What do you think of people who are naturally slim?

1…1113151617

Replies

  • Wicked_Seraph
    Wicked_Seraph Posts: 388 Member
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    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.

    I was specifically referring to the quoted text where CI is presumed to be identical for all the hypothetical subjects. I had a feeling addressing that issues regarding insufficient absorption of nutrients and countless other CI factors I knew he wouldn't care to learn about would be fruitless.
  • Nuke_64
    Nuke_64 Posts: 406 Member
    ForecasterJason wrote: »
    I don't get how the drop in BMR from less muscle mass can be separated from metabolism.

    I don't think it is.

  • dragon_girl26
    dragon_girl26 Posts: 2,187 Member
    Machka9 wrote: »
    DebSozo wrote: »
    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...

    That may indeed be the case for some ...

    But speaking as someone who was "naturally slim" until her early 40s ... and who has been maintaining the slimness again for a little while now ... :)

    I ate/eat all the time ... or at least it felt/feels that way. I've always been a grazer.

    No breakfast
    10 am snack
    12 noon snack
    1:30 pm lunch
    3:00 pm snack
    4:30 pm snack
    6 pm snack
    7:30 pm dinner
    9:30 pm snack
    11 pm snack
    12:30 am snack

    But I didn't (and don't) eat much each time. I'm munching down my 4:30 pm snack right now ... an apple worth about 80 cal. Next up at 6 pm will be a small bowl of cottage cheese and some raw veggies + maybe a couple crackers. If I recall correctly, that one comes in at about 160 cal.

    Wow, so now I have to ask out of curiosity...how many calories do you usually allot for lunch and dinner, taking this approach? I, too, find myself wanting to eat often, and your approach looks like a good one.
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Nuke_64 wrote: »
    ForecasterJason wrote: »
    I don't get how the drop in BMR from less muscle mass can be separated from metabolism.

    I don't think it is.
    So then that sentence I quoted you on doesn't make sense.

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    ForecasterJason wrote: »
    stevencloser 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 we don't have "significantly faster metabolisms", or else I wouldn't have been 50 pounds heavier until 2 years ago when I started counting calories.
    Ok, it may be an exaggeration. But someone in their early 20s will still be able to eat more than in their early 40s, assuming the same weight and activity level.

    Sure. I think it was something like 100 calories per 10 years of age on average. That is not including people in their 40s who kept their lean mass up though, which is the main reason for that decrease.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    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, you're building straw men again, as you've done this whole thread.
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ForecasterJason wrote: »
    Nuke_64 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. 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.
    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.
    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.

    The point is that ON AVERAGE muscle mass decreases with age, but any individual can prevent that. There's nothing inherent in aging that makes your metabolism slower -- you can counteract it if you maintain muscle mass and remain as active, and you can always even get more active.
    I do agree with that; one must actively work the muscles to prevent the drop in muscle mass and hence metabolism.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    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.”
    psulemon wrote: »
    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.

    Honestly I don't have the time to read through all those studies right now either, but the quoted blurbs seem to suggest that RMR does decline with age. IDK if it's "significant" or not though.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    gonetothedogs19 wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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!
    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.

    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
    9285851.png


    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.
    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.

    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
    9285851.png


    They don't consume more than they burn AND they don't burn particularly more than other people or even people who believe they have a slow metabolism, which is an important point to include. If only I could find the study again. I don't know what keywords to look for.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    edited July 2016
    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.

    Every calorie equation will give you a lower number than that. Miffin-St.Jeor gives 2180, Harris-Benedikt 2298, Katch-McArdle for 15% bf 1986, and Cunningham for 15% bf 2170.
    So I do wonder where USDA got those significantly higher reference numbers from.

    Edit: Dangit that was sedentary. The USDA numbers for sedentary are a good bit higher than the equation results though.

    Okay, another try. This time at Moderate activity, defined as 3-5 hours per week which is suggested to not count weightlifting but only cardio it seems like.

