Original Research Communications-rapid

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/39/3/349/4691145 by Oxford University Press USA user on 27 May 2021
Energy intake and body weight: a reexamination
of two “classic” studies1’2
Gilbert B Forbes, MD

Many years ago two indefatigable kg. The next year he records three
investigators (1, 2) embarked on a long-term consecutive feeding trials, this time without
dietary study, using themselves as subjects. beer; an average of 1570 kcal/day for 22
They systematically altered their energy days, 1920 kcal/day for 13 days, and 2659
intake over a period of months, and kcal/day for 15 days. He lost weight during
monitored their food intake and their the first two periods (and was in negative
weight. To the casual reader, it would appear nitrogen balance), and gained weight in the
that their respective body weights did not third period, during which nitrogen balance
change very much in response to changes in was slightly positive. A subsquent feeding
energy intake, and this perception has been trial during 1900 to 1901 cannot be
parlayed by some authors into the concept evaluated because of large gaps in the data.
that weight can somehow be stabilized in Yet another feeding trial was made in 1916
the face of dietary alterations. Bray (3) for to 1917 (7), at which time he took a “war
example states that Neumann’s weight was rations” diet, averaging 1470 kcal/day, or
“essentially constant” over a wide range of about 650 kcal less than maintenance, for
energy intakes, as was Gulick’s, and Sims (4) 31 wk. From an initial weight of 76 kg he
states that Neumann “maintained stable, if lost 18.6 kg during this period, or 88 g/day.
not necessarily the same, body weight.” Gulick was 35 yr old, weighed 64 kg, and
Goldman (5) claims that Neumann “was was 181 cm tall. He monitored his energy
able to maintain his body weight constant intake and body weight for 13 periods over
over a three year period, despite considerable 19 months; the periods varied in length from
differences in caloric consumption,” and 4 to 73 days (10 were 2 wk or longer),
Miller (6) states that Gulick did likewise. average intake from 1874 to 4113 kcal/day,
However, a close examination of these and body weight change from -196 to + 141
two venerable papers (Neumann’s was g/day. Alcohol consumption is not
published in 1902, Gulick’s in 1922) shows mentioned.
that the body weight of both investigators Figure 1 shows plots of change in body
did indeed vary with their energy intake, weight against energy intake for both
and that it did so in a systematic fashion. investigators. Each plot is linear, and each
Neumann weighed 66 kg and was 165 cm has a high correlation coefficient, suggesting
tall; his age is not given. His paper (1) is long that the two variables are indeed related.
and very detailed. From October 1895 to
‘From the Departments of Pediatrics and Radiation
July 1896 he consumed an average of 2309 Biology and Biophysics, University of Rochester Med-
kcal/day [elsewhere (1, p 79) this is stated to ical Center, Rochester, New York 14642.
be 2097 kcal/day; the average of these two 2Addr reprint requests to: Gilbert B Forbes, MD,
Department of Pediatrics-Box 777, University of
values will be used here]; lager beer provided
Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 14642.
670 kcal/day, or 30% of total energy intake. Received November 3, 1983.
During this 10-month period he gained 1 Accepted for publication November 8, 1983.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 39: MARCH 1984, pp 349-350 Printed in U.S.A. 349
© 1984 American Society for Clinical Nutrition
350 FORBES

200 g; that for Gulick’s data is 7.2 kcal/g. These

are reasonably close to the value of 7.09 ±
#{149}.
0.46 kcal/g which is derived from recent
100’ I
observations on overfed young men (9).
.i
Neumann. Both of these nutrition “classics,”
E
representing as they do the results of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/39/3/349/4691145 by Oxford University Press USA user on 27 May 2021
Ot
thorough and meticulous work, nicely
(D demonstrate that body weight does respond
LU
1922
to modest as well as profound alterations in
energy intake, as Garrow (10) has shown.
The rather precise nature of the response, as
-200 evidenced by the linearity shown in Figure
1, is a reminder of the central role of energy
intake in weight homeostasis.

u 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 References

KILOCALORIES/ DAY 1. Neumann RO. Experimentelle Beitrage zur Lehre
von dem taglichen Nahrungsbedarf des Menschen
FIG 1. Plots of weight change (g/day) against energy unter besonderer Berucksich tigung der notwendi-
intake for Neumann’s data (0) and for Gulick’s data gen Eiweissmenge. Arch Hyg l902;45:l-87.
(#{149}).
Calculated regression line for the former is y = 2. Gulick A. A study of weight regulation in the adult
-230 + O.lO9x, r = 0.969, and for the latter it is y = human body during ovemutrition. Am J Physiol
-430 + 0. l4Ox, r = 0.902. l922;60:37 1-95.
3. Bray GA. The obese patient. Philadelphia, PA: WB
Solving for y =0, maintenance energy intake Saunders, 1976:143.
4. Sims EAH. Syndromes of obesity. In: DeGroot Li,
for Neumann turns out to be 2119 kcal/day,
ed. Endocrinology. New York, Grune & Stratton,
and for Gulick it is 3078 kcal/day. Since 1979:1950.
they weighed about the same, this difference 5. Goldman RF. Introduction to bioenergetics. In:
may be due in part to the fact that Gulick Bray GA, ed. Obesity in perspective. Washington,
was 16 cm taller than Neumann and hence DC: National Institutes of Health, DHEW publi-
cation no (NIH) 75-708, 1975:119.
probably had a larger lean body mass (8); 6. Miller DS. Overfeeding in man. In: Bray GA, ed.
the former investigator led a moderately Obesity in perspective. Washington, DC: National
active life (maintenance energy intake 1.75 Institutes of Health, DHEW publication no (NIH)
x basal metabolic rate), but unfortunately 75-708, 1975:138.
7. Quoted by Greenwald I. A normal diet. In: Barker
the latter makes no mention of physical LF, ed. Endocrinology and metabolism. Vol III.
activity. New York, NY: Appleton, 1922:4 17.
It may be argued that these daily changes 8. Forbes GB. Stature and lean body mass. Am J Clin
in body weight are not very large, yet they Nutr l974;27:595-602.
are large enough to reflect changes in energy 9. Forbes GB, Kreipe RE, Lipinski B. Body compo-
sition and the energy cost of weight gain. Hum
intake. The regression slope calculated from Nutr Clin Nutr 1982;36C:485-7.
Neumann’s data yields a value for the energy 10. Garrow iS. Energy balance and obesity in man.
equivalent of his weight change of 9.2 kcal/ New York, NY: American Elsevier, 1974:2 13.