How can some people eat so much junk and gain no weight?
Options
Replies
-
RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »Yes all calories are burned by some kind of heat generation, but you don't believe people can burn variable amounts of calories given identical activity levels? People can't just have bodies that burn more calories than average? There are lots of processes that burn calories in the body that don't involve movement. Some people will burn more calories than you while sitting perfectly still or sleeping, some less.
Yes, that can happen, but only by generating excess heat. The energy must go somewhere. Movement and heat are the only net energy outputs the human body is capable of (and sound, but that's pretty negligible in our case compared to, say, a car) . All body processes which don't result in movement generate heat.
Obviously there is only so much hotter a body can run, unless you're talking about the human torch, so if the discrepancy is large, fidgeting and spontaneous activity probably account for most of it and extra heat only for a small proportion. But you can see the effect in the fact that a fair few "naturally skinny" people don't feel the cold and wear t-shirts in chilly weather.
I'm an engineer. This is very much my area of expertise. Energy in equals energy out in ANY system. It is not a matter of opinion, and in the human body there is limited variation in energy out unless there's big difference in activity level. Imo, those rare cases where someone genuinely eats hugely with little activity and fails to gain weight are more likely a digestive problem reducing the amount of energy going in.
Obviously energy in = energy out. Nobody is saying calories magically vanish somewhere. But people can and do have variations in their Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) that are independent of activity level. It's affected by many things like age, genetics, glandular activity, etc. That is also not a matter of opinion.
All these teenagers who eat huge amounts of food without gaining weight aren't all super active or have digestive problems, be realistic. Yes CICO is a real thing, but sometimes people see it as more black and white than it really is.
Teenagers are still growing. Growth rates differ, but even those that are growing slowly at a particular point in time have increased intake requirements without even considering that teens are generally more active than adults. Many people continue growing into their 20's (I grew another inch or so in my early 20's), so their intake requirements would be increased as well.
CICO is about as black and white as it gets. The estimates for CI and CO not so much. Getting a 'good enough' estimate for CO, in particular, can be pretty far off of general estimates for some. CI is usually easier to pin down, but if you've got major digestive/absorption issues it can be as big a problem as CO, though at least you can establish an upper limit.
Some teenagers are still growing, sure. I should have said "young people". And plenty of non-young people as well have above average BMRs. My son is 20. He hasn't grown since he was 17, and I assure you he's not more active than me. I train for triathlons and burn 600-1000 calories per day in exercise. Yet he eats much more food than me and has not one ounce of fat on him. Unless he has a tapeworm his body simply burns more calories than mine during his every day, non active functions.
Have people just abandoned the notion that Basal Metabolic Rates can differ between different humans? Are there studies disproving this commonly known aspect of human function that I'm not aware of?
Of course they differ. Not by a tremendous amount given individuals of the same age, weight, height, and body composition, but that is why BMR calculations are estimates and not absolutes.
This was mentioned several times up thread.
Right but also several times up thread people seem to be under the impression that if someone eats more than me and doesn't gain weight, they must simply somehow be more active than me, or not be eating as much as I think they are. As if there aren't any variations based on age, body composition, etc.
"This guy at work eats way more than me yet doesn't gain weight" is the premise of the thread, and many seem to want to assume he really doesn't eat that much, or he's secretly super active, or some other explanation other than a faster than average metabolism.
Because all a faster than average metabolism would gain 'little skinny' guy is a couple of hundred calories per day. Not anywhere near enough to account for the difference OP believes exists.
People probably presume that 'little skinny' guy is not significantly taller than OP, or he'd be described differently. For the same reason, people probably assume he's not particularly muscular. Age is a question, but it's also a small effect if OP and the guy are mature adults and not elderly.
So super skinny guy is pounding these huge meals at work and fast food take out on the way home, but somehow staying within the average maintenance intake of 2000-2300 or whatever. Either that or he's secretly super active. Is that what you're telling me?
Well, I can eat a fast food burger and fries and still eat takeout for dinner for 1500 cals, which is my maintenance - pretty much dead-on the calculated estimate for my height and weight and sedentary lifestyle. I can even go significantly over a couple of times a week and still maintain because I compensate for it the rest of the week.
