly suggest a view of obesity as a condition of body energy regulation at an elevated set point [19]. 

♦A meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies investigating adaptive thermogenesis (AT) by comparing formerly obese subjects who had lost weight with BMI-matched subjects who were never obese, found a 3–5% lower resting energy expenditure (REE) in formerly obese subjects compared to never obese controls [20].

This effect means, for example, that if an obese woman reduced her weight from 100 kg to 70 kg, she would have to consume fewer calories to remain at 70 kg than a woman who had consistently weighed 70 kg [6]. Similar results have been confirmed in animal experiments involving obese and normal-weight rats.

This suggests that the frequent claim made by obese people that they eat the same or less than their lean friends but lose no weight, must be given more credence than it is ordinarily accorded [19].

♦In addition, hyperphagia (overeating) has been demonstrated following experimental semi-starvation and short-term underfeeding, which is probably the result of homeostatic signals resulting from the loss of both body fat and lean tissue [7,21].

　
♦This theory also suggests that a person's body-weight set point is established early in life and remains relatively stable unless altered by specific conditions. However, the set point may change throughout one’s life due to factors such as marriage, childbirth, menopause, aging, and disease [16]. 

On the other hand, the set-point theory remains hypothetical because the molecular mechanisms involved in set-point regulation have not yet been fully elucidated, and some researchers may consider the theory overly simplistic [16].

On the other hand, some researchers have pointed out important limitations of the body-weight set-point model. 

If a homeostatic system truly exists to maintain body weight within a certain range, a fundamental question arises: why do so many individuals in Western countries continue to gain weight gradually throughout majority of their adult lives? In particular, this model does not adequately explain the increasing prevalence of obesity observed in many societies worldwide since around the 1970s [22].

　　
In response, some researchers have suggested that while metabolic resistance to sustaining a reduced body weight is strong, metabolic resistance to sustained increased adiposity may not be physiologically long-lasting. Indeed, the steady increase in obesity prevalence supports the idea that the human body may be physiologically more permissive of weight gain than of weight loss [17,23]. 

These explanations that continuous consumption of high-calorie diet leads to an increase in the body-weight set point may sound plausible at first. However, in my opinion, if body weight changes in only one direction in response to a single external factor, it can no longer be considered a true “set point.”

Moreover, when this hypothesis is applied to humans, it fails to account for the fact that some individuals remain lean despite frequently consuming similarly high-calorie foods. In practice, several contradictions can be identified, including the following: 

I propose that upward shifts in the body-weight set point are associated with adaptive responses to intestinal starvation.
The next section provides a more detailed explanation of this mechanism. 

At present, many international organizations classify obesity as a chronic disease.

Some researchers interested in the body-weight set-point theory have argued that determining whether obesity, as a chronic condition, is treatable requires a clear understanding of how genetic and environmental factors interact to regulate the set point. At the same time, it is also true that many important environmental and social influences remain insufficiently explained [22].

In this article, I will introduce the concept of “intestinal starvation” as a complementary perspective to address these challenges. The key points are outlined below in four parts.

It is generally assumed that weight gain requires a positive energy balance, and the recent rise in obesity is often explained by increased consumption of high-calorie foods and reduced levels of physical activity. Paradoxically, however, the fact that obesity rates have increased in parallel with the growing prevalence of dieting aimed at weight loss [30] suggests that our current understanding of energy balance may warrant reconsideration [12].

What I want to emphasize is that while short-term weight gain due to overeating can be explained by excess energy intake, long-term and potentially irreversible weight gain may instead be triggered by energy deprivation or by the body’s perception that food is scarce. This pattern is also consistent with the phenomenon in which body weight increases beyond its previous level following experimental starvation or weight-loss dieting. 

【Related Articles】The Spread of Dieting May Be Fueling the Rise in Obesity

It is certainly true that high-calorie foods have become increasingly common since the 1970s. However, an even more important factor affecting the human body may be the rise of food processing—particularly ultra-processing. As food processing advanced, hard-to-digest components were gradually removed, while softer and more easily digestible components became increasingly dominant. 

Intestinal starvation is a physiological state that is more likely to occur when four factors overlap simultaneously. This concept provides a framework for understanding obesity as a chronic condition arising from interactions between genetic and environmental factors.

【Related Article】Three (+1) Factors That Accelerate “Intestinal Starvation”

In cases of weight gain that may reflect an upward shift in the body-weight set point through intestinal starvation, the overall efficiency of nutrient absorption may increase. In other words, from the perspective of energy homeostasis, the balance point at which energy intake and expenditure are matched may itself shift to a higher level. This perspective may help explain why even obese individuals with substantial body fat often exhibit compensatory metabolic responses to caloric restriction.

【Related Article】How Intestinal Starvation Can Lead to Weight Gain
      

As mentioned in the section 2, an animal study in rats reported that 90 days of exposure to a “high-energy diet” resulted in irreversible weight gain suggestive of an upward shift in the body-weight set point (Rolls et al., 1980). However, the “fattening diet” used in this experiment consisted mainly of commercially available, highly palatable foods such as potato chips, cheese crackers, and cookies [25]. At the same time, these foods were also highly refined carbohydrates and (ultra-)processed foods.

In contrast, the solid chow provided to the control group consisted of cracked grains, soybean meal, fish meal, and similar ingredients, and may have contained larger amounts of less digestible matter, such as dietary fiber and the tough cell walls of plants. In this respect, the composition of the control diet may have resembled that of human diets commonly seen more than 50 years ago. 

         
Therefore, I believe that caution is needed before concluding that the long-term consumption of a high-energy diet directly caused weight gain suggestive of an upward shift in the body-weight set point.
            

<References>

[1]Garrow JS. Diet and obesity. Proc R Soc Med. 1973 Jul;66(7):642-4. PMID: 4741395; PMCID: PMC1645095.

[2]Wu T, Gao X, Chen M, van Dam RM. Long-term effectiveness of diet-plus-exercise interventions vs. diet-only interventions for weight loss: a meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2009;10(3):313–323. 

[3] Hall KD, Kahan S. Maintenance of Lost Weight and Long-Term Management of Obesity. Med Clin North Am. 2018 Jan;102(1):183-197. 

[4]Anderson JW, Konz EC, Frederich RC, Wood CL. Long-term weight-loss maintenance: a meta-analysis of US studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Nov;74(5):579-84. 

[5]Wing RR, Hill JO. Successful weight loss maintenance. Annu Rev Nutr. 2001;21:323-41. 

[6]Jou C. The biology and genetics of obesity--a century of inquiries. N Engl J Med. 2014 May 15;370(20):1874-7. 

[7]Hall KD, Guo J. Obesity Energetics: Body Weight Regulation and the Effects of Diet Composition. Gastroenterology. 2017 May;152(7):1718-1727.e3. 

[8]Nelson KM, Weinsier RL, Long CL, et al. Prediction of resting energy expenditure from fat-free mass and fat mass. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;56:848–856.

[9]Westerterp KR. Physical activity, food intake, and body weight regulation: insights from doubly labeled water studies. Nutr Rev. 2010;68:148–154.

[10] Levine DI. The curious history of the calorie in U.S. policy: a tradition of unfulfilled promises. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52:125–129.

[11] Hall KD, Chow CC. Why is the 3500 kcal per pound weight loss rule wrong? Int J Obes (Lond). 2013 Dec;37(12):1614. 

[12] Egan AM, Collins AL. Dynamic changes in energy expenditure in response to underfeeding: a review. Proc Nutr Soc. 2022 May;81(2):199-212. doi: 10.1017/S0029665121003669. Epub 2021 Oct 4. PMID: 35103583.

[13]Thomas DM, Martin CK, Lettieri S et al. (2013) Can a weight loss of one pound a week be achieved with a 3500-kcal deficit? Commentary on a commonly accepted rule. In Int J Obes 37, 1611–1613.)

[14]Hall KD, Heymsfield SB, Kemnitz JW et al. Energy balance and its components: implications for body weight regulation. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Apr;95(4):989-94. 

[15]KENNEDY GC. The role of depot fat in the hypothalamic control of food intake in the rat. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1953 Jan 15;140(901):578-96. 

[16] Ganipisetti VM, Bollimunta P. Obesity and Set-Point Theory. 2023 Apr 25. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan–. PMID: 37276312.

[17] Rosenbaum M, Leibel RL. Adaptive thermogenesis in humans. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010 Oct;34 Suppl 1(0 1):S47-55. 

[18] Leibel R, Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J. Changes in energy expenditure resulting from altered body weight. N Eng J Med. 1995;332:621–28.

[19] Richard E. Keesey, Matt D. Hirvonen, Body Weight Set-Points: Determination and Adjustment, The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 127, Issue 9, 1997, Pages 1875S-1883S, ISSN 0022-3166.

[20]Astrup A, Gøtzsche PC, van de Werken K, et al. Meta-analysis of resting metabolic rate in formerly obese subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jun;69(6):1117-22.

[21] Dulloo AG, Jacquet J, Girardier L. Poststarvation hyperphagia and body fat overshooting in humans: a role for feedback signals from lean and fat tissues. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;65:717–723.

[22]Speakman JR, Levitsky DA, Allison DB, et al. Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity. Dis Model Mech. 2011 Nov;4(6):733-45. 

[23] Schwartz MW, Woods SC, Seeley RJ, et al. Is the energy homeostasis system inherently biased toward weight gain? Diabetes. 2003 Feb;52(2):232-8. 

[24] Corbett SW, Stern JS, Keesey RE. Energy expenditure in rats with diet-induced obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 1986 Aug;44(2):173-80.

[25] Rolls B.J., Rowe E.A., Turner R.C. Persistent obesity in rats following a period of consumption of a mixed high energy diet. J Physiol. 1980 Jan;298:415-27. 

[26](Deleted)

[27] Dykes J et al. Socioeconomic gradient in body size and obesity among women: the role of dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger in the Whitehall II study. International Journal of Obesity 2004 Feb,:262-68.

[28] Poskitt EM. Countries in transition: underweight to obesity non-stop? Ann Trop Paediatr. 2009 Mar;29(1):1-11.

[29] Gary Taubes. 2011. Why we get fat. New York: Anchor Books. Pages 15-32.

[30] Montani JP, Schutz Y, Dulloo AG. Dieting and weight cycling as risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases: who is really at risk? Obes Rev. 2015 Feb;16 Suppl 1:7-18.
      

According to George A. Bray (as of 2020, an emeritus professor at Pennington Biomedical Research Center), until the 1960’s, obesity was viewed as a "lack of will power," and many people thought, and some said "if only these patients would push themselves away from the table, they would not have this problem." 

With this view of obesity, he reflects that the turning point for obesity being accepted as a bona fide area of academic interest were the studies on overfeeding. Overfeeding studies began to provide valuable insights into the biology of obesity. For Doctor Bray, who was a postdoctoral fellow at the New England Medical Center Hospital in Boston at the time, the excitement that was generated when the Vermont overfeeding studies were first presented in 1968 was unforgettable[1].

This was the case with the overfeeding experiments conducted by Doctor Ethan Sims in the late 1960’s. Until then, it was commonly believed that, "overeating obviously leads to obesity," so few such experiments had been conducted.

According to Dr. Jason Fung, the author of “The Obesity Code,” Dr. Sims recruited lean students at the nearby University of Vermont and encouraged them to eat a lot to gain weight. However, despite what both he and the students had expected, the students did not become obese. 

Over two hundred days on this overfeeding regimen, twenty inmates gained an average of twenty to twenty-five pounds. (About 10 kg.) However, once the experiment ended and their caloric intake returned to normal, the men had difficulty maintaining the weight gain, and most shed all the weight they had gained relatively easily. The exceptions were two inmates who struggled to lose that weight[3].

At the time, Dr. Bray was allowed to participate as a co-researcher in Dr. Sims' experiment to examine the metabolic changes occurring in adipose tissue during the weight gain that followed overfeeding. 

Later, in 1972, he conducted his own overeating experiment, using himself as a guinea pig. Initially, he tried to double what he usually ate at each meal, but he couldn't finish, so he switched to energy-dense foods, such as ice cream.

Dr.Bray states that this rapid return to normal weight contrasts with the difficulties people with spontaneous obesity have in losing weight, and the even more difficult task of a maintaining a lower weight. Many who develop obesity over years suffer from a different kind of pain than those of us who acutely gain weight by overfeeding. For them, the obesity “slips up” on them and once present, is difficult to reverse.

The history of overfeeding and underfeeding trials and other lines of evidence clearly show that obesity prevention and treatment cannot simply rely on the advice to "eat less and exercise more." [1]

Alex Leaf (Western States University) and Jose Antonio (Nova Southeastern University) reviewed overfeeding studies conducted up to 2017 that evaluated various combinations of macronutrient overfeeding and its effects on body composition. 

They found twenty-five overfeeding studies that reported changes in fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM), in addition to changes in body weight. The study durations ranged from nine to one hundred days, and all but four were conducted in sedentary populations[4]. Notably, the objectives of each study varied, and not all mentioned weight loss following the end of the experiments.

To give a few examples, a study on identical twins was published in 1990.

■Bouchard (Laval University, Canada) et. al. recruited twelve pairs of young adult male identical twins (twenty-four individuals) with no exercise habits. Each participant's energy requirements were measured during a two-week base-line period, and after that, they were overfed by 1000 kcal per day (comprising 15% protein, 35% fat, and 50% carbohydrates), six days per week, for a total of eighty-four days during a one hundred-day period. The men were housed in a closed section of a university dormitory, and were under supervision by staff all day. 

■Conford (University of Michigan) et. al. conducted a study in 2012 involving nine healthy, non-obese adults (seven men and two women). The participants were admitted to the hospital for two weeks, during which time they ate 4000 kcals per day (comprising 15% protein, 35% fat, and 50% carbohydrates). Their energy requirements were determined during a one-week baseline period before the start of the experiment. In addition to three main meals, they had four snacks each day. The average weight gain was 2.1 kg, of which 67 % was fat mass (FM).[6]

The summary of this review indicates that overfeeding healthy, sedentary adults with a diet moderately high in both carbohydrates and fats (35-50% energy intake each) and low in protein (11-15%) primarily results in a gain in fat mass (FM), which accounts for 60-70 % of the weight gain. Additionally, the increase in fat-free mass (FFM) may be due to an increase in body water content rather than skeletal muscle tissue. In contrast, diets with significantly increased protein intake showed favorable changes in body composition, even with increased energy intake[4]. 

Why did the participant’s weight rapidly return to normal over the ensuing weeks when they stopped overeating?

According to Dr. Bray, one of the striking findings in this Vermont study was that to maintain the weight they gained after overfeeding, they required more energy per unit surface area than before weight gain. When Dr. Bray moved to the University of California in 1970, his new lab began operating to explore his hypothesis about why extra energy was required to maintain the increased weight[1].

■Leibel (Rockefeller University) et. al. conducted a study in 1995 involving eighteen obese (BMI of 28 or higher) subjects (Group A) and twenty-three subjects who had never been obese (Group B).

They measured changes in energy expenditure under three conditions: at their usual body weight, after losing more than 10 percent of their body weight by underfeeding, and after gaining 10 percent of their body weight by overfeeding.

The study concluded that maintenance of a reduced weight or elevated body weight is associated with compensatory changes in energy expenditure, which resist maintaining the altered body weight and function to restore the original weight. This suggests that the long-term effectiveness of obesity treatment through caloric reduction may be limited[7]. 

As Dr. Bray mentioned, I also believe that weight gain from temporary excessive caloric intake is due to body mechanisms entirely different from those underlying fundamental obesity. If compensatory metabolic mechanisms resist changes in body weight, why do some people continue to gain weight?

As I have repeatedly mentioned through this blog, the difference between people who are overweight and lean can be explained by the difference in set-point for body weight. (One's set-point weight goes up through intestinal starvation.) 

For example, suppose a person who normally weighs a stable sixty kg  is temporarily overfed and reaches sixty-three kg. 

Today, we are sometimes said to be living in an "obesogenic environment" that promotes obesity, but that does not necessarily mean consuming high-calorie foods or living sedentary lifestyles. As some researchers have already mentioned, calorie counting is clearly of little significance. Changes in caloric intake only lead to temporary weight gain or loss. 

     
Rader, the "obesogenic environment" in my opinion is related to foods that are overly digestible foods (refined carbohydrates, fast food, processed foods, etc.) and an imbalanced diet (lack of vegetables, etc.). When these factors overlap with some other conditions such as skipping breakfast or eating late dinners, intestinal starvation is more likely to be induced.

Of course, researchers will say that in order to gain weight, more energy must be taken into the body than before. For more on why intestinal starvation leads to greater energy intake and weight gain, please refer to the article below.

[Related article]　 Gaining Weight by Intestinal Starvation; What Does It Mean?

<References>

[1]Bray GA. The pain of weight gain: self-experimentation with overfeeding. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020 Jan 1;111(1):17-20. 

[2] Fung J, The Obesity Code, Greystone books, 2016, P114-116.

[3] Jou C. The biology and genetics of obesity--a century of inquiries. N Engl J Med. 2014 May 15;370(20):1874-7.  

[4] Leaf A, Antonio J. The Effects of Overfeeding on Body Composition: The Role of Macronutrient Composition. Int J Exerc Sci. 2017 Dec 1;10(8):1275-1296. 

[5] Bouchard C et al. The response to long-term overfeeding in identical twins. N Engl J Med. 1990 May 24;322(21):1477-82. 

[6] Cornford AS et al. Rapid development of systemic insulin resistance with overeating is not accompanied by robust changes in skeletal muscle glucose and lipid metabolism. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2013 May;38(5):512-9. 

[7] Leibel RL et al. Changes in energy expenditure resulting from altered body weight. N Engl J Med. 1995 Mar 9;332(10):621-8. 

In everyday conversation, weight gain is often understood simply as “an increase in body weight (usually body fat)” compared with the past. However, this expression may lump together multiple processes that are physiologically distinct.

To make the discussion easier to follow, the complex phenomena involved in weight gain are deliberately divided here into two processes as a hypothetical framework.

     
For example, the idea that eating high-calorie foods leads to weight gain is widely shared. In contrast, understanding phenomena such as weight rebound after dieting—sometimes resulting in greater weight gain than before—requires a more explicitly physiological perspective.

I believe that because these qualitatively different processes of weight gain have often been discussed without clear distinction, misleading information about weight loss may have spread, leading many people to engage in dieting practices that are not necessarily appropriate or effective. 

【Related article】

The Increasingly Important "Set-Point" Theory of Body Weight

The first type of “weight gain” reflects, and arises as part of, the body’s homeostatic drive to return to its set point (Fig. 1A).

Many people who are overweight, or tend to gain weight easily, deliberately try to keep their body weight lower by reducing their daily caloric intake and/or increasing physical activity.

In many countries, people often talk about “holiday weight gain” or say that high-calorie foods inevitably make them gain weight. Some also claim, “I gain weight as soon as I eat a little more.”

But in most cases, these experiences can be explained by the homeostatic mechanism that pulls body weight back toward its set point—meaning that the person is simply repeating small cycles of “mini-diets” followed by “mini-rebounds.”

In contrast, the second type of “weight gain” refers to cases in which the body-weight set point itself gradually increases (Fig. 1B).

I propose that an upward shift in the body-weight set point is associated with the body’s adaptive responses to perceived starvation. Broadly speaking, the body is thought to perceive starvation through two major pathways: one is a severe energy deficit caused by excessive caloric restriction, and the other is what I describe in this blog as “intestinal starvation.”

【Related article】
Biological Responses Driving Weight Rebound After Weight Loss

    
Here, I will focus on the latter—cases in which an increase in the body-weight set point is thought to be primarily associated with intestinal starvation.

This pattern can be observed in people who are mindful of their caloric intake and keep breakfast or lunch light—such as opting for a simple burger or sandwich, or instant noodles—yet still find themselves saying, “I’ve gained three kilos over the past year,” or “I’m ten kilos heavier than I was three years ago.”

This phenomenon cannot be adequately explained by simple calorie balance alone. Rather, it suggests the possible involvement of intestinal starvation—which may be induced during prolonged periods of hunger—as well as other regulatory mechanisms in elevating the body-weight set point.

Such a shift may contribute to more fundamental differences between individuals who tend to gain weight easily and those who remain lean.

Indeed, research on set-point theory suggests that, for some individuals, obesity may represent a “natural physiological state” in which energy balance is stably maintained at a relatively high set point for body weight[1].

In real-world weight gain and post-diet rebound, the mechanism for maintaining body weight (A) and the mechanism by which the set point itself increases (B) often operate simultaneously or in an overlapping manner.

For example, the common observation that most people return to their original weight after dieting can be understood as the result of a homeostatic, weight-preserving mechanism (A) described above.

In contrast, when body weight not only returns to baseline but also exceeds the previous level, a mechanism (B) that raises the set point itself may be involved. This is because, during the process of caloric restriction, conditions may arise under which the body comes to perceive itself as being in a state of starvation.

■Sumo wrestlers in Japan are well known for eating large meals and becoming very heavy. In reality, however, their weight gain can be understood as involving a combination of mechanisms (A) and (B) described above.

<References>

[1] Richard E. Keesey, Matt D. Hirvonen, Body Weight Set-Points: Determination and Adjustment, The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 127, Issue 9, 1997, Pages 1875S-1883S, ISSN 0022-3166.

All through the year, we get thinner when we are busy, and we gain a little fat when we aren’t active and eat a lot. Although everyone repeats the same pattern, even if we don't calculate calories strictly, the body shape of person won't change so easily. Fat people are fat and thin people are thin. 

In other words, I believe that each person has a stable weight based on their body's homeostatic functions, which I initially defined as their "base weight."
     

[Base weight] = The stable weight one returns to after spending 3-5 days relaxing without excessive exercise or work, while consuming calories based on their daily energy needs.
      

Most of us do not consciously adjust our daily energy intake and expenditure. Nevertheless, an individual's body weight remains relatively stable.

Individual body weight variance is typically only 0.5% over periods of 6 to 10 weeks[1,2] (Khosha and Billewicz 1964). According to cross-sectional data, weight changes over longer periods of time are still modest, and even diabetic individuals display coefficients of body weight variation of only 3.7– 4.6% over a period of five years[1,3] (Goodner and Oglive 1974). 

With the global increase in obesity since the 1970’s, these coefficients of body weight variation may no longer be as accurate. However, many people still stay lean (especially in Asia), and, in fact, even those who are overweight or obese manage to maintain their weight, heavy as they may be, for many years[4]. 

In other words, despite some fluctuations in weight in daily life, there must be an internal regulatory mechanism that works to keep weight and fat within a certain range over the long haul.

■In recent years, the role of homeostatic regulation has been acknowledged, and there is growing evidence that the body employs physiological mechanisms to control energy balance and maintain body weight at a genetically and environmentally determined "set-point."[5]

When I started writing this blog, I had no knowledge of the theory about the body's "set-point," but it almost aligned with what I had always believed. I now believe that understanding the set-point theory is crucial in preventing the spread of obesity and proposing effective weight loss methods.

In particular, to explain the global rise in obesity since the 1970’s, I believe it is essential to understand how (I) genetic and biological factors, and (II) environmental and behavioral factors combine to increase the body’s set-point for weight. I believe my intestinal starvation theory can contribute to this understanding.

For more details, please refer to the articles below.

[Related article] 
 The Increasingly Important "Set-Point" Theory of Body Weight
      

References：
[1]Richard E. Keesey, Matt D. Hirvonen. Body Weight Set-Points: Determination and Adjustment. The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 127, Issue 9, 1997, Pages 1875S-1883S, ISSN 0022-3166.

[2]KHOSLA T, BILLEWICZ WZ. MEASUREMENT OF CHANGE IN BODY-WEIGHT. Br J Nutr. 1964;18:227-39. 

[3]Goodner CJ, Ogilvie JT. Homeostasis of body weight in a diabetes clinic population. Diabetes 1974 Apr;23(4):318-26. 

[4] Gary Taubes. 2011. Why we get fat. New York: Anchor books, Page 59.

[5]Egan AM, Collins AL. Dynamic changes in energy expenditure in response to underfeeding: a review. Proc Nutr Soc. 2022 May;81(2):199-212. doi: 10.1017/S0029665121003669. Epub 2021 Oct 4. PMID: 35103583.

[6]Ganipisetti VM, Bollimunta P. Obesity and Set-Point Theory. 2023 Apr 25. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan–. PMID: 37276312.

[7]Bray GA.The pain of weight gain: self-experimentation with overfeeding. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020 Jan 1;111(1):17-20.