    Harris: 2746
    Miffin: 2655
    Katch: 2565
    Cunningham: 2803

    Both Katch-McArdle and Cunningham use BF% and do not change calorie estimations with age.
    I remember reading that Katch-McArdle was considered the best for when you have a good idea of your BF%.
    Furthermore, both Harris and Miffin are considered accurate on both an individual and group level according to this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18688113
  • LokiGrrl
    LokiGrrl Posts: 156 Member
    DebSozo wrote: »
    That is great Maxematics! Plus you have a set point and don't have to calorie count. A lot of naturally thin people know when they have gained a bit intuituvely. I could know in my "knower" exactly what I weighed to the pound before I even got in the scale. I'm not sure how, but it was true.

    When I started "over-riding" my knower for my normal weight, then my body got used to eating bigger portions and dealt with the extra calories by storing them as fat. I don't know if I can get down as low as I used to be, but my goal is to prevent health issues in the future. I feel like I have time to turn things around to live a thinner and more fit lifestyle for my later years.

    Edited for typo

    Overriding your knower! What a great turn of phrase! Stealing this for DAILY use in RL. :wink:
  • Verdenal
    Verdenal Posts: 625 Member
    edited July 2016
    Definition: A naturally thin person is someone who can eat whatever s/he wants and stay trim.

    I'm not clinically overweight, but as I've grown older I do weigh more than I like. I'm very short and while I've been thin, I've never been willowy. I feel stumpy now. I'm a higher weight now primarily because of my metabolism and injuries. I don't always eat as well as I should, but I can eat very little and have to stick to a very restricted diet to lose weight.

    Even though I know it's just genetic luck, I can't help envying naturally thin people. They look aristocratic. I sew and follow style and fashion and it's undeniable that everything looks better on a thin person.
  • LokiGrrl
    LokiGrrl Posts: 156 Member
    ForecasterJason wrote: »
    stevencloser 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 we don't have "significantly faster metabolisms", or else I wouldn't have been 50 pounds heavier until 2 years ago when I started counting calories.
    Ok, it may be an exaggeration. But someone in their early 20s will still be able to eat more than in their early 40s, assuming the same weight and activity level.

    I don't know about you, but I didn't get my full height (5'4") until 21-22 (hell, I was nearly 13 before I hit 5 feet, and was 5'2" throughout most of high school), and raising a boy I've noted that, though he was 6' tall by 15, he took until 22-23 to settle at his final giant height of 6'3" to 6'4". I don't think the two of us are super special snowflakes, so some of that energy might still be used for growing, and maybe not just for height, body composition may have something to do with it.

    I paid particular attention to this for myself because I wanted to be tall, leggy, and gorgeous like my best friend who is 5'10". I fretted about it a lot, LOL. I paid particular attention to my son because, well, I'm his mother and I think moms just do that. I haven't observed that closely with other people so can't really speak to their growth rates.
  • Verdenal
    Verdenal Posts: 625 Member
    edited July 2016
    TheLittleFangs wrote: »
    Anecdotal but here goes... my brother is about 5' 8 and super slim. He has muscle mass and even a 6 pack. He's tall and lean. Works on his feet all day and clearly eats sufficiently to build strong muscles and his workouts are lifting kegs and bodyweight.

    My sister is about 5' 6 and super slim. Does cardio such as Zumba once a week but because she enjoys it. Her job us 100% sedentary. As far as I can gather she lives on crisps, chocolate, occasional wine and takeaways.

    I'm 5' 4 I'm grossly overweight. I am on metabolically altering drugs. I was overweight before this though. I eat at a deficit and my weight comes down but to get as slender as my sister in 2010 I developed an eating disorder. However if I eat a deficit guess what. I lose weight.

    We are all from the same seed. There's no genetic 'blessing' I'm with @ninerbuff on this. It's math. My siblings clearly cosume less that they burn. In radically different ways and jobs. My brother is a powerhouse of energy burning and constantly challenges his muscles. My sister eats CICO without even thinking. I by my nature have to think about it and work at it.

    Siblings don't have identical genetics. It's possible that your brother and sister have a different gene or that they share a gene with you that's been turned on or off. Although given our limited knowledge of weight loss mechanisms, calorie counting is helpful in our times, it's not just math. Some day in the future I'm convinced there will be specialized diets based on an individual's genetic makeup and environment.

    There have been studies of groups of people who were fed the same diet and subjected to the same physical stress and some gained weight and some didn't.

    The bottom line is you have to do whatever is required for you to lose weight.
  • Verdenal
    Verdenal Posts: 625 Member
    edited July 2016
    amzblitz wrote: »
    Yup natural slim here
    If I don't workout I'm skinny if I work out I'm ripped

    Blessing indeed lol

    You're very fortunate. I had a friend who had to remember to eat extra desserts in order to keep from losing weight. His wife, who did not have that kind of metabolism, wanted to kill him.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    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.

    Track calories? A college student in a fraternity who tracks calories? Really? Find me one.

    I ate more than others, and had no more physical activity than others. I was the bean pole. Again, it is beyond belief that people cannot accept this simple and factual statement.
  • Verdenal
    Verdenal Posts: 625 Member
    Machka9 wrote: »
    GirlonBliss wrote: »
    I used to think they were just genetically blessed whereas I would have to work at it for the rest of my life. What about you?

    During the years when I was slim, people told me how lucky I am that I'm naturally slim.

    What they didn't see was the fact that I was extremely active and that I didn't eat huge amounts of food. In fact, I had trouble eating more than about 3000 calories even on days when I needed to eat more than 3000 calories to fuel my activity.

    Then, of course, my activity level decreased for a few years for various reasons, and I gained weight. Happily I've lost the weight again, but it certainly does take work. It doesn't just happen naturally.

    There are some people who are thin no matter what they do. Those people are truly naturally thin.
  • Carpercia
    Carpercia Posts: 134 Member
    Good for them. Nobody else's success or failure has anything to do with my success.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    gonetothedogs19 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    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.

    Track calories? A college student in a fraternity who tracks calories? Really? Find me one.

    I ate more than others, and had no more physical activity than others. I was the bean pole. Again, it is beyond belief that people cannot accept this simple and factual statement.

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-8-do-dietitians-accurately-report-their-food-intake-and-confirmation-bias/do-dietitians-accurately-report-their-food-intake/

    People, especially the obese, are known to severely underreport their intake, even when they know the intake can be verified by others. This suggests that it is not a conscious thing.

    If people, especially the obese, systematically unknowingly underreport their calorie intake (a known fact), the idea that people who believe they eat more than others but can't seem to gain even a gram actually don't eat that much and it's just their mind playing tricks on them is more likely than people randomly burning ridiculous amounts of calories more than their peers of identical stats which statistically is more than unlikely the more you claim you deviate from the average.

    And now, before you yet again go to the acre and get ready to collect more straw, I said ridiculous amounts. That people have some degree of difference between their calorie expenditure is obvious.

    Is this straw for the horse?
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    edited July 2016
    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/rare-people-who-remember-everything-24631448/?no-ist

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymesia

    https://youtu.be/LlNB7dAXQEc

    I can't even remember what I ate yesterday, let alone thirty years ago...........................
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    robininfl wrote: »
    Again, just because it's behavior doesn't mean it's natural or unnatural.

    I literally forget to eat if I am not hungry, and if I drink too much coffee in the morning, or the aforementioned big breakfast, I will feel full until supper-time. I am kind of anxious naturally and feel much better and calmer if I exercise to exhaustion at least once a day, preferably twice. I have trouble sitting still. I sleep 7.5 hours every night and 9 if I can on weekends, and don't feel good if I don't.

    These things are part of my nature. They aren't learned responses, or don't feel like learned responses, they are the healthy behaviors of my normal body and mind if I am feeling good and not stressed. The things I do because they feel good, they keep me feeling good.

    And again - skinny grandma, slim mom, slender daughters. There is no way that some of this isn't genetic.

    Say you put everyone on the planet into their optimum shape and size. Those shapes and sizes would vary, right?

    I don't think anyone's really disputing this level of detail. We're saying, lots of people probably don't have 113 lb 5'9" friends who eat 3000 calories everyday, sit on their heine all day and never gain a pound. Yeah I definitely know people who will take you to their favorite restaurant in the world, then not eat a thing because they just aren't hungry. Or you bought the same yummy food early in the day, I'm already on my fourth meal by nightfall and they still haven't eaten it or anything else. I'd have hunger burning a hole in my stomach by then and certainly couldn't do it

    Seeing how that's far, FAR into the upper 2% of metabolisms (lacking exact numbers but I'd say far into the 0.X% even), I'd say that's an understatement.

    Actually, can someone who is adept at statistics calculate the percentage of people that are that high if the mean seems to be around 2000 and 96% are within +-300 of that?

    For the sake of simplicity, say it's 95%. This would give you a standard deviation of 150.

    68% would fall within 1 standard deviation
    95% would fall within 2 standard deviations and
    99.7% would fall within 3.

    1000 calories over the mean is 6.67 standard deviations. The chances are infinitesimal.
  • ogtmama
    ogtmama Posts: 1,403 Member
    FunkyTobias wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    robininfl wrote: »
    Again, just because it's behavior doesn't mean it's natural or unnatural.

    I literally forget to eat if I am not hungry, and if I drink too much coffee in the morning, or the aforementioned big breakfast, I will feel full until supper-time. I am kind of anxious naturally and feel much better and calmer if I exercise to exhaustion at least once a day, preferably twice. I have trouble sitting still. I sleep 7.5 hours every night and 9 if I can on weekends, and don't feel good if I don't.

    These things are part of my nature. They aren't learned responses, or don't feel like learned responses, they are the healthy behaviors of my normal body and mind if I am feeling good and not stressed. The things I do because they feel good, they keep me feeling good.

    And again - skinny grandma, slim mom, slender daughters. There is no way that some of this isn't genetic.

    Say you put everyone on the planet into their optimum shape and size. Those shapes and sizes would vary, right?

    I don't think anyone's really disputing this level of detail. We're saying, lots of people probably don't have 113 lb 5'9" friends who eat 3000 calories everyday, sit on their heine all day and never gain a pound. Yeah I definitely know people who will take you to their favorite restaurant in the world, then not eat a thing because they just aren't hungry. Or you bought the same yummy food early in the day, I'm already on my fourth meal by nightfall and they still haven't eaten it or anything else. I'd have hunger burning a hole in my stomach by then and certainly couldn't do it

    Seeing how that's far, FAR into the upper 2% of metabolisms (lacking exact numbers but I'd say far into the 0.X% even), I'd say that's an understatement.

    Actually, can someone who is adept at statistics calculate the percentage of people that are that high if the mean seems to be around 2000 and 96% are within +-300 of that?

    For the sake of simplicity, say it's 95%. This would give you a standard deviation of 150.

    68% would fall within 1 standard deviation
    95% would fall within 2 standard deviations and
    99.7% would fall within 3.

    1000 calories over the mean is 6.67 standard deviations. The chances are infinitesimal.

    ^^^for those not familiar with stats, this is the bell curve were used to seeing, correct? With 68% being the middle?
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    FeedMeFish wrote: »
    gonetothedogs19 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    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.

    Track calories? A college student in a fraternity who tracks calories? Really? Find me one.

    I ate more than others, and had no more physical activity than others. I was the bean pole. Again, it is beyond belief that people cannot accept this simple and factual statement.

    me

    You are 25, try calorie counting 30 years. LOL

Categories