Overweight? Maybe You Really Can Blame Your Metabolism

Options
245

Replies

  • Melissa11412
    Melissa11412 Posts: 145 Member
    Options
    I think it's a cop out. I have slow metabolism, just means I have to work harder in the gym, and be more vigilant about my food. If someone is overweight they have no one to blame but themselves, like me, nobody put a gun to my head and forced me to eat a dozen whoppers (exaggeration alert) for lunch.

    Rigger

    1z64ec1.gif
    that is all.
  • Juliejustsaying
    Juliejustsaying Posts: 2,332 Member
    Options
    Human being are complex, complex animals. There isn't just one answer to anything. and I do mean ANYTHING! and if you don't believe me take an anatomy & physiology class and then tell me differently. There are diseases and conditions that will impact your metabolism and how your body absorbs food...ie hypo/hyperthyroidism, PCOS, Diabetes etc.

    Yes, a slow metabolism will make it easier to gain and more difficult to lose. I've had hypothyroidism for 20 years...so yeah. I'm also 5'1" and a 5lb weight gain on me looks like 15lbs on a woman who is 5'8". Normal weight according to the BMI chart is anywhere from 96-132 lbs. and yes 133lbs is considered overweight. My TDEE is lower than the average woman etc etc etc. When I step on the Wii Fit scale and am over 132lbs the little *kitten* says "oof" and makes my Mi balloon up. I kid you not.

    However, while I have been overweight, I have never been obese...because I have always tried to eat well and exercise. So the answer, IMHO, is yes to everything. Yes metabolism, yes determination, yes eat less move more...yes!

    tumblr_mq6sc4e2fG1snefxio1_500.png
  • CarmenSRT
    CarmenSRT Posts: 843 Member
    Options
    Are there a few people with egregiously slow metabolisms? Yes. Even for them being overweight still comes down to consuming more than their particular metabolism needs. Does it kind of suck for them? No doubt. That doesn't change reality though.

    Back in the day, being a mondo math geek I figured out that with regular vigorous exercise my body required 19 calories per pound of body weight for maintenance. These days, with MORE exercise I manage 75% of that. The aging process itself can be a brake on metabolism. It sucks, but it is what it is.
  • Leather_N_Lace
    Leather_N_Lace Posts: 518 Member
    Options
    All the women in my family are over weight. I'm Irish and German and a recovering meth addict... .
    I could blame all of these on my current metabolic rate but I don't..
    Doesn't make any sense to me to do so... I am the weight that I am because of not practicing common sense..
    I have since educated myself and blame only my ignorance and lack of discipline for my weight gain. Since I started tracking my food and hitting the gym, I have noticed a significant change in my physique... Down 40.5 cumulative inches:heart:
  • ctalimenti
    ctalimenti Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    Love reading the responses. Bump for later reading.
  • SarahRose35
    SarahRose35 Posts: 127 Member
    Options
    Hmm, I haven't read the article yet. But you should watch the UK show "Secret Eaters". It is on youtube and is quite entertaining.


    They are all the same. They think "there is no way I weigh this much, when I eat so little". Then they realize that they actually eat 2-3 times as much as they thought. They eat huge portions and snack throughout the day.


    So I still think it comes down to the basics, overeating and not moving enough.

    I love this show, I actually finished the two seasons in under a week....
  • jerber160
    jerber160 Posts: 2,606 Member
    Options
    I think it's a cop out. I have slow metabolism, just means I have to work harder in the gym, and be more vigilant about my food. If someone is overweight they have no one to blame but themselves, like me, nobody put a gun to my head and forced me to eat a dozen whoppers (exaggeration alert) for lunch.

    Rigger

    Right! No one forced me to eat an entire pizza! Like I used to.

    when I think of the days I came home from high school and popped a box-pizza into the oven..... and still ate dinner later. Healthy snacking wasn't in the picture then... as for article. well. rare mutations are possible but RARE
  • ctalimenti
    ctalimenti Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tunPqk8S9yI

    Wow, this is incredible! I've never seen this before. I totally agree with it.
  • Sparlingo
    Sparlingo Posts: 938 Member
    Options
    I will go read the article now, but my initial thought when reading the title of the thread is:

    Sure, you can blame your metabolism. . . but then you'll just be overweight with a slow metabolism.

    You might have to work harder, and maybe it isn't fair, but a slow metabolism isn't a reason to raise the white flag and accept a body size you're not comfortable with.
  • maybeazure
    maybeazure Posts: 301 Member
    Options
    That's a really good article. Thanks for posting it. I have always believed that my genes were partly responsible for me being overweight. My whole family is either overweight or has to really work hard not to be. But it's like having a gene that predisposes you to diabetes. You are more likely to get diabetes, but you can still do things to prevent it...like exercise and diet. It's just harder to avoid it than it is for people who don't have the gene.
  • get10fit2013
    get10fit2013 Posts: 87 Member
    Options
    I will go read the article now, but my initial thought when reading the title of the thread is:

    Sure, you can blame your metabolism. . . but then you'll just be overweight with a slow metabolism.

    You might have to work harder, and maybe it isn't fair, but a slow metabolism isn't a reason to raise the white flag and accept a body size you're not comfortable with.

    Yes!
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    I'm wondering what you guys think about this article, do you feel like it's an overweight person's fault or are the odds just stacked against them?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/health/overweight-maybe-you-really-can-blame-your-metabolism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


    They want *SO* badly to be able to call obesity a disease so they can sell their drugs. There *ARE* diseases that can cause obesity, but obesity is not a disease.
  • ST99000722
    ST99000722 Posts: 204 Member
    Options
    bump for later
  • nyrina4life
    nyrina4life Posts: 196 Member
    Options
    Obesity is not a disease, and while yes, it sucks for people like me who have both a slow as molasses metabolism, and PCOS I know that it all boils down to me.

    Life was never meant to be 'easy' and for some it may be easier to stay a healthy weight, or to lose weight. For me, it is harder, and I will be honest, I do cave easily when I see no results. Sometimes the weight just melts away with my effort, and then I can go a month or more without budging and it doesn't matter what I eat or what I do. Doesn't help that stress also works against us. But in the end, I only have myself to blame.
  • lpina2mi
    lpina2mi Posts: 425 Member
    Options
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiponectin
    http://www.livestrong.com/article/549960-glycemic-load-adiponectin/
    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=207088

    I am sharing links to a fraction of the things I have been reading over the last 10 years. A calorie is not a calorie The quality of your nutrition matters MORE.

    Mainstream understanding of nutrition and weightloss must begin to digest current science or it will further resemble "the flat-earth society".

    In sum, the first link will sound like doom--if you are overweight you body makes less of what is needed to burn fat. But the light at the end of the tunnel is that exercise and select nutrients will create an environment where your body will begin making more adiponectin.

    The other links point to the value of a low-glycemic diet for weightloss.

    I began following a low-glycemic diet years ago. It stabilized my weight and although it was not enough for me to have weightloss, my overall health improved dramatically. Naturally, I began following the biological mechanism of cellular energy further back to digestion. I made further dietary forever changes and added moderate cardio to toning and lost 14 lbs & nearly 20" down quickly.

    It would be a whole other post to discuss how hard cardio causes weight gain in me and the few studies I found that proved I am not mistaken!

    Take a look at low-glycemic diet
  • lpina2mi
    lpina2mi Posts: 425 Member
    Options
    The article doesn't address the question because the answer has nothing to do with genetics. 40 years ago we ate about 500 calories a day less than we do today, and we were far more active, both at work, and leisure time, due to not having the advanced technology that automates so much of our lives nowadays.

    It's really a simple issue to comprehend. We eat more and move less. To fix the problem everyone needs to eat less and move more.

    40 years ago we ate much less sugar. Open this link to look at the charts,
    http://blog.zestos.co.nz/2010/09/sugar-consumption-been-high-before.html

    Wednesday, September 15, 2010

    Now since the 70's - ie over 40 years, the sugar consumption has continued to rise. As the graph below shows the total sugar intake as gone from 55 kg / person to 69 kg / person. This increase is with line with the trend of the above graph. Also note that the types of sugar have changed from sugar (sucrose) to glucose and high fructose corn syrup. Neither glucose or fructose corn syrup are found in large quantities in nature (or not at all with high fructose syrup).




    Take a look at low-glycemic eating.
  • lpina2mi
    lpina2mi Posts: 425 Member
    Options
    I'm wondering what you guys think about this article, do you feel like it's an overweight person's fault or are the odds just stacked against them?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/health/overweight-maybe-you-really-can-blame-your-metabolism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


    They want *SO* badly to be able to call obesity a disease so they can sell their drugs. There *ARE* diseases that can cause obesity, but obesity is not a disease.

    I agree!
  • Mija2010
    Mija2010 Posts: 11
    Options
    IMHO: Let's assume that not everyone is lying, is unaware of how much they eat, is eating in secret or has an unknown health issue. Two committed people follow the same weight loss and exercise program but have very different results. Is it possible that metabolism played a part in this?!!! The study on the sets of twins demonstrated this very nicely. As the scientific community is fond of saying, more and larger studies need to be done and they will need to understand a lot more, but it does appear to support the premise that metabolisms do differ from one person to another. If the amount of movement and the reduction in calories needed by one person is distinctly greater than what another needs, discounting variations in metabolism and saying that it's just a matter of eating less and moving more is too simplistic and unrealistic. Variety is the spice of life and, evidently, the spice of metabolisms. :wink:
  • lpina2mi
    lpina2mi Posts: 425 Member
    Options
    IMHO: Let's assume that not everyone is lying, is unaware of how much they eat, is eating in secret or has an unknown health issue. Two committed people follow the same weight loss and exercise program but have very different results. Is it possible that metabolism played a part in this?!!! The study on the sets of twins demonstrated this very nicely. As the scientific community is fond of saying, more and larger studies need to be done and they will need to understand a lot more, it does appear to support the premise that metabolisms do differ from one person to another. If the amount of movement and the reduction in calories needed by one person is distinctly greater than what another needs, discounting variations in metabolism and saying that it's just a matter of eating less and moving more is too simplistic and unrealistic. Variety is the spice of life and, evidently, the spice of metabolisms. :wink:

    Yes, to this too!
  • jerber160
    jerber160 Posts: 2,606 Member
    Options
    The article doesn't address the question because the answer has nothing to do with genetics. 40 years ago we ate about 500 calories a day less than we do today, and we were far more active, both at work, and leisure time, due to not having the advanced technology that automates so much of our lives nowadays.

    It's really a simple issue to comprehend. We eat more and move less. To fix the problem everyone needs to eat less and move more.

    40 years ago we ate much less sugar. Open this link to look at the charts,
    http://blog.zestos.co.nz/2010/09/sugar-consumption-been-high-before.html

    Wednesday, September 15, 2010

    Now since the 70's - ie over 40 years, the sugar consumption has continued to rise. As the graph below shows the total sugar intake as gone from 55 kg / person to 69 kg / person. This increase is with line with the trend of the above graph. Also note that the types of sugar have changed from sugar (sucrose) to glucose and high fructose corn syrup. Neither glucose or fructose corn syrup are found in large quantities in nature (or not at all with high fructose syrup).




    Take a look at low-glycemic eating.

    40 years ago, almost every housewife in America was on Black Beauties. Who Knew??? (or at least around me... there was a well respected diet doctor) it's no wonder their houses were so clean

Categories