What do you think of people who are naturally slim?
Replies
-
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.
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.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.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.
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.
3 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser 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?
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 1350-24500 -
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/2up0 -
So if you're not tracking calories, how in the heck do you know how much you burn and how much you've eaten? Of course we don't accept what is anecdote. You can prove if you wrote a term paper, got a good grade in a class, and have a cell phone because they are tangible. But believing your statement, when it's EASILY disputed by actual science, just because you think it's true...........................well that'd be like having to believe you if you said the Tooth Fairy is really a real entity. Even if you have the money under your pillow to prove it.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.
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
6 -
Bet they wouldn't if they lived with me for 30 days.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.
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
6 -
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 lol1 -
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.ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.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.
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.
Much to my disappointment, my height growth was done at 5'8" by the time I turned 17.
0 -
I still find that hard to believe that someone maintaining on 2500 calories is so far out of the ordinary.FunkyTobias wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser 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?
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
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I still find that hard to believe that someone maintaining on 2500 calories is so far out of the ordinary.FunkyTobias wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser 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?
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
That's because you missed the context of the original problem.
We're talking about a 5'9" 113 lb sedentary person.
1 -
WinoGelato 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.
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.0 -
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.
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.
0 -
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
1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.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.
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.
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!"2 -
gonetothedogs19 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.
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.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
0 -
dragon_girl26 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.
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.1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »WinoGelato 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.
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.
Well, I'm convinced. How about everyone else?1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »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).
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »WinoGelato 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.
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.
Well, I'm convinced. How about everyone else?
Ignoring him. 0 -
gonetothedogs19 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.
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.
Did you take psyche 101? Cause you learn that your memories are not reliable. Particularly when remembering a time with fondness.0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »gonetothedogs19 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.
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.
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.
0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »gonetothedogs19 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.
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.
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.
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.5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »WinoGelato 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.
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.
Well, I'm convinced. How about everyone else?
totes0 -
I am sure I have entered, the Twilight Zone.1
-
WinoGelato wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »gonetothedogs19 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.
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.
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.
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.
0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »gonetothedogs19 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.2 -
queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »gonetothedogs19 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You think I have a food log from 35 years ago? Feel free to call me a liar. I don't care.0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »gonetothedogs19 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!0 -
Maxematics wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.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.
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.
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.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions