Overweight? Maybe You Really Can Blame Your Metabolism

ngyoung

The type of food you put in your mouth can greatly effect your metabolism when it comes to how many calories go out. Our bodies are not a bank account with deposits and withdraws. More like a hedge fund specializing in derivatives.

tomg33

]The type of food you put in your mouth can greatly effect your metabolism when it comes to how many calories go out. Our bodies are not a bank account with deposits and withdraws. More like a hedge fund specializing in derivatives.

Please explain specifically how this happens.

DebbieLyn63

I've been doing some metabolic testing with a new leaf machine.

The difference in people's base rates doesn't vary that much in my experience - certainly no where near the amount a bit of exercise will add to it.

The only time I've tested myself was the morning after a 'big three' weights session the day before.
I came out at just under 2400 calories - I'd be willing to bet related to the weights I'd done the day before (should have left a bit longer), which does fit in with the 'elevated metabolism' for the next 39 hours or whatever - and fitted in with what I was eating at the time.

Was the 2400 number your BMR or your TDEE?
If it was TDEE, then that seems very low for a man your age that lifts heavy.
If it was your BMR, then that shows that BMRs can be quite a bit different among people, depending on their gender,age, height, body comp.
My BMR is only around 1250. But I am an almost 50 yr old, partially disabled female with 30 pounds left to lose.
So yeah, you can eat more than twice I can to maintain your weight.
That is just just how life works. We have to play the hand we are dealt.

DebbieLyn63

]The type of food you put in your mouth can greatly effect your metabolism when it comes to how many calories go out. Our bodies are not a bank account with deposits and withdraws. More like a hedge fund specializing in derivatives.

Please explain specifically how this happens.

It has been proven that protein takes a little bit more energy to digest than carbs or fat do.
And when insulin spikes, it blocks fat-burning for awhile until the sugar/insulin gets out of your body.

Both of these factors can affect your metabolism. For most people, it isn't that great of an affect, but for others, it can be substantial.

ironanimal

Doesn't matter how ****ed your metabolism is. If you eat less than you burn, you'll lose weight.

lpina2mi

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.

Glucose is found everywhere in nature. And high fructose corn syrup is irrelevant, as it's just a blend of glucose and fructose in a custom mix. You do know that sucrose is made up of glucose and fructose, right? You also know that the glycemic index has been proven as basically useless, also?

Also, let's put your numbers in perspective (I'm ignoring the blog, just using what you've posted. Different from my numbers, but mine are official US consumption.) You're talking a difference of 100 calories a day in sugar. Now, please find the total difference in caloric Intake from the 70's until today, from all sources, otherwise your argument is completely meaningless.

Based on USDA data, the average American consumes 500 calories per day more than they did in the 70's, and only about 40 of those 500 calories come from sugar.

Yes, when I address sugar I am addressing it all: glucose, sucrose, fructose, lactose, etc. Furthermore, I am including all sources from good-for-you fruits to man-manipulated high fructose corn syrup. It would become part of the Clean or Clean-er Eating dialogue to discuss the merits of various forms of this simple carbohydrate called sugar, but in this Brd posting I will stick with the "a calorie is not a calorie" and the proliferation of sugar in food--especially processed foods.

Please note that I am not saying sugar or carbohydrates are bad or dirty; I am pointing out that it is way too easy to consume to much of them AND that the amount that is "too much" will vary among individuals...which brings us back to a "a calorie is not a calorie."

First, compare how carbohydrates and fats and proteins are digested.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/488801-how-are-carbohydrates-digested-absorbed-eliminated/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1176254/ (Print the pdf file It is only 4pg)
In sum carbs become sugar quickly, which is our body's energy packet. Note, that the body will only use what it needs (which in most circumstances quite small at any one time/moment) and send the rest to storage. Sugar in the blood stream is a poison to our organs, that is why insulin is necessary. It is too easy to eat more than is needed, and when we need more energy packets hunger kicks-in before energy is taken from muscle or fat.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/439814-how-is-fat-digested-in-your-body/
http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/food-nutrition/vitamin-supplements/body-absorb-vitamins.htm
In sum, fat can stay in your bloodstream and fat is necessary for the absorption of many vitamins. BTW: new studies and re-reading of old studies show fat (trans-fats aside) does not cause heart disease. The current suspect is...sugar.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full

http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/essentials-of-nutrition-a-functional-approach/section_10_03.html
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/smallgut/absorb_aacids.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_(nutrient)
In sum, protein is essential in the process of creating hormones and other materials a body needs.

And this is just a nice summary.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/489260-how-does-body-absorb-carbohydrates-fats-and-proteins/

Now let's look at sugar consumption.
Dr. R. Fustig says it well. Here is a Huffington Post article and one in a series of presentations he has done. This one was for the Osher Center of Integrated Medicine. Dr Ashley Gearhardt from the Yale and Rudd Center for Policy and Obesity also has in structive presentation, "New Science of Sugar Addiction" on You-Tube that is subtitled, "Dietary Sugars, the Brain, & Metabolic Outcomes".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lustig-md/sugar-toxic_b_2759564.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7Djf8AkU6g

Also, you state that the glycemic index has been disproved. Please share your source. I wish to keep up to date on new research findings.

lpina2mi

]The type of food you put in your mouth can greatly effect your metabolism when it comes to how many calories go out. Our bodies are not a bank account with deposits and withdraws. More like a hedge fund specializing in derivatives.

Please explain specifically how this happens.

It has been proven that protein takes a little bit more energy to digest than carbs or fat do.
And when insulin spikes, it blocks fat-burning for awhile until the sugar/insulin gets out of your body.

Both of these factors can affect your metabolism. For most people, it isn't that great of an affect, but for others, it can be substantial.

Thank you.

lpina2mi

For the general population not suffering any disease or hormonal issue, being overweight is really just about over consumption. That's pretty much it.

Exactly. For God's sake people... Open your eyes.

This victim mentality is so prevalent in the fitness community because everyone wants to make excuses for why they're so "into" fitness but don't get results. Lying to others is one thing but lying to yourself is the most pathetic, especially since this website is designed around a food intake logging system.

If you truly had a metabolic disorder you'd almost certainly know about it unless you don't care about your health at all.

Also, even if your "metabolism" was perhaps 20% slower than the next guy, it still comes down to eating less and moving more.

It seems as if we are not reading the same posts. I did not hear "poor me/I can't do anything about my weight". What I hear is "I got to understand how my body works as step#1 and then go to step#2/defining a dietary & exercise program and then step#3/stick with it.

So whether your best program is paleo, heavy lifting, vegan, yoga, et cetera, I respect that.

Let's keep the dialogue friendly, so that everyone can share openly. I learn a great deal from others' experiences.

kaseysospacey

I have difficult to control thyroid disorder, without meds I can barely eat at all and gain weight, with them I have to be very strict on a diet or else I gain weight. Like at the level MFP guesses I should eat, I'd be gaining weight daily. It is difficult to figure out how many cals to eat with this problem.

tomg33

]The type of food you put in your mouth can greatly effect your metabolism when it comes to how many calories go out. Our bodies are not a bank account with deposits and withdraws. More like a hedge fund specializing in derivatives.

Please explain specifically how this happens.

It has been proven that protein takes a little bit more energy to digest than carbs or fat do.
And when insulin spikes, it blocks fat-burning for awhile until the sugar/insulin gets out of your body.

Both of these factors can affect your metabolism. For most people, it isn't that great of an affect, but for others, it can be substantial.

Protein does indeed have a higher thermic effect of feeding (TEF) which has led some nutrition scientists to believe that its caloric value might need to be lowered; it is currently ~4 kcal/g and some suggest 3.2/g or even 3/g. That does not "greatly affect your metabolism."

As for the insulin spiking... Blocking fat-burning... Where do I begin? The thing we have to understand about our body is that there is an energy balance. We are constantly building up and breaking down, 24/7. This is why if we eat before bed it doesn't ruin us, because the fat that is laid down will just be used up later when the net absorption of nutrients in the GI tract is below what the body needs to remain running at that time.
So taking this into consideration, it is fairly irrelevant to talk about insulin. In fact, it is fairly pointless to talk about adjusting any hormones in the body unless A) you have a medical condition that means your choices DO have a significant impact on your body's ability to regulate itself; or you are injecting performance enhancing drugs.

So to conclude, no, the type of food you put in your mouth does not "greatly effect [sic] your metabolism." Certainly it matters, but it is not even close to the main reason why overweight individuals struggle with their fat loss.

cl00bie

Some people have a gas-guzzler, and some have a Prius. It all depends on how much gas you put in it and how far you drive it.

alleekat

I have difficult to control thyroid disorder, without meds I can barely eat at all and gain weight, with them I have to be very strict on a diet or else I gain weight. Like at the level MFP guesses I should eat, I'd be gaining weight daily. It is difficult to figure out how many cals to eat with this problem.

My "hypothyroidism" is subclinical, yet this is also my experience.

I had my RMR tested at 1560, which would then calculate my BMR at 1401.
Two months ago, I completed Insanity (in addition to other exercise/activity) , eating 1500 cal or less per day, and I didn't lose an ounce or reduce a centimeter. I'm back at my regular exercise routine and have dropped my cals to under 1200. I weigh and measure all of my food, and don't consume any processed sugars or carbs (breads, etc... even rice).
Still stuck.

elisabeisme

Some folks maybe missing the point of the article. 

By now, many have come to terms with the fact that everyone's TDEE/BMR is slightly different based on their genetics & body composition. What is new from these studies, is that differences in metabolism may not be only about how much your base/equilibrium burn rate is, but also how efficiently your body deals with overages and underages.

The researchers are suggesting that two people may have the same equilibrium TDEE (let's say 2000 calories). The average person may process additional calories at a rate of 3500 calories over to gain one pound. However, these new studies suggest that people's bodies are more or less efficient at dealing with extra calories at a chemical level. For some people, 2500 additional calories generates a pound and for others, 4500 extra calories generates a pound.

As an analogy, think of a car.
- Some cars weigh a lot. Some cars have a better aerodynamic shape. These are the factors affect the forward force that is necessary to keep a car moving at a given speed.  Think of these factors as TDEE. 
- Now let's say we want to speed up the car, so we apply more gas. However, some cars have a more efficient engine than other cars. Those engines can create more forward energy from the same amount of gas.
- In this way, the gas mileage our car gets is a factor of two things: the weight/aerodynamics of our car PLUS the efficiency of our engine.
- Our ability to gain or lose weight may be a function of both our TDEE and our body's efficiency rate for our calorie deficit.

The hypothesis from this research is that 3500 extra calories does not always equal a pound.

This would be a huge insight for people that are working on losing weight and are getting frustrated by the scale not reacting as they anticipate. Right now, we tell those people that they must be doing it wrong. If you were REALLY cutting 3500 calories out of your diet, you would have lost a pound. You must be lying about what you are eating. You must be lying about your exercise. Quit cheating. But what if they are not?  If that person is actually not cheating, that's a pretty demoralizing message. Telling people things have happened that haven't and making people question their sanity is a form of torture used to break war prisoners. Imagine the impact that has on a person trying to get healthy. If we could tell people that their personal formula is actually 4750 to lose a pound, then the person could say "hey, sucks to be me, but now I know what to do" and get on with their weight loss program.

None of this changes the fact that people still need to commit and take responsibility to make lifestyle changes. Or that we may need to reconsider our nation's food chain. It just may mean that the current mathematical formulas for weight management are not as fixed as everyone wants them to be.

So, the current formula is:

TDEE + calories consumed - deficit / 3500 calories = pounds lost or gained

These researcher suggest that the formula is actually:

TDEE + calories consumed - deficit / (3500 calories * your body's chemical efficiency) = pounds lost or gained

kaseysospacey

I have difficult to control thyroid disorder, without meds I can barely eat at all and gain weight, with them I have to be very strict on a diet or else I gain weight. Like at the level MFP guesses I should eat, I'd be gaining weight daily. It is difficult to figure out how many cals to eat with this problem.

My "hypothyroidism" is subclinical, yet this is also my experience.

I had my RMR tested at 1560, which would then calculate my BMR at 1401.
Two months ago, I completed Insanity (in addition to other exercise/activity) , eating 1500 cal or less per day, and I didn't lose an ounce or reduce a centimeter. I'm back at my regular exercise routine and have dropped my cals to under 1200. I weigh and measure all of my food, and don't consume any processed sugars or carbs (breads, etc... even rice).
Still stuck.

According ot here and any other calculators Id have to eat closer to 3000 cals a day to gain weight but If I eat 1800 I would be gaining weight regularly...and thats even w breastfeedgin a baby.

lpina2mi

As for the insulin spiking... Blocking fat-burning... Where do I begin? The thing we have to understand about our body is that there is an energy balance. We are constantly building up and breaking down, 24/7. This is why if we eat before bed it doesn't ruin us, because the fat that is laid down will just be used up later when the net absorption of nutrients in the GI tract is below what the body needs to remain running at that time.
So taking this into consideration, it is fairly irrelevant to talk about insulin. In fact, it is fairly pointless to talk about adjusting any hormones in the body unless A) you have a medical condition that means your choices DO have a significant impact on your body's ability to regulate itself; or you are injecting performance enhancing drugs.

This is where science differs from your perception of the digestion-absorption cycle. Yes, the body does cycle through aerobic and anaerobic processes--but an assumption of what you ate yesterday is what you are using today is not necessarily true. It depends not only how much you ate, but also how many of those calories were sugar.

Once sugar goes into storage (i.e. fat), it is not the first place your body goes for energy. Only when you create a situation where there is a deficit will the body go looking elsewhere and the body will go looking to breakdown muscle as well as fat storage.

Your body will only use what it needs and because sugar is toxic to our organs the body uses insulin to carry it into safe storage for later. This is happens relatively quickly (~2 hrs when eaten without fats, fiber, or protein). The problem is that this "for later" storage is not the first place your body goes when it needs more energy. Chemicals are released to trigger hunger, so you eat more. And if what you eat is more sugar than complex carbohydrates, fats, and proteins, then more of that sugar is going to storage. And so on, and so on.

BTW, if insulin was irrelevant to the process of digestion & absorption, then the whole understanding and treatment of diabetes would be undone.

lpina2mi

So much of what is currently known about metabolism is still within academia. Although I read them and bookmark them for reference, I appreciate when other sites and MFP contributors and summarize in simpler language and provide cites.

Hence, this is an open invitation to others to share what they have read.

lpina2mi

Some people have a gas-guzzler, and some have a Prius. It all depends on how much gas you put in it and how far you drive it.

Very Nice!

Elliesque

I've battled my weight my whole life, most all the women in my family are fat, and not just fat -- like 300lbs+ fat. I do think that my mother's side of the family has a predisposition to being overweight. BUT, that is not an excuse. I do feel like I work 5x harder to lose weight than other people I know. But, oh well -- gotta keep at it to be healthy.

All these people with their studies and medical this and medical that...guess what....back in the early 1900's and even in the 1950's, notice that people in general were mostly normal weight?? Yes. Look at the difference in lifestyle -- people were more active, they ate healthier for the most part, and didn't consume as much junk food as we do today. The problem is simply laziness, eating junk food, more laziness, and massive portion sizes!
I tell people all of the time -- it's simple math...don't eat more than you burn and you wont have a problem.

lpina2mi

The hypothesis from this research is that 3500 extra calories does not always equal a pound.


So, the current formula is:

These researcher suggest that the formula is actually:

TDEE + calories consumed - deficit / (3500 calories * your body's chemical efficiency) = pounds lost or gained

Thank you for this succinct summary. I never thought of it like that. Thank You!

RCottonRPh

Ultimately, to me, it doesn't matter why I'm overweight. I'm overweight. I've already make enough excuses. Now I'm in action mode doing something about it. Even if your metabolism is sluggish, you can revamp it with proper movement and fuel.