So, yes, I'm telling you it's more than possible even if we assume 'little skinny guy' has a TDEE of 2000-2300.
I'd like to know what fast food and takeout you're eating that is so low-cal LOL. Don't bother combing the database to find a combo that fits those numbers, I'm sure you can if you dig enough, but it's far from the norm and we all know that. Well, it's not hard to come up with contrived scenarios. You're probably right. People who don't track calories at all and chow down on multiple fast food meals per day are staying around 1500-2000 calories by being super careful with the rest of their diet or just having 1200 calories on other days to make up for it. Sounds legit.0 -
RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »Yes all calories are burned by some kind of heat generation, but you don't believe people can burn variable amounts of calories given identical activity levels? People can't just have bodies that burn more calories than average? There are lots of processes that burn calories in the body that don't involve movement. Some people will burn more calories than you while sitting perfectly still or sleeping, some less.
Yes, that can happen, but only by generating excess heat. The energy must go somewhere. Movement and heat are the only net energy outputs the human body is capable of (and sound, but that's pretty negligible in our case compared to, say, a car) . All body processes which don't result in movement generate heat.
Obviously there is only so much hotter a body can run, unless you're talking about the human torch, so if the discrepancy is large, fidgeting and spontaneous activity probably account for most of it and extra heat only for a small proportion. But you can see the effect in the fact that a fair few "naturally skinny" people don't feel the cold and wear t-shirts in chilly weather.
I'm an engineer. This is very much my area of expertise. Energy in equals energy out in ANY system. It is not a matter of opinion, and in the human body there is limited variation in energy out unless there's big difference in activity level. Imo, those rare cases where someone genuinely eats hugely with little activity and fails to gain weight are more likely a digestive problem reducing the amount of energy going in.
Obviously energy in = energy out. Nobody is saying calories magically vanish somewhere. But people can and do have variations in their Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) that are independent of activity level. It's affected by many things like age, genetics, glandular activity, etc. That is also not a matter of opinion.
All these teenagers who eat huge amounts of food without gaining weight aren't all super active or have digestive problems, be realistic. Yes CICO is a real thing, but sometimes people see it as more black and white than it really is.
Teenagers are still growing. Growth rates differ, but even those that are growing slowly at a particular point in time have increased intake requirements without even considering that teens are generally more active than adults. Many people continue growing into their 20's (I grew another inch or so in my early 20's), so their intake requirements would be increased as well.
CICO is about as black and white as it gets. The estimates for CI and CO not so much. Getting a 'good enough' estimate for CO, in particular, can be pretty far off of general estimates for some. CI is usually easier to pin down, but if you've got major digestive/absorption issues it can be as big a problem as CO, though at least you can establish an upper limit.
Some teenagers are still growing, sure. I should have said "young people". And plenty of non-young people as well have above average BMRs. My son is 20. He hasn't grown since he was 17, and I assure you he's not more active than me. I train for triathlons and burn 600-1000 calories per day in exercise. Yet he eats much more food than me and has not one ounce of fat on him. Unless he has a tapeworm his body simply burns more calories than mine during his every day, non active functions.
Have people just abandoned the notion that Basal Metabolic Rates can differ between different humans? Are there studies disproving this commonly known aspect of human function that I'm not aware of?
Of course they differ. Not by a tremendous amount given individuals of the same age, weight, height, and body composition, but that is why BMR calculations are estimates and not absolutes.
This was mentioned several times up thread.
Right but also several times up thread people seem to be under the impression that if someone eats more than me and doesn't gain weight, they must simply somehow be more active than me, or not be eating as much as I think they are. As if there aren't any variations based on age, body composition, etc.
"This guy at work eats way more than me yet doesn't gain weight" is the premise of the thread, and many seem to want to assume he really doesn't eat that much, or he's secretly super active, or some other explanation other than a faster than average metabolism.
Because all a faster than average metabolism would gain 'little skinny' guy is a couple of hundred calories per day. Not anywhere near enough to account for the difference OP believes exists.
People probably presume that 'little skinny' guy is not significantly taller than OP, or he'd be described differently. For the same reason, people probably assume he's not particularly muscular. Age is a question, but it's also a small effect if OP and the guy are mature adults and not elderly.
So super skinny guy is pounding these huge meals at work and fast food take out on the way home, but somehow staying within the average maintenance intake of 2000-2300 or whatever. Either that or he's secretly super active. Is that what you're telling me?
Well, I can eat a fast food burger and fries and still eat takeout for dinner for 1500 cals, which is my maintenance - pretty much dead-on the calculated estimate for my height and weight and sedentary lifestyle. I can even go significantly over a couple of times a week and still maintain because I compensate for it the rest of the week.
So, yes, I'm telling you it's more than possible even if we assume 'little skinny guy' has a TDEE of 2000-2300.
I'd like to know what fast food and takeout you're eating that is so low-cal LOL. Don't bother combing the database to find a combo that fits those numbers, I'm sure you can if you dig enough, but it's far from the norm and we all know that. Well, it's not hard to come up with contrived scenarios. You're probably right. People who don't track calories at all and chow down on multiple fast food meals per day are staying around 1500-2000 calories by being super careful with the rest of their diet or just having 1200 calories on other days to make up for it. Sounds legit.
Two meals that comprise 1500 cals from fast food restaurants and/or takeout? Why is that so hard to believe?
I don't usually eat McDonalds and Qdoba/Chipotle in the same day but what I eat at both of those places is less than 1500 cals.
McDouble - 390
Small Fries - 230
Qdoba Naked Pork Burrito (White Rice, Black Beans, Pork, Cheese, Sour Cream, Fajita Veggies, Salsa) - 750
Total - 1370 cals. Leaves room for a yogurt for breakfast!
6 -
RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »Yes all calories are burned by some kind of heat generation, but you don't believe people can burn variable amounts of calories given identical activity levels? People can't just have bodies that burn more calories than average? There are lots of processes that burn calories in the body that don't involve movement. Some people will burn more calories than you while sitting perfectly still or sleeping, some less.
Yes, that can happen, but only by generating excess heat. The energy must go somewhere. Movement and heat are the only net energy outputs the human body is capable of (and sound, but that's pretty negligible in our case compared to, say, a car) . All body processes which don't result in movement generate heat.
Obviously there is only so much hotter a body can run, unless you're talking about the human torch, so if the discrepancy is large, fidgeting and spontaneous activity probably account for most of it and extra heat only for a small proportion. But you can see the effect in the fact that a fair few "naturally skinny" people don't feel the cold and wear t-shirts in chilly weather.
I'm an engineer. This is very much my area of expertise. Energy in equals energy out in ANY system. It is not a matter of opinion, and in the human body there is limited variation in energy out unless there's big difference in activity level. Imo, those rare cases where someone genuinely eats hugely with little activity and fails to gain weight are more likely a digestive problem reducing the amount of energy going in.
Obviously energy in = energy out. Nobody is saying calories magically vanish somewhere. But people can and do have variations in their Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) that are independent of activity level. It's affected by many things like age, genetics, glandular activity, etc. That is also not a matter of opinion.
All these teenagers who eat huge amounts of food without gaining weight aren't all super active or have digestive problems, be realistic. Yes CICO is a real thing, but sometimes people see it as more black and white than it really is.
Teenagers are still growing. Growth rates differ, but even those that are growing slowly at a particular point in time have increased intake requirements without even considering that teens are generally more active than adults. Many people continue growing into their 20's (I grew another inch or so in my early 20's), so their intake requirements would be increased as well.
CICO is about as black and white as it gets. The estimates for CI and CO not so much. Getting a 'good enough' estimate for CO, in particular, can be pretty far off of general estimates for some. CI is usually easier to pin down, but if you've got major digestive/absorption issues it can be as big a problem as CO, though at least you can establish an upper limit.
Some teenagers are still growing, sure. I should have said "young people". And plenty of non-young people as well have above average BMRs. My son is 20. He hasn't grown since he was 17, and I assure you he's not more active than me. I train for triathlons and burn 600-1000 calories per day in exercise. Yet he eats much more food than me and has not one ounce of fat on him. Unless he has a tapeworm his body simply burns more calories than mine during his every day, non active functions.
Have people just abandoned the notion that Basal Metabolic Rates can differ between different humans? Are there studies disproving this commonly known aspect of human function that I'm not aware of?
Of course they differ. Not by a tremendous amount given individuals of the same age, weight, height, and body composition, but that is why BMR calculations are estimates and not absolutes.
This was mentioned several times up thread.
Right but also several times up thread people seem to be under the impression that if someone eats more than me and doesn't gain weight, they must simply somehow be more active than me, or not be eating as much as I think they are. As if there aren't any variations based on age, body composition, etc.
"This guy at work eats way more than me yet doesn't gain weight" is the premise of the thread, and many seem to want to assume he really doesn't eat that much, or he's secretly super active, or some other explanation other than a faster than average metabolism.
Because all a faster than average metabolism would gain 'little skinny' guy is a couple of hundred calories per day. Not anywhere near enough to account for the difference OP believes exists.
People probably presume that 'little skinny' guy is not significantly taller than OP, or he'd be described differently. For the same reason, people probably assume he's not particularly muscular. Age is a question, but it's also a small effect if OP and the guy are mature adults and not elderly.
So super skinny guy is pounding these huge meals at work and fast food take out on the way home, but somehow staying within the average maintenance intake of 2000-2300 or whatever. Either that or he's secretly super active. Is that what you're telling me?
Well, I can eat a fast food burger and fries and still eat takeout for dinner for 1500 cals, which is my maintenance - pretty much dead-on the calculated estimate for my height and weight and sedentary lifestyle. I can even go significantly over a couple of times a week and still maintain because I compensate for it the rest of the week.
So, yes, I'm telling you it's more than possible even if we assume 'little skinny guy' has a TDEE of 2000-2300.
I'd like to know what fast food and takeout you're eating that is so low-cal LOL. Don't bother combing the database to find a combo that fits those numbers, I'm sure you can if you dig enough, but it's far from the norm and we all know that. Well, it's not hard to come up with contrived scenarios. You're probably right. People who don't track calories at all and chow down on multiple fast food meals per day are staying around 1500-2000 calories by being super careful with the rest of their diet or just having 1200 calories on other days to make up for it. Sounds legit.
Not all fast food/takeaway items are calorie bombs and not everyone who eats them stuffs themselves silly. It's a matter of choosing wisely.4 -
I usually eat out with friends twice per week at least. My meals look huge to them; I am eating at a relatively moderate calorie deficit and I do a lot of walking and cardio so that I can eat more, so I have a fair number of calories to work with. I skip breakfast, and eat small meals and snacks during the day and save the majority of my calories for the evening. So, when we go out, I have 1000-1200 calories to eat for dinner.
Weekends are worse; I know I eat a lot, so I save up calories for those times. Between Saturday and Sunday, I have an extra 1000 calories on top of my daily goal as "splurge calories".
Someone who doesn't know what most of my meals look like would think I consume a ton of food. Instead, I find what works for me and allows me to stay within my calorie goal.
A big thing that people aren't considering is that the OP is eating at a deficit (and I think a steep one since I think he said 1500 calories per day?), and his coworker is maintaining his weight. Plus all the aforementioned reasons why he may not be eating as much as the OP thinks.2 -
RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »Yes all calories are burned by some kind of heat generation, but you don't believe people can burn variable amounts of calories given identical activity levels? People can't just have bodies that burn more calories than average? There are lots of processes that burn calories in the body that don't involve movement. Some people will burn more calories than you while sitting perfectly still or sleeping, some less.
Yes, that can happen, but only by generating excess heat. The energy must go somewhere. Movement and heat are the only net energy outputs the human body is capable of (and sound, but that's pretty negligible in our case compared to, say, a car) . All body processes which don't result in movement generate heat.
Obviously there is only so much hotter a body can run, unless you're talking about the human torch, so if the discrepancy is large, fidgeting and spontaneous activity probably account for most of it and extra heat only for a small proportion. But you can see the effect in the fact that a fair few "naturally skinny" people don't feel the cold and wear t-shirts in chilly weather.
I'm an engineer. This is very much my area of expertise. Energy in equals energy out in ANY system. It is not a matter of opinion, and in the human body there is limited variation in energy out unless there's big difference in activity level. Imo, those rare cases where someone genuinely eats hugely with little activity and fails to gain weight are more likely a digestive problem reducing the amount of energy going in.
Obviously energy in = energy out. Nobody is saying calories magically vanish somewhere. But people can and do have variations in their Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) that are independent of activity level. It's affected by many things like age, genetics, glandular activity, etc. That is also not a matter of opinion.
All these teenagers who eat huge amounts of food without gaining weight aren't all super active or have digestive problems, be realistic. Yes CICO is a real thing, but sometimes people see it as more black and white than it really is.
Teenagers are still growing. Growth rates differ, but even those that are growing slowly at a particular point in time have increased intake requirements without even considering that teens are generally more active than adults. Many people continue growing into their 20's (I grew another inch or so in my early 20's), so their intake requirements would be increased as well.
CICO is about as black and white as it gets. The estimates for CI and CO not so much. Getting a 'good enough' estimate for CO, in particular, can be pretty far off of general estimates for some. CI is usually easier to pin down, but if you've got major digestive/absorption issues it can be as big a problem as CO, though at least you can establish an upper limit.
Some teenagers are still growing, sure. I should have said "young people". And plenty of non-young people as well have above average BMRs. My son is 20. He hasn't grown since he was 17, and I assure you he's not more active than me. I train for triathlons and burn 600-1000 calories per day in exercise. Yet he eats much more food than me and has not one ounce of fat on him. Unless he has a tapeworm his body simply burns more calories than mine during his every day, non active functions.
Have people just abandoned the notion that Basal Metabolic Rates can differ between different humans? Are there studies disproving this commonly known aspect of human function that I'm not aware of?
Of course they differ. Not by a tremendous amount given individuals of the same age, weight, height, and body composition, but that is why BMR calculations are estimates and not absolutes.
This was mentioned several times up thread.
Right but also several times up thread people seem to be under the impression that if someone eats more than me and doesn't gain weight, they must simply somehow be more active than me, or not be eating as much as I think they are. As if there aren't any variations based on age, body composition, etc.
"This guy at work eats way more than me yet doesn't gain weight" is the premise of the thread, and many seem to want to assume he really doesn't eat that much, or he's secretly super active, or some other explanation other than a faster than average metabolism.
Because all a faster than average metabolism would gain 'little skinny' guy is a couple of hundred calories per day. Not anywhere near enough to account for the difference OP believes exists.
People probably presume that 'little skinny' guy is not significantly taller than OP, or he'd be described differently. For the same reason, people probably assume he's not particularly muscular. Age is a question, but it's also a small effect if OP and the guy are mature adults and not elderly.
So super skinny guy is pounding these huge meals at work and fast food take out on the way home, but somehow staying within the average maintenance intake of 2000-2300 or whatever. Either that or he's secretly super active. Is that what you're telling me?
Well, I can eat a fast food burger and fries and still eat takeout for dinner for 1500 cals, which is my maintenance - pretty much dead-on the calculated estimate for my height and weight and sedentary lifestyle. I can even go significantly over a couple of times a week and still maintain because I compensate for it the rest of the week.
So, yes, I'm telling you it's more than possible even if we assume 'little skinny guy' has a TDEE of 2000-2300.
I'd like to know what fast food and takeout you're eating that is so low-cal LOL. Don't bother combing the database to find a combo that fits those numbers, I'm sure you can if you dig enough, but it's far from the norm and we all know that. Well, it's not hard to come up with contrived scenarios. You're probably right. People who don't track calories at all and chow down on multiple fast food meals per day are staying around 1500-2000 calories by being super careful with the rest of their diet or just having 1200 calories on other days to make up for it. Sounds legit.
I don't have to comb it. I can tell you things I'd normally get. I don't get fries unless they're from somewhere good (i.e., not fast food).
At Jack and the Box, usually a Jumbo Jack, skip the mayo.
At KFC, the $5 combo with a chicken breast. I chose grilled over fried, but could have done fried if I'd wanted. I like Popeyes better, and would get the fried chicken strips and a biscuit.
I get the 5" Philly cheesesteak at The Philly Connection (w/ provolone, onions, marinara).
At Burger King, I'd get a Whopper. A Whopper Jr if cals were low. Again, skip the mayo.
I went to Taco Bell a lot, because they have lots of options. Most of their tacos work, the quesadilla, the grilled stuft burritos (not the XXL and other super-sized ones, that I'd have to make a special effort to fit in).
Subway is obvious. Almost everything there is fine as a 6" and I'd often get a cookie, too.
Wendy's was always the spicy fried chicken sandwich. Love that thing.
People who chow down on multiple fast food meals a day and don't track their calories run the gamut from people who are morbidly obese to people who are able to stay quite thin. It all depends on the person's eating habits.
It's not unusual for someone to habitually skip breakfast and have a couple of big meals with no snacking, for example. Or to have one really big meal and the rest much lighter. Or to eat like a horse one day and just not be hungry for a day or two after. This happens with people who don't track. Those who do are just more conscious of what they're doing and can deliberately change their habits to suit their preferences.5 -
I usually eat out with friends twice per week at least. My meals look huge to them; I am eating at a relatively moderate calorie deficit and I do a lot of walking and cardio so that I can eat more, so I have a fair number of calories to work with. I skip breakfast, and eat small meals and snacks during the day and save the majority of my calories for the evening. So, when we go out, I have 1000-1200 calories to eat for dinner.
Weekends are worse; I know I eat a lot, so I save up calories for those times. Between Saturday and Sunday, I have an extra 1000 calories on top of my daily goal as "splurge calories".
Someone who doesn't know what most of my meals look like would think I consume a ton of food. Instead, I find what works for me and allows me to stay within my calorie goal.
A big thing that people aren't considering is that the OP is eating at a deficit (and I think a steep one since I think he said 1500 calories per day?), and his coworker is maintaining his weight. Plus all the aforementioned reasons why he may not be eating as much as the OP thinks.
All of this...especially the bolded.2 -
This thread, it goes in circles. Round and round and round...2
-
dave_in_ni wrote: »WOW well this thread has become popular. It was more a vent than anything. I'm sure we all know that one person who eats nothing but crap and is scrawny. As I said previously I can't be sure exactly what he eats at home but he does send my pictures of his takeaways very regularly and of course I watch him eat at work. On the menu today a full packet of pork sausages in 1 sitting. Thats 8 sausages, approx 200 cals each, accompanied by crisps/chips and a cup cake.
Interestingly I asked him about this today, how come you can eat so much crap and not get fat, he told me he only got fat once and that was when he tried to get into weight lifting, he took protein powder and blew up like a balloon however that happened, stopped the powder and lifting and dropped back down.
Well, protein powders have....wait for it.......................calories! It sounds like adding in the protein shakes put him into a surplus. He ate more than he should have and gained.
I'm sure next you will tell us you watch him at home on a webcam and or have drones spy on his every move so he couldn't possibly be so active to burn all the foods that you watch him eat at work.
2 -
rawhidenadz wrote: »When I'm working (I'm a teacher so I'm on my feet all day), I burn between 2600 and 3000 calories a day. I'm not at an aggressive deficit right now because I'm only about ten pounds overweight at this point, so I try to get between 2000 and 2500 calories a day on days that I work or hit the gym. A lot of my friends and family are shocked that I can eat what looks like significantly more than they eat and still lose weight/maintain my weight loss.
I probably had a higher TDEE when I was obese (240 at my highest), but I fooled myself into thinking I had a "slow metabolism." No, I just out-ate my metabolism, and now I don't. It might seem to others that I'm eating too much, but it's just a numbers game. I'm eating less than I burn. I don't think 3000 calories a day is that much - that's just what I burn daily teaching six hours a day, without adding in exercise. Now that it's summer vacation, I'm just bumming around at home and I'm only burning between 1800 and 2000 calories a day, so I HAVE to exercise, and even with a full hour of exercise tacked on, I'm nowhere near my burn during the school year.
My point is that daily activity can make a huge difference. I know a lot of teachers who sit at their desk all day, whereas I pretty much never sit down and am always walking around, writing on the board, standing at a podium to lecture. Some people are just naturally more active throughout the day - they don't take the kind of "shortcuts" that others do, whether that's taking the stairs, settling for a parking spot that's farther away from the store they're going into . . . things like that. Unless you follow the person around all day and know how many steps they're taking, their heart rate, their muscle mass, you don't really know how much they're burning. To you, it might seem like they're "eating too much," but they're eating enough to balance what they burn off.
I'm a teacher (elementary), too, rarely sit at work,and don't burn anywhere near that many calories in a day -- according to my fitbit , anyway. I hit around 7,500 steps, which is around 1800 calories, I believe.
0 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »This thread, it goes in circles. Round and round and round...
Yes. I feel like there are people here who either insinuate or state outright that CICO isn't for everyone and either can't or won't understand why it is.2 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »This thread, it goes in circles. Round and round and round...
Yes. I feel like there are people here who either insinuate or state outright that CICO isn't for everyone and either can't or won't understand why it is.
No I think that people are saying that calorie OUT is not the same for everyone (whether it's from activity or just a faster metabolism). Haven't seen anyone argue CICO...0 -
No I think that people are saying that calorie OUT is not the same for everyone (whether it's from activity or just a faster metabolism). Haven't seen anyone argue CICO...
It literally can't be the same for everyone. Several things come into play to affect your overall energy burn in a given day.
Everyone uses the same math equation, but the numbers you enter into it are different. That's the only way CICO varies from person to person.
1 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »This thread, it goes in circles. Round and round and round...
Yes. I feel like there are people here who either insinuate or state outright that CICO isn't for everyone and either can't or won't understand why it is.
No I think that people are saying that calorie OUT is not the same for everyone (whether it's from activity or just a faster metabolism). Haven't seen anyone argue CICO...
There is one on this very page arguing against CICO. I reread the thread, too, and there are a few others that seem to think that metabolism is not part of CO.
Most of the discussion has been in agreement that metabolisms vary per person, so there is that.3 -
I'm a teacher (elementary), too, rarely sit at work,and don't burn anywhere near that many calories in a day -- according to my fitbit , anyway. I hit around 7,500 steps, which is around 1800 calories, I believe.
Really? I don't know your height and weight (you don't look overweight in your profile picture), but it looks like you're in your mid-forties? I'm 26, 5'7ish, and currently weigh around 170 pounds. I looked over my fitbit data for the last couple of months, and it looks like I hit about 10,000 steps most days teaching. At the end of those days, though, my fitbit usually tells me I've burned nearly 3,000 calories. Also, before anyone comments with Fitbit only being an estimate - yeah, I know, but I've also maintained my weight loss for almost five years now while weighing everything I eat and logging it accurately, and I knew my rough TDEE way before getting my Fitbit. It only confirmed what I knew from years of data
1 -
AmandaIsherwood3 wrote: »
This is my nephew on the left age 21 weights 8st 6lb. This is the massive food potions he eats everyday, he bakes cakes, breads at least 3 times a week and eats it all to himself, he enjoys going to eating places where they have plate challenges you finish in the allotted time you get the meal for free. The only exercise he does is a hour swim once a week and a 15 mile walk once a week, he can't seem to put any weight on. Some people say they can't believe how little I eat except I'm 4 stone overweight. Everyone is different.
Absolutely delicious.0 -
The guy just has a fast metabolism. When I was in college I could eat all day and all night and never gain a pound. My frat brothers used to laugh about it. There is no other explanation. When I hit somewhere around 30, I couldn't do it anymore. Metabolism slowed. Case closed.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions