What do you think of people who are naturally slim?
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Whitezombiegirl wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »RachelElser wrote: »Some people are naturally slim. My friend is just a little over 5 feet, 110 lbs soaking wet, near 40 years old with a kid. And I've seen what she eats. She's Italian and Sicilian so lots of pasta and she drinks regular soda. She also has great skin and looks 10 years younger then she is!
Yes, another naturally slim person.
But here come the comments - "she's really not eating as much as you think she is eating," or, "she's secretly running five miles a day and not telling you," or, "you don't know how much running around she has to do with that kid."
Denial, denial, denial that there are naturally slim people because they have fast metabolisms.
Metabolism is the conversion of energy stores into useable energy. Generally the body only converts energy as required - for growth, movement, repair etc.
A fast metabolism is what - converting more energy than required? Whats all that extra energy doing?
Maybe these people just have greater energy demands. Thats a different thing imo. Its still cico.
"It's still CICO."
Right. Two people of the same height and the same weight. One can eat 1,500 calories a day, do X amount of exercise and not gain weight. The other can eat 1,900 calories a day, do X amount of exercise, and not gain weight. Calories in, calories out. But the second person can eat more calories than the first person.
This is not rocket science.
Understanding that in probability, the further off the average you go in a normal distribution, it becomes exponentially less likely to find someone this applies to seems to be rocket science.
So in other words, every single one of us burns calories at the same rate. We are all different in so many ways, but when it comes to weight gain and weight loss, we are all the same.
Just put your height and weight in the calculator (apparently age does not matter), and assuming the same amount of exercise, you will have the exact same results if you eat the same number of calories. OK sure, if you say so.0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Whitezombiegirl wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »RachelElser wrote: »Some people are naturally slim. My friend is just a little over 5 feet, 110 lbs soaking wet, near 40 years old with a kid. And I've seen what she eats. She's Italian and Sicilian so lots of pasta and she drinks regular soda. She also has great skin and looks 10 years younger then she is!
Yes, another naturally slim person.
But here come the comments - "she's really not eating as much as you think she is eating," or, "she's secretly running five miles a day and not telling you," or, "you don't know how much running around she has to do with that kid."
Denial, denial, denial that there are naturally slim people because they have fast metabolisms.
Metabolism is the conversion of energy stores into useable energy. Generally the body only converts energy as required - for growth, movement, repair etc.
A fast metabolism is what - converting more energy than required? Whats all that extra energy doing?
Maybe these people just have greater energy demands. Thats a different thing imo. Its still cico.
"It's still CICO."
Right. Two people of the same height and the same weight. One can eat 1,500 calories a day, do X amount of exercise and not gain weight. The other can eat 1,900 calories a day, do X amount of exercise, and not gain weight. Calories in, calories out. But the second person can eat more calories than the first person.
This is not rocket science.
Understanding that in probability, the further off the average you go in a normal distribution, it becomes exponentially less likely to find someone this applies to seems to be rocket science.
So in other words, every single one of us burns calories at the same rate. We are all different in so many ways, but when it comes to weight gain and weight loss, we are all the same.
Just put your height and weight in the calculator (apparently age does not matter), and assuming the same amount of exercise, you will have the exact same results if you eat the same number of calories. OK sure, if you say so.
No, of course not. But your posts read as if you think that nothing affects weight gain except metabolic rate, and that is simply not correct.1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Whitezombiegirl wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »RachelElser wrote: »Some people are naturally slim. My friend is just a little over 5 feet, 110 lbs soaking wet, near 40 years old with a kid. And I've seen what she eats. She's Italian and Sicilian so lots of pasta and she drinks regular soda. She also has great skin and looks 10 years younger then she is!
Yes, another naturally slim person.
But here come the comments - "she's really not eating as much as you think she is eating," or, "she's secretly running five miles a day and not telling you," or, "you don't know how much running around she has to do with that kid."
Denial, denial, denial that there are naturally slim people because they have fast metabolisms.
Metabolism is the conversion of energy stores into useable energy. Generally the body only converts energy as required - for growth, movement, repair etc.
A fast metabolism is what - converting more energy than required? Whats all that extra energy doing?
Maybe these people just have greater energy demands. Thats a different thing imo. Its still cico.
"It's still CICO."
Right. Two people of the same height and the same weight. One can eat 1,500 calories a day, do X amount of exercise and not gain weight. The other can eat 1,900 calories a day, do X amount of exercise, and not gain weight. Calories in, calories out. But the second person can eat more calories than the first person.
This is not rocket science.
Understanding that in probability, the further off the average you go in a normal distribution, it becomes exponentially less likely to find someone this applies to seems to be rocket science.
So in other words, every single one of us burns calories at the same rate. We are all different in so many ways, but when it comes to weight gain and weight loss, we are all the same.
Just put your height and weight in the calculator (apparently age does not matter), and assuming the same amount of exercise, you will have the exact same results if you eat the same number of calories. OK sure, if you say so.
You actually do realize that what you said has nothing to do with what he said, right? Just trolling? Because I can't believe you could have misunderstood so badly.0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Whitezombiegirl wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »RachelElser wrote: »Some people are naturally slim. My friend is just a little over 5 feet, 110 lbs soaking wet, near 40 years old with a kid. And I've seen what she eats. She's Italian and Sicilian so lots of pasta and she drinks regular soda. She also has great skin and looks 10 years younger then she is!
Yes, another naturally slim person.
But here come the comments - "she's really not eating as much as you think she is eating," or, "she's secretly running five miles a day and not telling you," or, "you don't know how much running around she has to do with that kid."
Denial, denial, denial that there are naturally slim people because they have fast metabolisms.
Metabolism is the conversion of energy stores into useable energy. Generally the body only converts energy as required - for growth, movement, repair etc.
A fast metabolism is what - converting more energy than required? Whats all that extra energy doing?
Maybe these people just have greater energy demands. Thats a different thing imo. Its still cico.
"It's still CICO."
Right. Two people of the same height and the same weight. One can eat 1,500 calories a day, do X amount of exercise and not gain weight. The other can eat 1,900 calories a day, do X amount of exercise, and not gain weight. Calories in, calories out. But the second person can eat more calories than the first person.
This is not rocket science.
Understanding that in probability, the further off the average you go in a normal distribution, it becomes exponentially less likely to find someone this applies to seems to be rocket science.
So in other words, every single one of us burns calories at the same rate. We are all different in so many ways, but when it comes to weight gain and weight loss, we are all the same.
Just put your height and weight in the calculator (apparently age does not matter), and assuming the same amount of exercise, you will have the exact same results if you eat the same number of calories. OK sure, if you say so.
Do you know what a normal distribution is? It's quite different than the vertical line your first sentence suggests.0 -
My theory about "naturally slim" people is that they don't think much about food other than at meal times, don't get hungry between meals, don't stress eat, and don't eat for comfort. They eat to live, and enjoy large quantities of food on occasion with celebrations but don't overindulge every day. They are aware of body signals of satiety and often eat less for several days after a special night out where they eat more than their norm... etc etc...
For me this rings true. I struggled with my weight most of my life. I was hungry much of the time, constantly thinking about food, had crappy hunger signals. I never was a stress/comfort/boredom eater. When I switched up my diet from lower fat, higher fiber, to high fat, low carb three years ago I found that suddenly I wasn't hungry so much, didn't need to snack between meals, didn't think about food all the time, and could trust my hunger signals. I became a "naturally slim" person. People that haven't known me very long (less than three years, when I dropped the weight) assume I've never struggled with my weight, which is somewhat frustrating in its own right.
I do love seeing the look on the server's face when I order the largest steak available on the menu; even better is the look when they see that I've eaten every bite
. I'm sure people witnessing that think I'm "lucky" to be so "naturally slim". What they don't know or see is that I only go out to eat maybe once a month and if I do eat a particularly large meal, I end up eating very little at (or skipping) the next two or three meals.
0 -
Well, the good news is that this is my last post because I am getting nowhere.
When I was in my late teens and early 20's, I ate like a horse, out-ate my friends, and I was skin and bones (as were my father, uncle and first cousin when they were in their late teens and early 20's). And I even bought a product called "Weight-On" when I was in college. Didn't work.
I am not a freak of nature. There are millions of others like me. If you want to reject this undeniable fact of life, so be it if it makes you happy.0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Well, the good news is that this is my last post because I am getting nowhere.
When I was in my late teens and early 20's, I ate like a horse, out-ate my friends, and I was skin and bones (as were my father, uncle and first cousin when they were in their late teens and early 20's). And I even bought a product called "Weight-On" when I was in college. Didn't work.
I am not a freak of nature. There are millions of others like me. If you want to reject this undeniable fact of life, so be it if it makes you happy.
Did you see a doctor?0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Well, the good news is that this is my last post because I am getting nowhere.
When I was in my late teens and early 20's, I ate like a horse, out-ate my friends, and I was skin and bones (as were my father, uncle and first cousin when they were in their late teens and early 20's). And I even bought a product called "Weight-On" when I was in college. Didn't work.
I am not a freak of nature. There are millions of others like me. If you want to reject this undeniable fact of life, so be it if it makes you happy.
But the thing is, you don't know exactly how many calories you were eating daily. Did you track your intake precisely or just using your, "I ate like a horse" method.1 -
Also, it is true that someone basically adult sized who is still growing will need more calories. So what? I am not sure why this is meaningful to the thread topic.4
-
Lol, sounds like more of a cop out on your end. Unless you've tracked a person's daily activity and eating, your OPINION of why someone is "naturally thin" is just that......an opinion. There have been studies and experiments where people who were "naturally thin" were monitored throughout the day and they all came to the SAME conclusion..........................they don't consume more than they burn.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »
But HOW MUCH she eats matters. Unless you're with her 24 hours a day, you can't say she's slim just because when you see her she eats that way.RachelElser wrote: »Some people are naturally slim. My friend is just a little over 5 feet, 110 lbs soaking wet, near 40 years old with a kid. And I've seen what she eats. She's Italian and Sicilian so lots of pasta and she drinks regular soda. She also has great skin and looks 10 years younger then she is!
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
This is the usual cop out answer because nobody is with anybody 24 hours a day. Therefore you cannot "prove" there is such a thing as a naturally skinny person. Obviously, these people who we think are naturally skinny have this rare condition where they can only eat when other people are around, and cannot eat when nobody is looking.
Ridiculous. And I am speaking as someone who was skin and bones in college, did zero exercise, and ate more than most of my fraternity brothers.
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
3 -
It's either freak of nature or poor self reporting of intake. In other news, Ghosts are real and I have the photos to prove it . . .2
-
I will also add that the USDA recommends 2800 calories for a 21 year old male who is 154 lbs and moderately active. For the same activity level and weight, the recommended amount of calories drops to 2600 by age 26 and 2400 by mid 40s. IMO, that is fairly significant, and supports the idea that younger adults do have a significantly faster metabolism. If one exercises the same way over those years, someone with those stats will have to drop calories to maintain the same weight. Otherwise, an extra 300-400 calories a day is significant.0
-
I believe Bigfoot has an extremely high TDEE, even for his height and weight.4
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I believe Bigfoot has an extremely high TDEE, even for his height and weight.
Agreed. If only we had data . . .1 -
...I'm not sure anyone is 'naturally' slim. For those who appear to be its usually because they see food as fuel and don't eat too much of it and also they are inclined to be active naturally. But this is just my opinion of the several so called naturally slim people I know of. And they also usually aren't prone to any sort of binging, it just wouldn't enter their heads.
For most of us to stay slim it takes hard work and dedication to not eat above maintenance consistently and to move as much as possible. For onlookers who didn't know me pre weight loss (I've been at goal for 3 years) they think I'm naturally slim ...but it isn't the norm for me to look like this, its bloomin' hard work but I feel its worth it.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I believe Bigfoot has an extremely high TDEE, even for his height and weight.
Agreed. If only we had data . . .
Or, maybe if we could find someone that has observed him.1 -
hows Bigfoot's digestive biome? Some answers may lie here in the digestive microbs we have. Two, BBC Food Program topics, mid June into July have information on this1
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Wicked_Seraph wrote: »Over time, I've learned that these individuals who are naturally slim simply have better habits than I do. Their portion sizes are more reasonable, they don't eat excessively, they're more active, and so forth. My thinking was quite skewed in that women who fretted over gaining a pound or two, and exercised regularly, were "obsessed". I never thought to consider that their definition of eating "a lot" was probably very, very different than my definition of eating "a lot". For them, working out and eating conscientiously was THEIR normal - whereas mine was no exercise and unrestrained gluttony. I'm not "naturally fat", I just never bothered looking after my weight.
My sister gets frustrated when people accuse her of being "naturally thin" and "oh, you can just eat whatever you want!" They generally have no idea that she used to weigh about 220 lbs. They have no idea that despite happily chowing down on a generous slice of cake, she is otherwise very careful about how she eats.
So you are going to tell me with a straight face that if you took, say, 200 women who are 5'6" and 150 lbs., and gave them the exact same number of calories for two months, and they did the same amount of exercise in those two months, that at the end of two months they would have all lost the same weight?
You're not really saying that, are you?
I would love to see which part of my comment suggested this.
CICO is basic f*cking physics. Everyone's "CO" is a little different, so of course those 200 women will not ALL lose the same exact amount of weight. Some women might retain water because those calories same with a lot of salt. Some women may not drink enough water. Some women may be older or younger than others. No one is claiming the "CO" portion of CICO is identical from person to person.
What I am saying is that those who are "naturally slim" aren't eating copious amounts of calories well above their maintenance - if they are, it hasn't caught up with them yet. I don't understand which part of this you take issue with.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I believe Bigfoot has an extremely high TDEE, even for his height and weight.
Agreed. If only we had data . . .
Or, maybe if we could find someone that has observed him.
An eyewitness is key1 -
Yay so did I. I still do today, but I'm not skin and bones anymore (more muscular though).gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Well, the good news is that this is my last post because I am getting nowhere.
When I was in my late teens and early 20's, I ate like a horse, out-ate my friends, and I was skin and bones (as were my father, uncle and first cousin when they were in their late teens and early 20's). And I even bought a product called "Weight-On" when I was in college. Didn't work.
I am not a freak of nature. There are millions of others like me. If you want to reject this undeniable fact of life, so be it if it makes you happy.
I still deal with this "hard gainer" issue today with many teen boys who can't seem to gain weight, but eat EVERYTHING in sight. Then we actually track it. And guess what? They weren't eating more than they burned. Surprise.
Remember I do this as a PROFESSION and see it DAILY. You're just trying defend your stance because you don't want to feel that you're actually wrong. Sometimes that happens you know.
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
8 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe the notion that those under 25 have significantly faster metabolisms. Human growth hormone, a major component of metabolism, is twice as high at age 20 as compared to age 35.
http://www.vrp.com/amino-acids/amino-acids/growth-hormone-amino-acids-as-gh-secretagogues-a-review-of-the-literature
Because of the studies and the data shown upthread?
People always want to believe there are factors that cause major swings in the CICO model. I get it. Believing that some people have much higher metabolism, or that thyroid issues have a major impact on one's ability to lose weight, or that the energy in different foods are absorbed differently, are all appealing theories. Because if you believe that those factors make a statistically significant difference in the CICO model, or that maybe they invalidate CICO - and that you (not you specifically but any person) may be impacted by one of them, then it potentially makes it easier to explain why we got fat, why we can't lose weight, why it is so much harder for us, etc.
But the fact of the matter is, most of those factors do not have a significant enough of an impact to make a difference in an individual's strategy. CICO is still the governing model, and yes there may be subtle differences on one side of the equation, but the vast majority of the people on the planet can lose weight by creating a calorie deficit with standard methods, and focusing on minute details will be more of a distraction or an excuse than a benefit to weight loss...2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I will also add that the USDA recommends 2800 calories for a 21 year old male who is 154 lbs and moderately active. For the same activity level and weight, the recommended amount of calories drops to 2600 by age 26 and 2400 by mid 40s. I
The USDA recommendation is based on the fact the most people lose lean body mass as they age so they need less calories, not a slowing metabolism.
3 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I will also add that the USDA recommends 2800 calories for a 21 year old male who is 154 lbs and moderately active. For the same activity level and weight, the recommended amount of calories drops to 2600 by age 26 and 2400 by mid 40s. IMO, that is fairly significant, and supports the idea that younger adults do have a significantly faster metabolism. If one exercises the same way over those years, someone with those stats will have to drop calories to maintain the same weight. Otherwise, an extra 300-400 calories a day is significant.
No, this is about average muscle mass. I mentioned it upthread.
For example, for a 6 ft man of that weight at moderately active, the M-SJ calculator gives 2700 at 21, 2661 at 26, and about 2500 at 45. The one I found on the USDA site gave me 2800 for the 21-y-o, 2750 for the 26 y-o, and 2565 for the 45 year old. Same idea (and it looks to me like your numbers are off, but maybe there are multiple calculators there).
Anyway, if you use the calculator that includes actual BF%, you get the same estimate regardless of age (it doesn't even use age). That's because the decline is based on averages and is caused mostly by the fact that muscle mass declines with age and fat % increases.1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Whitezombiegirl wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »RachelElser wrote: »Some people are naturally slim. My friend is just a little over 5 feet, 110 lbs soaking wet, near 40 years old with a kid. And I've seen what she eats. She's Italian and Sicilian so lots of pasta and she drinks regular soda. She also has great skin and looks 10 years younger then she is!
Yes, another naturally slim person.
But here come the comments - "she's really not eating as much as you think she is eating," or, "she's secretly running five miles a day and not telling you," or, "you don't know how much running around she has to do with that kid."
Denial, denial, denial that there are naturally slim people because they have fast metabolisms.
Metabolism is the conversion of energy stores into useable energy. Generally the body only converts energy as required - for growth, movement, repair etc.
A fast metabolism is what - converting more energy than required? Whats all that extra energy doing?
Maybe these people just have greater energy demands. Thats a different thing imo. Its still cico.
"It's still CICO."
Right. Two people of the same height and the same weight. One can eat 1,500 calories a day, do X amount of exercise and not gain weight. The other can eat 1,900 calories a day, do X amount of exercise, and not gain weight. Calories in, calories out. But the second person can eat more calories than the first person.
This is not rocket science.
Understanding that in probability, the further off the average you go in a normal distribution, it becomes exponentially less likely to find someone this applies to seems to be rocket science.
So in other words, every single one of us burns calories at the same rate. We are all different in so many ways, but when it comes to weight gain and weight loss, we are all the same.
Just put your height and weight in the calculator (apparently age does not matter), and assuming the same amount of exercise, you will have the exact same results if you eat the same number of calories. OK sure, if you say so.
No. We all burn calories at different rates FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. We all move at different rates, we all eat different foods, we all have different amounts of muscle...there is an infinite combination of things that lead to us either staying slim or gaining weight. All we are saying is that it's not magic, there are physical laws to the universe.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wicked_Seraph wrote: »Over time, I've learned that these individuals who are naturally slim simply have better habits than I do. Their portion sizes are more reasonable, they don't eat excessively, they're more active, and so forth. My thinking was quite skewed in that women who fretted over gaining a pound or two, and exercised regularly, were "obsessed". I never thought to consider that their definition of eating "a lot" was probably very, very different than my definition of eating "a lot". For them, working out and eating conscientiously was THEIR normal - whereas mine was no exercise and unrestrained gluttony. I'm not "naturally fat", I just never bothered looking after my weight.
My sister gets frustrated when people accuse her of being "naturally thin" and "oh, you can just eat whatever you want!" They generally have no idea that she used to weigh about 220 lbs. They have no idea that despite happily chowing down on a generous slice of cake, she is otherwise very careful about how she eats.
Not everyone that is "naturally thin' has healthy habits. Thin doesn't naturally mean healthy.
Yes, of course. I probably should avoid such generalized statements.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe the notion that those under 25 have significantly faster metabolisms. Human growth hormone, a major component of metabolism, is twice as high at age 20 as compared to age 35.
http://www.vrp.com/amino-acids/amino-acids/growth-hormone-amino-acids-as-gh-secretagogues-a-review-of-the-literature
Because of the studies and the data shown upthread?
People always want to believe there are factors that cause major swings in the CICO model. I get it. Believing that some people have much higher metabolism, or that thyroid issues have a major impact on one's ability to lose weight, or that the energy in different foods are absorbed differently, are all appealing theories. Because if you believe that those factors make a statistically significant difference in the CICO model, or that maybe they invalidate CICO - and that you (not you specifically but any person) may be impacted by one of them, then it potentially makes it easier to explain why we got fat, why we can't lose weight, why it is so much harder for us, etc.
But the fact of the matter is, most of those factors do not have a significant enough of an impact to make a difference in an individual's strategy. CICO is still the governing model, and yes there may be subtle differences on one side of the equation, but the vast majority of the people on the planet can lose weight by creating a calorie deficit with standard methods, and focusing on minute details will be more of a distraction or an excuse than a benefit to weight loss...
Was there a link to a study showing that a person has a similar metabolic rate at 20 yo as they do when 35? I admit I didn't read them all but I would be curious to see that one.0 -
Wicked_Seraph wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Wicked_Seraph wrote: »Over time, I've learned that these individuals who are naturally slim simply have better habits than I do. Their portion sizes are more reasonable, they don't eat excessively, they're more active, and so forth. My thinking was quite skewed in that women who fretted over gaining a pound or two, and exercised regularly, were "obsessed". I never thought to consider that their definition of eating "a lot" was probably very, very different than my definition of eating "a lot". For them, working out and eating conscientiously was THEIR normal - whereas mine was no exercise and unrestrained gluttony. I'm not "naturally fat", I just never bothered looking after my weight.
My sister gets frustrated when people accuse her of being "naturally thin" and "oh, you can just eat whatever you want!" They generally have no idea that she used to weigh about 220 lbs. They have no idea that despite happily chowing down on a generous slice of cake, she is otherwise very careful about how she eats.
So you are going to tell me with a straight face that if you took, say, 200 women who are 5'6" and 150 lbs., and gave them the exact same number of calories for two months, and they did the same amount of exercise in those two months, that at the end of two months they would have all lost the same weight?
You're not really saying that, are you?
I would love to see which part of my comment suggested this.
CICO is basic f*cking physics. Everyone's "CO" is a little different, so of course those 200 women will not ALL lose the same exact amount of weight. Some women might retain water because those calories same with a lot of salt. Some women may not drink enough water. Some women may be older or younger than others. No one is claiming the "CO" portion of CICO is identical from person to person.
What I am saying is that those who are "naturally slim" aren't eating copious amounts of calories well above their maintenance - if they are, it hasn't caught up with them yet. I don't understand which part of this you take issue with.
Everyone "CI" is also different.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe the notion that those under 25 have significantly faster metabolisms. Human growth hormone, a major component of metabolism, is twice as high at age 20 as compared to age 35.
http://www.vrp.com/amino-acids/amino-acids/growth-hormone-amino-acids-as-gh-secretagogues-a-review-of-the-literature
Because of the studies and the data shown upthread?
People always want to believe there are factors that cause major swings in the CICO model. I get it. Believing that some people have much higher metabolism, or that thyroid issues have a major impact on one's ability to lose weight, or that the energy in different foods are absorbed differently, are all appealing theories. Because if you believe that those factors make a statistically significant difference in the CICO model, or that maybe they invalidate CICO - and that you (not you specifically but any person) may be impacted by one of them, then it potentially makes it easier to explain why we got fat, why we can't lose weight, why it is so much harder for us, etc.
But the fact of the matter is, most of those factors do not have a significant enough of an impact to make a difference in an individual's strategy. CICO is still the governing model, and yes there may be subtle differences on one side of the equation, but the vast majority of the people on the planet can lose weight by creating a calorie deficit with standard methods, and focusing on minute details will be more of a distraction or an excuse than a benefit to weight loss...
Was there a link to a study showing that a person has a similar metabolic rate at 20 yo as they do when 35? I admit I didn't read them all but I would be curious to see that one.
I think I was thinking of these posts from earlier in the thread:sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The below are worth perusing. On a personal note, I experienced my fastest weight gain when I went from college to graduate school. I worked jobs through college that required me to be on my feet all day 5-6 days a week, but I did no intentional exercise. When I went to graduate school I exercised a little, but I spent the vast majority of my time sitting and studying. I gained 5 inches around my waist in 4 years. It got worse when started working and eating more (better income, more and richer foods). I'm now in my mid 40s and have the best body composition that I've had since high school and, in reality, it's better due to the increase in muscle mass from several years of lifting. Yes, there is a small decline over the years due to aging but it is very minor when compared to the effects of sitting on my hind end.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9329340
“Our results are consistent with the concept that the age-related decline in RMR in sedentary women is not observed in women who regularly perform endurance exercise. The elevated level of RMR observed in middle-aged and older exercising women may play a role in their lower levels of body weight and fatness compared to those in sedentary women”
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/3/E633.short
“These results indicate that1) RMR, per unit FFM, declines with age in highly physically active men; and 2) this decline is related to age-associated reductions in exercise volume and energy intake and does not occur in men who maintain exercise volume and/or energy intake at a level similar to that of young physically active men.”To add some additional perspective on metabolic rates.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/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.
Essentially, 96% of people fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean. So while there are some gifted people, it's a lot few than we think. The problem with personal observtion, its we only recognize that big meals. We don't see all of the small or skipping of meals or no snacking. We don't see all of the activity (even outside of exercise) and we don't look at the diet in context (meals over the whole week).
Interestingly enough, I see this all the time in the gaining weight section. So many people are "hard gainers", only to discover, they just don't eat enough calories. For many, that is because they gravitate towards low calorie food, only eat a few meals a day, or don't eat high quantities. When they actually start tracking calories, it's quickly discovered they fall around the mean caloric intake as others.
And in the 7 years I have been on this forum, there have been 2 outliers; 1 had hyperthyroidism, and 1 had a malabsorption issue.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10326769/are-you-a-hard-gainer-please-read/p1
Now, there are some people who are very active or have active jobs, which gives them a higher than average TDEE, but it's not their metabolism.
As well as the statistical breakdown that @tomteboda shared.
I don't have time right now to dig into the details of the links provided, but I believe the gist is that the actual differences in the calorie requirements at different ages is not significant, or not as significant as people want to think.3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe the notion that those under 25 have significantly faster metabolisms. Human growth hormone, a major component of metabolism, is twice as high at age 20 as compared to age 35.
http://www.vrp.com/amino-acids/amino-acids/growth-hormone-amino-acids-as-gh-secretagogues-a-review-of-the-literature
Because of the studies and the data shown upthread?
People always want to believe there are factors that cause major swings in the CICO model. I get it. Believing that some people have much higher metabolism, or that thyroid issues have a major impact on one's ability to lose weight, or that the energy in different foods are absorbed differently, are all appealing theories. Because if you believe that those factors make a statistically significant difference in the CICO model, or that maybe they invalidate CICO - and that you (not you specifically but any person) may be impacted by one of them, then it potentially makes it easier to explain why we got fat, why we can't lose weight, why it is so much harder for us, etc.
But the fact of the matter is, most of those factors do not have a significant enough of an impact to make a difference in an individual's strategy. CICO is still the governing model, and yes there may be subtle differences on one side of the equation, but the vast majority of the people on the planet can lose weight by creating a calorie deficit with standard methods, and focusing on minute details will be more of a distraction or an excuse than a benefit to weight loss...
Was there a link to a study showing that a person has a similar metabolic rate at 20 yo as they do when 35? I admit I didn't read them all but I would be curious to see that one.
I think I was thinking of these posts from earlier in the thread:sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The below are worth perusing. On a personal note, I experienced my fastest weight gain when I went from college to graduate school. I worked jobs through college that required me to be on my feet all day 5-6 days a week, but I did no intentional exercise. When I went to graduate school I exercised a little, but I spent the vast majority of my time sitting and studying. I gained 5 inches around my waist in 4 years. It got worse when started working and eating more (better income, more and richer foods). I'm now in my mid 40s and have the best body composition that I've had since high school and, in reality, it's better due to the increase in muscle mass from several years of lifting. Yes, there is a small decline over the years due to aging but it is very minor when compared to the effects of sitting on my hind end.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9329340
“Our results are consistent with the concept that the age-related decline in RMR in sedentary women is not observed in women who regularly perform endurance exercise. The elevated level of RMR observed in middle-aged and older exercising women may play a role in their lower levels of body weight and fatness compared to those in sedentary women”
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/3/E633.short
“These results indicate that1) RMR, per unit FFM, declines with age in highly physically active men; and 2) this decline is related to age-associated reductions in exercise volume and energy intake and does not occur in men who maintain exercise volume and/or energy intake at a level similar to that of young physically active men.”To add some additional perspective on metabolic rates.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/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.
Essentially, 96% of people fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean. So while there are some gifted people, it's a lot few than we think. The problem with personal observtion, its we only recognize that big meals. We don't see all of the small or skipping of meals or no snacking. We don't see all of the activity (even outside of exercise) and we don't look at the diet in context (meals over the whole week).
Interestingly enough, I see this all the time in the gaining weight section. So many people are "hard gainers", only to discover, they just don't eat enough calories. For many, that is because they gravitate towards low calorie food, only eat a few meals a day, or don't eat high quantities. When they actually start tracking calories, it's quickly discovered they fall around the mean caloric intake as others.
And in the 7 years I have been on this forum, there have been 2 outliers; 1 had hyperthyroidism, and 1 had a malabsorption issue.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10326769/are-you-a-hard-gainer-please-read/p1
Now, there are some people who are very active or have active jobs, which gives them a higher than average TDEE, but it's not their metabolism.
As well as the statistical breakdown that @tomteboda shared.
I don't have time right now to dig into the details of the links provided, but I believe the gist is that the actual differences in the calorie requirements at different ages is not significant, or not as significant as people want to think.
3 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I will also add that the USDA recommends 2800 calories for a 21 year old male who is 154 lbs and moderately active. For the same activity level and weight, the recommended amount of calories drops to 2600 by age 26 and 2400 by mid 40s. I
The USDA recommendation is based on the fact the most people lose lean body mass as they age so they need less calories, not a slowing metabolism.
BMR is influenced by muscle mass. So if one loses muscle mass, then their BMR will go do down, which means that their metabolism is lower. I don't get how the drop in BMR from less muscle mass can be separated from metabolism.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I will also add that the USDA recommends 2800 calories for a 21 year old male who is 154 lbs and moderately active. For the same activity level and weight, the recommended amount of calories drops to 2600 by age 26 and 2400 by mid 40s. IMO, that is fairly significant, and supports the idea that younger adults do have a significantly faster metabolism. If one exercises the same way over those years, someone with those stats will have to drop calories to maintain the same weight. Otherwise, an extra 300-400 calories a day is significant.
No, this is about average muscle mass. I mentioned it upthread.
For example, for a 6 ft man of that weight at moderately active, the M-SJ calculator gives 2700 at 21, 2661 at 26, and about 2500 at 45. The one I found on the USDA site gave me 2800 for the 21-y-o, 2750 for the 26 y-o, and 2565 for the 45 year old. Same idea (and it looks to me like your numbers are off, but maybe there are multiple calculators there).
Anyway, if you use the calculator that includes actual BF%, you get the same estimate regardless of age (it doesn't even use age). That's because the decline is based on averages and is caused mostly by the fact that muscle mass declines with age and fat % increases.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions