What role does metabolism actually play in weight loss?

sashayoung72

I always said I've got a slow metabolism but I lost an average of 2 lbs of week for 6 months, I think the people that I thought had fast metabolisms basically are more active. It's kinda like the old big boned thing that doesn't exist.

pinkiemarie252

From personal experience I will say that having a higher metabolism definitely helps me keep weight off-- so in other words when I'm lifting weight and keeping up my muscle mass, I burn a lot more calories which helps me stay thin. When I slack off and lose muscle mass, I notice that I burn fewer calories and it's easier to gain weight.

stevencloser

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-012-0193-4
Analyzed many studies and the highest TDEE they found out of 6000 people was 13.5 MJ (3200 Calories) in a man and 10.4 MJ (2500 Calories) for a woman, far from what "a hardgainer" would claim they're eating.

stevencloser

vismal wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

UltimateRBF wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

I think a lot of this comes down to genetics and medical issues (if any are present). The classic ectomoph, mesomorph and endomorph people. As strong_curves talked about, there certainly are people that have a MUCH easier time maintaining a healthy weight (naturally thin folks) and those that have MUCH easier time building muscle (usually also gaining fat). It's a spectrum. On the extremes you see the elite athletes -- whether it's a marathon runner on one side or powerlifters on the other. They no doubt are genetic freaks -- just like any elite athlete. That's not to say they don't work hard -- of course, they do -- but they have certain genetics that allow them to reach that level. Not everyone could work as hard and get those same results -- it's just not how the world works.

So, it's all about being the best YOU. Being the best version of your genetic potential. So you may struggle more with weight loss/management or you may struggle more with gaining weight/muscle. Depending on your issues, certain strategies may work better or worse for you --- whether that's adjusting macros (carbs especially), using an intermittent fasting regime like 16:8 or 5:2, calorie cycling, etc. Deficits work for those without medical issues, but how you create that deficit may yield dramatically different results depending on your individual circumstances. A lot of it is trial and error figuring out what works best for you. But, yes, there are undoubtedly differences between people.

While I don't have an issue with the rest of your post, somatotypes have been widely debunked.

Yes and no. Don't you think at the very least they demonstrate the spectrum of genetic predisposition -- that there are some people who are fairly naturally thin and that comes rather easily to them and there are other where gain (muscle and fat) comes fairly easy? I wouldn't get into the rest of the theory, but I think as far as that goes, it's true.

I don't really. In my opinion 90% of "ectomorphs" simply eat less then they think, 90% of "endomorphs" eat more than they think, and the vast majority of "mesomorphs" eat an appropriate amount of calories and probably regularly work out. Take myself for example. Look at me 4 years ago and my body SCREAMS endomorph. Almost all the classic traits. Look at me now and people who didn't know me from before would claim I was a mesomorph. There is just no science to support it. Sure different people naturally burn more/less calories per day, but the vast majority fall into the "normal" range.

I had the same experience. It's amazing how much longer your torso and limbs look when you're suddenly half as wide as before.

Pawsforme

I know one lady who apparently really is an outlier. She's in her early 50's, has been naturally thin her entire life and admits to eating quite a lot. She eats more than her much bigger husband (and he confirms that). But IMO what really confirms her status as an outlier is that she's had several issues with medications over the years--both oral medicines and general anesthesia--that her doctors attribute to a higher than normal metabolism.

_Terrapin_

stevencloser wrote: »

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-012-0193-4
Analyzed many studies and the highest TDEE they found out of 6000 people was 13.5 MJ (3200 Calories) in a man and 10.4 MJ (2500 Calories) for a woman, far from what "a hardgainer" would claim they're eating.

You mean you don't go to a gym, hang out with the hard gainers to 'know' what they eat, make sure they aren't doing steroids? Yeah, me either. I have time for my own workouts. I typically am not approaching people at the gym and seeking their dietary items and their individual desires for artificial enhancement.

lindsey1979

Well, I guess one of the differentiations I take into account are what drives people to eat. For example I have two twin nieces -- they're growing up in the same environment and they have vastly different body types. Most people think that they're 2 years apart rather than the exact same age. One is probably in the 80+ percentile for weight and one is probably in the lower 20+ weight. And you started seeing significant differences around age 1.

Undoubtedly the bigger one eats more than the little one. But why? What has driven that? They have the exact same parents, grow up in the same household, eating the same things (though obviously one has always eaten more)?

There is at least one theory out there that it has to do with absorption of nutrients in food and/or the combination of so much of our food not being as nutrient dense as it used to be (at least in comparison to its caloric density). So, some eat more to get more nutrients because their body isn't absorbing/digesting them as effectively and along comes the extra calories. I don't know if there is any truth behind it, but definitely interesting to think about.

I guess I've just seen too many people like my twin nieces in the world to think it is as seeming simple as vismal posits. Yes, the heavier people are eating more -- but why? What is going on to shift to so much on an overall population level? The rates of obesity now are greatly higher than they were 50 years ago but there hasn't been that much change in lifestyles and activity in 50 years. Yes, perhaps some, but not really that much. We have a heck of a LOT more fat kids now than we did even 20-30 years ago. My guess is something is going on in our food chain that is significantly shift this. I know there has been a significant increase in sugar consumption, but it's hard to believe it's just that.

queenliz99

lindsey1979 wrote: »

Well, I guess one of the differentiations I take into account are what drives people to eat. For example I have two twin nieces -- they're growing up in the same environment and they have vastly different body types. Most people think that they're 2 years apart rather than the exact same age. One is probably in the 80+ percentile for weight and one is probably in the lower 20+ weight. And you started seeing significant differences around age 1.

Undoubtedly the bigger one eats more than the little one. But why? What has driven that? They have the exact same parents, grow up in the same household, eating the same things (though obviously one has always eaten more)?

There is at least one theory out there that it has to do with absorption of nutrients in food and/or the combination of so much of our food not being as nutrient dense as it used to be (at least in comparison to its caloric density). So, some eat more to get more nutrients because their body isn't absorbing/digesting them as effectively and along comes the extra calories. I don't know if there is any truth behind it, but definitely interesting to think about.

I guess I've just seen too many people like my twin nieces in the world to think it is as seeming simple as vismal posits. Yes, the heavier people are eating more -- but why? What is going on to shift to so much on an overall population level? The rates of obesity now are greatly higher than they were 50 years ago but there hasn't been that much change in lifestyles and activity in 50 years. Yes, perhaps some, but not really that much. We have a heck of a LOT more fat kids now than we did even 20-30 years ago. My guess is something is going on in our food chain that is significantly shift this. I know there has been a significant increase in sugar consumption, but it's hard to believe it's just that.

Maybe they are not moving as much.

ninerbuff

honkytonks85 wrote: »

For those who say metabolism plays no part, you are wrong, it absolutely plays every part of the weight loss process, it is literally the reason you gain or lose weight.

Well metabolism is a process. It ISN'T the main reason people gain or lose weight since body function metabolically is pretty consistent if essentials are met. CALORIE CONSUMPTION dictates weight gain/loss/maintenance.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

3dogsrunning

lindsey1979 wrote: »

Well, I guess one of the differentiations I take into account are what drives people to eat. For example I have two twin nieces -- they're growing up in the same environment and they have vastly different body types. Most people think that they're 2 years apart rather than the exact same age. One is probably in the 80+ percentile for weight and one is probably in the lower 20+ weight. And you started seeing significant differences around age 1.

Undoubtedly the bigger one eats more than the little one. But why? What has driven that? They have the exact same parents, grow up in the same household, eating the same things (though obviously one has always eaten more)?

There is at least one theory out there that it has to do with absorption of nutrients in food and/or the combination of so much of our food not being as nutrient dense as it used to be (at least in comparison to its caloric density). So, some eat more to get more nutrients because their body isn't absorbing/digesting them as effectively and along comes the extra calories. I don't know if there is any truth behind it, but definitely interesting to think about.

I guess I've just seen too many people like my twin nieces in the world to think it is as seeming simple as vismal posits. Yes, the heavier people are eating more -- but why? What is going on to shift to so much on an overall population level? The rates of obesity now are greatly higher than they were 50 years ago but there hasn't been that much change in lifestyles and activity in 50 years. Yes, perhaps some, but not really that much. We have a heck of a LOT more fat kids now than we did even 20-30 years ago. My guess is something is going on in our food chain that is significantly shift this. I know there has been a significant increase in sugar consumption, but it's hard to believe it's just that.

Not really that much difference in activity?
I would strongly disagree.

psuLemon

lindsey1979 wrote: »

Well, I guess one of the differentiations I take into account are what drives people to eat. For example I have two twin nieces -- they're growing up in the same environment and they have vastly different body types. Most people think that they're 2 years apart rather than the exact same age. One is probably in the 80+ percentile for weight and one is probably in the lower 20+ weight. And you started seeing significant differences around age 1.

Undoubtedly the bigger one eats more than the little one. But why? What has driven that? They have the exact same parents, grow up in the same household, eating the same things (though obviously one has always eaten more)?

There is at least one theory out there that it has to do with absorption of nutrients in food and/or the combination of so much of our food not being as nutrient dense as it used to be (at least in comparison to its caloric density). So, some eat more to get more nutrients because their body isn't absorbing/digesting them as effectively and along comes the extra calories. I don't know if there is any truth behind it, but definitely interesting to think about.

I guess I've just seen too many people like my twin nieces in the world to think it is as seeming simple as vismal posits. Yes, the heavier people are eating more -- but why? What is going on to shift to so much on an overall population level? The rates of obesity now are greatly higher than they were 50 years ago but there hasn't been that much change in lifestyles and activity in 50 years. Yes, perhaps some, but not really that much. We have a heck of a LOT more fat kids now than we did even 20-30 years ago. My guess is something is going on in our food chain that is significantly shift this. I know there has been a significant increase in sugar consumption, but it's hard to believe it's just that.

Well now you are going outside of metabolism. And that is a totally different story and discussion.

DeguelloTex

lindsey1979 wrote: »

I think a lot of this comes down to genetics and medical issues (if any are present). The classic ectomoph, mesomorph and endomorph people. As strong_curves talked about, there certainly are people that have a MUCH easier time maintaining a healthy weight (naturally thin folks) and those that have MUCH easier time building muscle (usually also gaining fat). It's a spectrum. On the extremes you see the elite athletes -- whether it's a marathon runner on one side or powerlifters on the other. They no doubt are genetic freaks -- just like any elite athlete. That's not to say they don't work hard -- of course, they do -- but they have certain genetics that allow them to reach that level. Not everyone could work as hard and get those same results -- it's just not how the world works.

So, it's all about being the best YOU. Being the best version of your genetic potential. So you may struggle more with weight loss/management or you may struggle more with gaining weight/muscle. Depending on your issues, certain strategies may work better or worse for you --- whether that's adjusting macros (carbs especially), using an intermittent fasting regime like 16:8 or 5:2, calorie cycling, etc. Deficits work for those without medical issues, but how you create that deficit may yield dramatically different results depending on your individual circumstances. A lot of it is trial and error figuring out what works best for you. But, yes, there are undoubtedly differences between people.

I've been 6'9" and 180. I've been 6'9" and 335. I am 6'9" and 220. Which classic body type am I?

psuLemon

DeguelloTex wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

I think a lot of this comes down to genetics and medical issues (if any are present). The classic ectomoph, mesomorph and endomorph people. As strong_curves talked about, there certainly are people that have a MUCH easier time maintaining a healthy weight (naturally thin folks) and those that have MUCH easier time building muscle (usually also gaining fat). It's a spectrum. On the extremes you see the elite athletes -- whether it's a marathon runner on one side or powerlifters on the other. They no doubt are genetic freaks -- just like any elite athlete. That's not to say they don't work hard -- of course, they do -- but they have certain genetics that allow them to reach that level. Not everyone could work as hard and get those same results -- it's just not how the world works.

So, it's all about being the best YOU. Being the best version of your genetic potential. So you may struggle more with weight loss/management or you may struggle more with gaining weight/muscle. Depending on your issues, certain strategies may work better or worse for you --- whether that's adjusting macros (carbs especially), using an intermittent fasting regime like 16:8 or 5:2, calorie cycling, etc. Deficits work for those without medical issues, but how you create that deficit may yield dramatically different results depending on your individual circumstances. A lot of it is trial and error figuring out what works best for you. But, yes, there are undoubtedly differences between people.

I've been 6'9" and 180. I've been 6'9" and 335. I am 6'9" and 220. Which classic body type am I?

Ridiculously tall... holy crap man!

DeguelloTex

psulemon wrote: »

DeguelloTex wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

I think a lot of this comes down to genetics and medical issues (if any are present). The classic ectomoph, mesomorph and endomorph people. As strong_curves talked about, there certainly are people that have a MUCH easier time maintaining a healthy weight (naturally thin folks) and those that have MUCH easier time building muscle (usually also gaining fat). It's a spectrum. On the extremes you see the elite athletes -- whether it's a marathon runner on one side or powerlifters on the other. They no doubt are genetic freaks -- just like any elite athlete. That's not to say they don't work hard -- of course, they do -- but they have certain genetics that allow them to reach that level. Not everyone could work as hard and get those same results -- it's just not how the world works.

So, it's all about being the best YOU. Being the best version of your genetic potential. So you may struggle more with weight loss/management or you may struggle more with gaining weight/muscle. Depending on your issues, certain strategies may work better or worse for you --- whether that's adjusting macros (carbs especially), using an intermittent fasting regime like 16:8 or 5:2, calorie cycling, etc. Deficits work for those without medical issues, but how you create that deficit may yield dramatically different results depending on your individual circumstances. A lot of it is trial and error figuring out what works best for you. But, yes, there are undoubtedly differences between people.

I've been 6'9" and 180. I've been 6'9" and 335. I am 6'9" and 220. Which classic body type am I?

Ridiculously tall... holy crap man!

Only about a 2100 BMR at this point, though.

lindsey1979

queenliz99 wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

Well, I guess one of the differentiations I take into account are what drives people to eat. For example I have two twin nieces -- they're growing up in the same environment and they have vastly different body types. Most people think that they're 2 years apart rather than the exact same age. One is probably in the 80+ percentile for weight and one is probably in the lower 20+ weight. And you started seeing significant differences around age 1.

Undoubtedly the bigger one eats more than the little one. But why? What has driven that? They have the exact same parents, grow up in the same household, eating the same things (though obviously one has always eaten more)?

There is at least one theory out there that it has to do with absorption of nutrients in food and/or the combination of so much of our food not being as nutrient dense as it used to be (at least in comparison to its caloric density). So, some eat more to get more nutrients because their body isn't absorbing/digesting them as effectively and along comes the extra calories. I don't know if there is any truth behind it, but definitely interesting to think about.

I guess I've just seen too many people like my twin nieces in the world to think it is as seeming simple as vismal posits. Yes, the heavier people are eating more -- but why? What is going on to shift to so much on an overall population level? The rates of obesity now are greatly higher than they were 50 years ago but there hasn't been that much change in lifestyles and activity in 50 years. Yes, perhaps some, but not really that much. We have a heck of a LOT more fat kids now than we did even 20-30 years ago. My guess is something is going on in our food chain that is significantly shift this. I know there has been a significant increase in sugar consumption, but it's hard to believe it's just that.

Maybe they are not moving as much.

Well, in my nieces case, it's the exact opposite. The big one is the athlete and has always been very involved with athletics and runs with her Dad. The smaller slighter one is more of an introvert and enjoys quieter time more. So, at least for them, I have a hard time imagining that the smaller one is more active than her very athletic sister.

lindsey1979

3dogsrunning wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

Well, I guess one of the differentiations I take into account are what drives people to eat. For example I have two twin nieces -- they're growing up in the same environment and they have vastly different body types. Most people think that they're 2 years apart rather than the exact same age. One is probably in the 80+ percentile for weight and one is probably in the lower 20+ weight. And you started seeing significant differences around age 1.

Undoubtedly the bigger one eats more than the little one. But why? What has driven that? They have the exact same parents, grow up in the same household, eating the same things (though obviously one has always eaten more)?

There is at least one theory out there that it has to do with absorption of nutrients in food and/or the combination of so much of our food not being as nutrient dense as it used to be (at least in comparison to its caloric density). So, some eat more to get more nutrients because their body isn't absorbing/digesting them as effectively and along comes the extra calories. I don't know if there is any truth behind it, but definitely interesting to think about.

I guess I've just seen too many people like my twin nieces in the world to think it is as seeming simple as vismal posits. Yes, the heavier people are eating more -- but why? What is going on to shift to so much on an overall population level? The rates of obesity now are greatly higher than they were 50 years ago but there hasn't been that much change in lifestyles and activity in 50 years. Yes, perhaps some, but not really that much. We have a heck of a LOT more fat kids now than we did even 20-30 years ago. My guess is something is going on in our food chain that is significantly shift this. I know there has been a significant increase in sugar consumption, but it's hard to believe it's just that.

Not really that much difference in activity?
I would strongly disagree.

What do you see as the great difference between now and 50 years ago or even 30 years ago for kids? We've advanced in technology somewhat, but it's not like we didn't have cars, trains and airplane 50 years ago or that everyone was a farmer then and now very few are (200+ years ago, sure, but 50 years ago?).

CrazyMermaid1

Several psych mess are well known to cause weight gain. Some slow metabolism which isn't really surprising given the fact that they are literally rebalancing a chemical imbalance of the brain.

lindsey1979

My biggest guess to explain the shift in obesity we're seeing in the last 20 years as opposed to 50 years ago (at least in the US) is the shift in stay-at-home parents. These days we have a lot fewer stay-at-home parents either because both parents are working or it's a single parent household. As a result, less home cooking and more emphasis on convenience foods -- whether bought at the grocery store and reheated (or straight out of the box) or a drive thru. That and the crazy increase in serving sizes -- standare coke bottles used to be what, 8 oz? and now a 'small' coke at a lot of burger joints is 16-22 oz. And the supersizing has happened with a lot of foods across that board.

I'm guessing that there is something in those convenience foods that is altering/affecting people's satiety. There is no doubt that the food industry does TONS of research to find just the right combination of ingredients to hit people's pleasure centers and encourage people to eat more and more of their food. I suspect part of that also reduces satiety. Perhaps it's the added sugar, difference in types of fats, some other additive/preservative, combination of all of the above or something else. But whatever it is, it encourages people to eat more because they're not satisfied -- and then you end up with all the overeating and obesity. Because obviously the overeating isn't a conscious choice -- people aren't saying, "man I really want to be fat!, let's eat more than I need!" You see how many people are really shocked by how much they're eating when they start to diligently count calories. Coincidence? I doubt it.

3dogsrunning

lindsey1979 wrote: »

3dogsrunning wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

Well, I guess one of the differentiations I take into account are what drives people to eat. For example I have two twin nieces -- they're growing up in the same environment and they have vastly different body types. Most people think that they're 2 years apart rather than the exact same age. One is probably in the 80+ percentile for weight and one is probably in the lower 20+ weight. And you started seeing significant differences around age 1.

Undoubtedly the bigger one eats more than the little one. But why? What has driven that? They have the exact same parents, grow up in the same household, eating the same things (though obviously one has always eaten more)?

There is at least one theory out there that it has to do with absorption of nutrients in food and/or the combination of so much of our food not being as nutrient dense as it used to be (at least in comparison to its caloric density). So, some eat more to get more nutrients because their body isn't absorbing/digesting them as effectively and along comes the extra calories. I don't know if there is any truth behind it, but definitely interesting to think about.

I guess I've just seen too many people like my twin nieces in the world to think it is as seeming simple as vismal posits. Yes, the heavier people are eating more -- but why? What is going on to shift to so much on an overall population level? The rates of obesity now are greatly higher than they were 50 years ago but there hasn't been that much change in lifestyles and activity in 50 years. Yes, perhaps some, but not really that much. We have a heck of a LOT more fat kids now than we did even 20-30 years ago. My guess is something is going on in our food chain that is significantly shift this. I know there has been a significant increase in sugar consumption, but it's hard to believe it's just that.

Not really that much difference in activity?
I would strongly disagree.

What do you see as the great difference between now and 50 years ago or even 30 years ago for kids? We've advanced in technology somewhat, but it's not like we didn't have cars, trains and airplane 50 years ago or that everyone was a farmer then and now very few are (200+ years ago, sure, but 50 years ago?).

The amount of kids that walk/cycle to and from school has dropped drastically. Even for those who live close enough, only a small fraction actually do so. Recess is being cut from school. Gym isn't mandatory. Screen time is way up, which means less time for physical activity. http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/1.full

Unknown

This content has been removed.

_Terrapin_

3dogsrunning wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

3dogsrunning wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

Well, I guess one of the differentiations I take into account are what drives people to eat. For example I have two twin nieces -- they're growing up in the same environment and they have vastly different body types. Most people think that they're 2 years apart rather than the exact same age. One is probably in the 80+ percentile for weight and one is probably in the lower 20+ weight. And you started seeing significant differences around age 1.

Undoubtedly the bigger one eats more than the little one. But why? What has driven that? They have the exact same parents, grow up in the same household, eating the same things (though obviously one has always eaten more)?

There is at least one theory out there that it has to do with absorption of nutrients in food and/or the combination of so much of our food not being as nutrient dense as it used to be (at least in comparison to its caloric density). So, some eat more to get more nutrients because their body isn't absorbing/digesting them as effectively and along comes the extra calories. I don't know if there is any truth behind it, but definitely interesting to think about.

I guess I've just seen too many people like my twin nieces in the world to think it is as seeming simple as vismal posits. Yes, the heavier people are eating more -- but why? What is going on to shift to so much on an overall population level? The rates of obesity now are greatly higher than they were 50 years ago but there hasn't been that much change in lifestyles and activity in 50 years. Yes, perhaps some, but not really that much. We have a heck of a LOT more fat kids now than we did even 20-30 years ago. My guess is something is going on in our food chain that is significantly shift this. I know there has been a significant increase in sugar consumption, but it's hard to believe it's just that.

Not really that much difference in activity?
I would strongly disagree.

What do you see as the great difference between now and 50 years ago or even 30 years ago for kids? We've advanced in technology somewhat, but it's not like we didn't have cars, trains and airplane 50 years ago or that everyone was a farmer then and now very few are (200+ years ago, sure, but 50 years ago?).

The amount of kids that walk/cycle to and from school has dropped drastically. Even for those who live close enough, only a small fraction actually do so. Recess is being cut from school. Gym isn't mandatory. Screen time is way up, which means less time for physical activity. http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/1.full

Add to those items- - - ->kids receive snacks after sporting events today, even after a practice, hyper palatable foods, ready abundance of food, central air conditioning, remote control, computers, phones, and the list goes on. Not to mention 24 hour news cycle so kids parents are hyper paranoid about letting them 'out to play'.

3dogsrunning

3dogsrunning wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

3dogsrunning wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

Well, I guess one of the differentiations I take into account are what drives people to eat. For example I have two twin nieces -- they're growing up in the same environment and they have vastly different body types. Most people think that they're 2 years apart rather than the exact same age. One is probably in the 80+ percentile for weight and one is probably in the lower 20+ weight. And you started seeing significant differences around age 1.

Undoubtedly the bigger one eats more than the little one. But why? What has driven that? They have the exact same parents, grow up in the same household, eating the same things (though obviously one has always eaten more)?

There is at least one theory out there that it has to do with absorption of nutrients in food and/or the combination of so much of our food not being as nutrient dense as it used to be (at least in comparison to its caloric density). So, some eat more to get more nutrients because their body isn't absorbing/digesting them as effectively and along comes the extra calories. I don't know if there is any truth behind it, but definitely interesting to think about.

I guess I've just seen too many people like my twin nieces in the world to think it is as seeming simple as vismal posits. Yes, the heavier people are eating more -- but why? What is going on to shift to so much on an overall population level? The rates of obesity now are greatly higher than they were 50 years ago but there hasn't been that much change in lifestyles and activity in 50 years. Yes, perhaps some, but not really that much. We have a heck of a LOT more fat kids now than we did even 20-30 years ago. My guess is something is going on in our food chain that is significantly shift this. I know there has been a significant increase in sugar consumption, but it's hard to believe it's just that.

Not really that much difference in activity?
I would strongly disagree.

What do you see as the great difference between now and 50 years ago or even 30 years ago for kids? We've advanced in technology somewhat, but it's not like we didn't have cars, trains and airplane 50 years ago or that everyone was a farmer then and now very few are (200+ years ago, sure, but 50 years ago?).

The amount of kids that walk/cycle to and from school has dropped drastically. Even for those who live close enough, only a small fraction actually do so. Recess is being cut from school. Gym isn't mandatory. Screen time is way up, which means less time for physical activity. http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/1.full

To add

"It is clear that, despite their natural tendencies, children have become less physically active in recent decades, with children today expending approximately 600 kcal days' less than their counterparts 50 years ago"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11820686

queenliz99

lindsey1979 wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

Well, I guess one of the differentiations I take into account are what drives people to eat. For example I have two twin nieces -- they're growing up in the same environment and they have vastly different body types. Most people think that they're 2 years apart rather than the exact same age. One is probably in the 80+ percentile for weight and one is probably in the lower 20+ weight. And you started seeing significant differences around age 1.

Undoubtedly the bigger one eats more than the little one. But why? What has driven that? They have the exact same parents, grow up in the same household, eating the same things (though obviously one has always eaten more)?

There is at least one theory out there that it has to do with absorption of nutrients in food and/or the combination of so much of our food not being as nutrient dense as it used to be (at least in comparison to its caloric density). So, some eat more to get more nutrients because their body isn't absorbing/digesting them as effectively and along comes the extra calories. I don't know if there is any truth behind it, but definitely interesting to think about.

I guess I've just seen too many people like my twin nieces in the world to think it is as seeming simple as vismal posits. Yes, the heavier people are eating more -- but why? What is going on to shift to so much on an overall population level? The rates of obesity now are greatly higher than they were 50 years ago but there hasn't been that much change in lifestyles and activity in 50 years. Yes, perhaps some, but not really that much. We have a heck of a LOT more fat kids now than we did even 20-30 years ago. My guess is something is going on in our food chain that is significantly shift this. I know there has been a significant increase in sugar consumption, but it's hard to believe it's just that.

Maybe they are not moving as much.

Well, in my nieces case, it's the exact opposite. The big one is the athlete and has always been very involved with athletics and runs with her Dad. The smaller slighter one is more of an introvert and enjoys quieter time more. So, at least for them, I have a hard time imagining that the smaller one is more active than her very athletic sister.

Well "hard time imagining" and fact are two different things. Anecdotal evidence is not fact.

queenliz99

DeguelloTex wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

I think a lot of this comes down to genetics and medical issues (if any are present). The classic ectomoph, mesomorph and endomorph people. As strong_curves talked about, there certainly are people that have a MUCH easier time maintaining a healthy weight (naturally thin folks) and those that have MUCH easier time building muscle (usually also gaining fat). It's a spectrum. On the extremes you see the elite athletes -- whether it's a marathon runner on one side or powerlifters on the other. They no doubt are genetic freaks -- just like any elite athlete. That's not to say they don't work hard -- of course, they do -- but they have certain genetics that allow them to reach that level. Not everyone could work as hard and get those same results -- it's just not how the world works.

So, it's all about being the best YOU. Being the best version of your genetic potential. So you may struggle more with weight loss/management or you may struggle more with gaining weight/muscle. Depending on your issues, certain strategies may work better or worse for you --- whether that's adjusting macros (carbs especially), using an intermittent fasting regime like 16:8 or 5:2, calorie cycling, etc. Deficits work for those without medical issues, but how you create that deficit may yield dramatically different results depending on your individual circumstances. A lot of it is trial and error figuring out what works best for you. But, yes, there are undoubtedly differences between people.

I've been 6'9" and 180. I've been 6'9" and 335. I am 6'9" and 220. Which classic body type am I?

Being short, I love tall people

tincanonastring

DeguelloTex wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

I think a lot of this comes down to genetics and medical issues (if any are present). The classic ectomoph, mesomorph and endomorph people. As strong_curves talked about, there certainly are people that have a MUCH easier time maintaining a healthy weight (naturally thin folks) and those that have MUCH easier time building muscle (usually also gaining fat). It's a spectrum. On the extremes you see the elite athletes -- whether it's a marathon runner on one side or powerlifters on the other. They no doubt are genetic freaks -- just like any elite athlete. That's not to say they don't work hard -- of course, they do -- but they have certain genetics that allow them to reach that level. Not everyone could work as hard and get those same results -- it's just not how the world works.

So, it's all about being the best YOU. Being the best version of your genetic potential. So you may struggle more with weight loss/management or you may struggle more with gaining weight/muscle. Depending on your issues, certain strategies may work better or worse for you --- whether that's adjusting macros (carbs especially), using an intermittent fasting regime like 16:8 or 5:2, calorie cycling, etc. Deficits work for those without medical issues, but how you create that deficit may yield dramatically different results depending on your individual circumstances. A lot of it is trial and error figuring out what works best for you. But, yes, there are undoubtedly differences between people.

I've been 6'9" and 180. I've been 6'9" and 335. I am 6'9" and 220. Which classic body type am I?

Are you really that tall, dude? I had no idea.

Asher_Ethan

So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.

honkytonks85

DeguelloTex wrote: »

No, the literal reason you gain or lose weight is eating more than your TDEE.

Most people don't equate TDEE with non-exercise metabolism when discussing slow or fast metabolisms.

Yes but TDEE is the end result of your metabolic rate plus your activity level (TDEE =BMR TEA TEF NEAT). That's exactly what my post was getting at. You clearly missed the point.

So when metabolism is discussed it's the difference between someone who would typically burn 2500 calories a day and someone who burns 1800 calories a day. Someone who is leaner and taller will have a faster metabolism, as their BMR is higher and they burn more calories in exercise.

OneHundredToLose

honkytonks85 wrote: »

DeguelloTex wrote: »

No, the literal reason you gain or lose weight is eating more than your TDEE.

Most people don't equate TDEE with non-exercise metabolism when discussing slow or fast metabolisms.

Yes but TDEE is the end result of your metabolic rate plus your activity level (TDEE =BMR TEA TEF NEAT). That's exactly what my post was getting at. You clearly missed the point.

So when metabolism is discussed it's the difference between someone who would typically burn 2500 calories a day and someone who burns 1800 calories a day. Someone who is leaner and taller will have a faster metabolism, as their BMR is higher and they burn more calories in exercise.

So wouldn't a person's individual metabolic rate be a moot point once they knew their TDEE? It's not like a slow metabolism is going to prevent someone from losing weight, right? I mean, at the end of the day, it's just physics. Eat less than you burn, you lose weight. Eat more than you burn, you gain weight.

honkytonks85

Asher_Ethan wrote: »

So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.

Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.

Let's look at 2 case studies:

If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories

If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.

That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.

senecarr

I'll trot this out again:
http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/

One study[1] noted that one standard deviation of variance for resting metabolic rate (how many calories are burnt by living) was 5-8%; meaning 1 standard deviation of the population (68%) was within 6-8% of the average metabolic rate. Extending this, 2 standard deviations of the population (96%) was within 10-16% of the population average.[1]

Extending this into practical terms and assuming an average expenditure of 2000kcal a day, 68% of the population falls into the range of 1840-2160kcal daily while 96% of the population is in the range of 1680-2320kcal daily. Comparing somebody at or below the 5th percentile with somebody at or above the 95th percentile would yield a difference of possibly 600kcal daily, and the chance of this occurring (comparing the self to a friend) is 0.50%, assuming two completely random persons.

To give a sense of calories, 200kcal (the difference in metabolic rate in approximately half the population) is approximately equivalent to 2 tablespoons of peanut butter, a single poptart (a package of two is 400kcal) or half of a large slice of pizza. An oreo is about 70kcal, and a chocolate bar in the range of 150-270kcal depending on brand.

Metabolic rate does vary, and technically there could be large variance. However, statistically speaking it is unlikely the variance would apply to you. The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other and do not possess hugely different metabolic rates.

Basal metabolism between people doesn't vary that much. Even for all the variation in height and weight people have. What various drastically is physical activity (NEAT + Exercise) and perception of what you eat.