Skate

Comparison caloric loads
Karen R Segal, Albert

of thermic effects in lean and obese
Edaflo, Lorna Blando, and

of constant men13
FXavier Pi-Sunyer

and

relative

ABSTRACT might be related blunted thermogenesis

Controversy to differences in obesity,

regarding among responses relative in ± 27

load,
(L) vs 683

which and was

35%

ofeach

defective thermic effect of food (TEF) in obesity studies in the caloric loads.clarify To further the role of to the same absolute caloric load (720 kcal) and a subject’s resting metabolic rate (RMR), were compared

1 1 lean

1 1 obese(0)

± 21 kcal; 1±

SEM,

men. The relative load was slightly larger for 0 than NS). TEF, calculated as 3-h postprandial minus fasting

L (752 RMR,
Downloaded from www.ajcn.org by guest on June 28, 2011

was greater for L than 0 for both the 720-kcal ± (69 vs 3 1 ± 3 kcal/3 4 h, 28% body fat. All subjects were healthy with no personal or family history of diaMaximal [maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max)] and betes mellitus or other metabolic disease, or cardiovascular dis- submaximal aerobic fitness were determined by a continuous ease. An oral glucose-tolerance test (OGTT) was administered multistage exercise teston an electromagnetically braked cycle (see below) to ensure that all subjects were nondiabetic and had ergometer(Robert Bosch GmbH, Berlin, FRG). Before the test normal glucose tolerance according to the criteria of the Na- time was allotted for the subjects to become familiar with cytional Diabetes Data Group (17). Highly aerobically trained cling on an ergometer at a constant pedalling rate and to men were not accepted into the study to eliminate possible con- breathing through the apparatus used metabolic for measurefounding caused by differences between the two groups in level ments. The subjects began cycling at a rate of6O rpm with zero of cardiorespiratory fitness. All subjects were weight stable atexternal resistance