Hey,

It's time for another instalment of the Vitamin––the weekly fitness newsletter that helps you be healthier, stronger, and leaner while navigating fitness bullshit.

AADAM ANSWERS
​Weighted vests for fat loss?

Q–I originally heard about a pro bodybuilder named Eric Salazar who used a weighted vest to get to his leanest body fat percentage for one of his competitions. He didn’t have to lower his calories & he didn’t feel as hungry because of it, even though he was sub 10%. Do you think this tactic is possible for most people to use when it comes to losing weight? If not, why and who shouldn’t do it?

For 'most people'? Nah.

If I recall correctly, Eric wore the weighted vest pretty much all day. On top of that, he was walking about 10k steps each day. So, to get the benefits of the vest, you would have to keep it on for most of your waking hours, and you would need to spend a large portion of the day on your feet for it to be effective. There's no point in wearing a weighted vest if you're sat on your ass all day.

Now, I don't know if you've ever worn a weighted vest, but they're bulky as hell, and it's just not practical for a regular person to wear one of these things while going to the office. Or hell, even while doing simple things like picking something up off the floor.

But practicality aside, there are three things to be mindful of.

1-Motivation and coaching: Eric was prepping for a bodybuilding show while being coached by James Krieger (who, I believe, had the idea of wearing the vest). So his motivation to stick to this for several months would have been pretty high – he had a competition he was getting ready for and had the accountability of a coach.

2-Individual response: How Eric responded to wearing the weighted vest might not be how you respond to wearing it. You might wear the vest and find fatigue increases, resulting in you sitting more, reducing your energy expenditure, and offsetting the benefits of the vest.

3-Long-term use: To keep benefitting from the increase in energy expenditure, you would need to wear the vest for, well, the rest of your life. If you lost weight while wearing the vest (e.g., let's say you dropped from 200lbs to 150lbs) but 'artificially' kept your weight at 200lbs, what happens when you stop wearing the vest? That's right––you’d have to either reduce your food intake or increase exercise (or both) to maintain the lower weight. So sure, the vest allowed you to eat more calories temporarily, but eventually, you'll have to reduce your intake as you would without the vest.

While this area of research is interesting, it's hard to see how this would translate effectively for the average person trying to lose fat.

Got a question? I have answers, probably 👇

FIT BITES​
​Eating, fast and slow

Several factors influence the number of calories we're likely to eat. From the composition of macronutrients [1], the energy density (calories per gram) [2], palatability [3], psychological and emotional factors [4], and the frequency of meals. [5]

But there's an additional factor that can affect caloric intake: Eating rate.

That is, how fast or slow a meal is consumed. Unsurprisingly, faster eating rates tend to increase the amount of food consumed [6], which can be exacerbated by the types of foods eaten.

For example, a 2019 study found people consumed 500 more calories on the ultra-processed diet and gained more weight compared to the unprocessed diet. The eating rate was also greater in the ultra-processed diet group. While the researchers didn’t explore the exact mechanism, they hypothesised the higher intake was due to the ultra-processed diet being easier to eat, causing an increase in caloric intake. [7]

Of course, 'easier to eat' is a very broad term. But in this context, it describes foods that are softer (e.g. bread vs. carrots), less viscous (e.g. juice vs. smoothie), and calorically dense (more calories per gram, like a chocolate bar vs. a salad).

So how can food choices impact eating rate and, by extension, energy intake? That's what a recent study looked at. [8]

The what: Researchers rounded up two groups of 15 people each and had them come in for 12 meal sessions. Each person either ate breakfast or lunch, with the meals designed to be either “fast” or “slow” to eat. In total, there were 24 different meals, all designed to either speed up or slow down eating rate. The “fast” meals were softer, moister, and just generally easier to chow down quickly. The “slow” meals were harder, drier, and involved more chewing.

• Example: 'Faster' breakfast meals included pancakes, croissants, smoothies, cakes, and sandwiches, whereas 'slower' breakfast meals included quark (farmer’s cheese), bagels, crackers, and biscuits. Faster lunches included pasta, soft bread, mashed potato, quiche, and maize, whereas slower lunches included chicken, baked potato, hot dogs, sauerkraut, chips, rice, beans, and steamed vegetables.

The participants were provided food until they decided to stop eating (ad libitum).

Why tho? Faster eating rates have been linked to higher calorie consumption. So, the researchers wanted to see if changing the food texture could slow down how quickly people ate and whether this could cause them to eat less.

What happened?

• Calories consumed per minute were higher in the faster meals compared to the slower meals (41% more for breakfast and 34% for lunch).
  ​
• When participants ate 'fast' breakfasts (with easy-to-eat textures), they ate an average of 21% more food (about 84 grams more) than those who ate a slow breakfast, which worked out to an additional 104 kcals.
  ​
• For lunches, the fast meals led to an average 23% increase in food intake (about 85 grams more) compared to the slow lunches. However, the calorie difference between fast and slow lunches was smaller (39 kcal difference).

Why the difference? 'Fast' meals led to bigger bites, fewer chews, and an overall quicker eating pace. On the flip side, the 'slow' meals had textures that required more chewing, increasing the time each bite spent in the mouth and slowing down the eating pace.

Bottom line: Fat loss and gain will always be dictated by your total caloric intake. However, how well you can adhere to your calorie targets will be influenced by food selection. Alongside some of the more obvious changes you can make, like increasing protein intake, minimising consumption of hyperpalatable foods, increasing fiber intake, and ensuring most of your diet consists of minimally unprocessed foods with a low energy density, opting for foods that can slow down how quickly you eat is a viable strategy to reduce your caloric intake.

Share the vitamin

It costs me hundreds of $$$ to maintain this email list and keep it free. I don't accept sponsorships or sell affiliate products because your trust is worth infinitely more than free protein shakes.

If you enjoy and find value in my weekly emails, it would mean a lot to me if you let others know about the Vitamin. It takes me hours to write these emails but it only takes a few seconds to share.

You can share on Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, or Email.

Or, just copy and paste the link below via email or social media (or however else you want to share):

[RH_REFLINK GOES HERE]

​

If someone forwarded you this email, you can learn more about the Vitamin and subscribe here to get all future issues directly to your inbox. My emails are free, and your information is protected. No spam or any funny business (except for my lame jokes). Unsubscribe at any time.

•••

​

–Aa

P.S. What did you think of this week's email?

​👍 Loved it • 👎 Hated it​