We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

What do you think of people who are naturally slim?

11112141617

Replies

  • Posts: 7,724 Member

    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.

    Which would be why I gave you some easy questions that anyone could remember decades after the fact - to compare your thin self to your weight gaining self at different points in time. You complain about the hard question but didn't answer the easy one, either.

    If you've ever read a scientific paper, you may find areas like Observations, methods, results, conclusion. You're stating your observation over and over again, no meat in between and no attempt to share relevant facts, and asking us to arrive at the same conclusions as you did. I'm not sure what you're looking for, here.
  • Posts: 2,287 Member
    LokiGrrl wrote: »

    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.

    Holy heck am I jealous. I got my first period by age 10, hit 5'3" by the time I was in 5th grade and just stopped growing completely. I went from being the tallest girl in class to the shortest in a matter of a few years. I would have loved to gain a few more inches of height, cup sizes, ANYTHING from the age of 11 to my early twenties. :'(
  • Posts: 1,776 Member

    ^^^for those not familiar with stats, this is the bell curve were used to seeing, correct? With 68% being the middle?

    2000 is the middle.

    Standard deviation is 150.

    This means:

    68% will be between 1850-2150
    95% will be between 1700-2300
    99.7% will be between 1350-2450
  • Posts: 8,911 Member
    Here's the full text of the study btw. Had to jump through some hoops to find it, not found on scholar or pubmed.

    https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-wLVWT6NXVPL0JoPr/Ovid_ External Link#page/n1/mode/2up
  • Posts: 16,049 Member
    Just wanted to comment on the activity level comments. I never exercised in my teens or 20's and 30's, i lived a sedentary life and ate whatever i wanted and stayed at the same weight throughout all those years, had 2 pregnancies, one of which i gained 52lbs which dropped off in a few months without paying attention to calories or food choices. I was also much more social back then, many more dinners out, take aways, bbq's, massive eating competitions between me and my brother and sister during regular family get togethers etc etc

    My point is, i am now exercising and am more active than I've ever been in my life and i have to watch every damn calorie. Everything was effortless until i hit the age of 39-40 and this is when the weight start coming on, so for me lack of or lesser activity is definitely not the problem. I've gone from naturally slim all my life, to not lol
  • Posts: 625 Member
    Carpercia wrote: »
    Good for them. Nobody else's success or failure has anything to do with my success.

    It's just a discussion. Not everyone is the same. I wish I had remained able to eat whatever I wanted. But that's life.
  • Posts: 2,577 Member
    LokiGrrl wrote: »

    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.
    Sounds like you have late bloomer genes in your family, as most males are done growing height-wise by age 19 and females by age 17. Granted, like you mentioned body composition does continue for some time after height growth is done.
    Much to my disappointment, my height growth was done at 5'8" by the time I turned 17.

  • Posts: 2,577 Member

    2000 is the middle.

    Standard deviation is 150.

    This means:

    68% will be between 1850-2150
    95% will be between 1700-2300
    99.7% will be between 1350-2450
    I still find that hard to believe that someone maintaining on 2500 calories is so far out of the ordinary.

  • Posts: 1,776 Member
    I still find that hard to believe that someone maintaining on 2500 calories is so far out of the ordinary.

    That's because you missed the context of the original problem.

    We're talking about a 5'9" 113 lb sedentary person.

  • Posts: 325 Member
    edited July 2016
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    Right - you didn't track calories when you were in college and the people you are comparing yourself against didn't either. That's not surprising. However, if you don't have any kind of data, then how can you be so sure that you ate more than these frat boys? That is the reason that people can't accept your anecdotal statement. It is a recollection, likely clouded by time and emotion, that has resulted in your staunch belief in something that is probably just not as factual as you would like it to be. It is beyond belief to me that you cannot accept the possibility that you might be misremembering what you ate, what they ate, or what your activity level was like. Without any numbers, there is just no way of knowing.

    Well if you surveyed my frat brothers they would verify what I said. Again, there is no reason for me to make this up. CICO for me met a lot more calories than the average person.

    And sorry, I don't have a diary of everything I did 35 years ago.
  • Posts: 325 Member
    JaneiR36 wrote: »

    Which would be why I gave you some easy questions that anyone could remember decades after the fact - to compare your thin self to your weight gaining self at different points in time. You complain about the hard question but didn't answer the easy one, either.

    If you've ever read a scientific paper, you may find areas like Observations, methods, results, conclusion. You're stating your observation over and over again, no meat in between and no attempt to share relevant facts, and asking us to arrive at the same conclusions as you did. I'm not sure what you're looking for, here.

    And where is your evidence that bone-thin 20-year-olds eat less and exercise more when they say they don't ?

    Like the other poster said, you can't follow these people 24 hours a day. So it works both ways.

  • Posts: 1,340 Member
    People who are "normally slim" tick me off. Not really - but I get aggravated that everyone has different struggles, and mine is with food. I am certain that normally slim people have other obstacles that drive them crazy that they have to deal with too - I would soooooo choose another obstacle for me to have to deal with if I got the choice. I don't know what, but food addiction would so not be on the list.

    My mother seems think she's the authority for being an armchair critic watching me for 50 years deal with this - but I'm sorry - no PH.D., no right to an opinion. She's been a "size one civilian" all her life, and her famous enough line is, "What you need to do is...." Yeah - bite me.

    I'm morbidly obese surrounded by size-1 civillians. That bothers me. I've seen so many of those s1c's drink themselves into oblivion and suffer the consequences of a monster hangover, and they don't learn from it. I guess I'm just as bad - having lost 140 pounds and gained back 100.

    I know I shouldn't let it get to me that other people don't seem to have the same struggles I have with food, and I wouldn't wish it on anybody - guess I can't have it both ways. LOL
  • Posts: 1,145 Member
    Sounds like you have late bloomer genes in your family, as most males are done growing height-wise by age 19 and females by age 17. Granted, like you mentioned body composition does continue for some time after height growth is done.
    Much to my disappointment, my height growth was done at 5'8" by the time I turned 17.

    My son is 24 this year and he grew a another inch or so...I was really surprised. The week that I noticed he said everyone had been commenting the same. His partner said "See I told you so!"
  • Posts: 1,776 Member

    And where is your evidence that bone-thin 20-year-olds eat less and exercise more when they say they don't ?

    Like the other poster said, you can't follow these people 24 hours a day. So it works both ways.



    https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/


  • Posts: 25,965 Member

    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.

    I eat about 300 cal for lunch and anywhere between about 300 and 500 cal for dinner, depending on how much exercise I've done that day and how many calories I have to work with. If I happen to want more for dinner (like if we stop at Zambreros and have a burrito for 700 cal), I skip the 6 pm snack and might go a little easier on the evening snacks.
  • Posts: 13,454 Member

    Well if you surveyed my frat brothers they would verify what I said. Again, there is no reason for me to make this up. CICO for me met a lot more calories than the average person.

    And sorry, I don't have a diary of everything I did 35 years ago.

    Well, I'm convinced. How about everyone else?
  • Posts: 1,145 Member
    Just wanted to comment on the activity level comments. I never exercised in my teens or 20's and 30's, i lived a sedentary life and ate whatever i wanted and stayed at the same weight throughout all those years, had 2 pregnancies, one of which i gained 52lbs which dropped off in a few months without paying attention to calories or food choices. I was also much more social back then, many more dinners out, take aways, bbq's, massive eating competitions between me and my brother and sister during regular family get togethers etc etc

    My point is, i am now exercising and am more active than I've ever been in my life and i have to watch every damn calorie. Everything was effortless until i hit the age of 39-40 and this is when the weight start coming on, so for me lack of or lesser activity is definitely not the problem. I've gone from naturally slim all my life, to not lol

    Can you recollect though (absolute interest...not being picky) if after extraordinary days of eating that you ate less the day after or the day after that or picked at stuff? I used to see this with camping friends.

    Also, no regular exercise but were you on top of the housework, busy with school stuff ie your NEAT? I feel that is equally important for my weight..not just regular prescribed exercise.

    Cos another difference I noticed with slim friends was their definition of sedentary or lazy in comparison to mine was very far apart at that time. Their sedentary looked active to me. (I hadn't always been large either but I took it for granted back then the habits/behaviour working in my favour).
  • Posts: 1,145 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    Well, I'm convinced. How about everyone else?

    Ignoring him. :)
  • Posts: 1,403 Member

    And where is your evidence that bone-thin 20-year-olds eat less and exercise more when they say they don't ?

    Like the other poster said, you can't follow these people 24 hours a day. So it works both ways.

    Did you take psyche 101? Cause you learn that your memories are not reliable. Particularly when remembering a time with fondness.
  • Posts: 325 Member
    edited July 2016

    Did you take psyche 101? Cause you learn that your memories are not reliable. Particularly when remembering a time with fondness.

    My memory, in terms of how much I ate when I was in college, and in terms of how little exercise I did, is 100% perfect. Again, denying the obvious that some people burn a lot more calories than other people.

  • Posts: 2,831 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    Well, I'm convinced. How about everyone else?

    totes
  • Posts: 15,317 Member
    I am sure I have entered, the Twilight Zone.
  • Posts: 325 Member
    edited July 2016
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    This entire thread has been filled with people who at one point in their life, had the same mindset as you, until they faced reality and had the epiphany that they or others were either eating less than they thought, or they were more active than they thought. The only thing obvious is that you aren't willing to even consider that your personal perspective may be slightly clouded creating bias.

    Apparently, it does not fit the narrative that everyone has here. Weigh all your food. Measure all your food. Count the calories of every strawberry you eat. It's the only way.

    But why does claiming that you ate more and weighed less fly in the face of this narrative. It's still CICO. My CI and CO were just more than the average person. Why is this so hard to believe?

    And I'm not winning a contest. I am just stating a FACT. 6' 1", 145 lbs. when I was 21. WHY? And please don't repeat the same thing - you ate less than you thought, or your memory is bad, or you fidgeted a lot. Tired of hearing that.

  • Posts: 15,317 Member

    Because it fits the narrative that everyone has here. Weigh all your food. Measure all your food. Count the calories of every strawberry you eat. It's the only way.

    And somehow, claiming that you ate more and weighed less flies in the face of this narrative. But I'm not sure why. It's still CICO. My CI and CO were just more than the average person. Why is this so hard to believe?

    And I'm not winning a contest. I am just stating a FACT. 6' 1", 145 lbs. when I was 21. WHY? And please don't repeat the same thing - you ate less than you thought, or your memory is bad, or you fidgeted a lot. Tired of hearing that.

    You need to provide some evidence, not the "I ate like a horse", that won't fly.
  • Posts: 325 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »

    You need to provide some evidence, not the "I ate like a horse", that won't fly.

    You think I have a food log from 35 years ago? Feel free to call me a liar. I don't care.
  • Posts: 15,317 Member

    You think I have a food log from 35 years ago? Feel free to call me a liar. I don't care.

    Seriously? You have no idea your calorie intake. Ain't no doubt about it!
  • Posts: 156 Member
    Maxematics wrote: »

    Holy heck am I jealous. I got my first period by age 10, hit 5'3" by the time I was in 5th grade and just stopped growing completely. I went from being the tallest girl in class to the shortest in a matter of a few years. I would have loved to gain a few more inches of height, cup sizes, ANYTHING from the age of 11 to my early twenties. :'(

    Heh I just stayed the smallest one the whole time. I remember exactly ONE girl in my high school shorter than me (out of a student population of 2000). The boy was always the biggest, which still gives me a giggle.
This discussion has been closed.