Do naturally thin people actually think different?
Replies
-
I must have a different perception than most here.
To me, being “thin” means being underweight. With that meaning, IMO, being “naturally thin” (ie, naturally underweight) is quite rare. Many underweight people are underweight for reasons other than through nature (eg, because of an ED or metabolic disorder, because of stress, because of not having enough food to go round etc) and when these reasons are corrected, they put on weight.
If we are talking about being “naturally at a healthy weight”, neither thin nor fat, then yes, a lot of people can manage their weight very well because of all the reasons already stated in this thread (eg, because more active, because not liking the feeling of fullness, because of conscious weight management etc).
Hmmm, when I envision naturally thin, I think of someone who is still within a healthy weight, just at the lower end, you know?3 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Yes - naturally thin people don't tend to care about food as anything but nourishment. There's zero emotional attachment to it.
That seems like a massive generalization. Maybe you could say that thinner people are less likely to self-medicate with food, but to say they don't care about food as anything but nourishment? No way. I know lots of thin people who love food, work in the food industry, and so on. They just eat fewer or equal to the number of calories they burn. Sometimes without thinking about it, sometimes with effort.
I don't think it's selfmedication. I was thin as a small child and started getting heavier when I started school. I loved school and had no trauma. Are you saying I and kids who are heavier are self medicating? I don't think that is generally the case. I am still pretty happy but very obese. I just have a tendency to eat too much and I hate feeling hungry. I like the full feeling. Long term medications contributed as well added an extra 90 lbs to my high weight.1 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one
). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.7 -
CatchMom13 wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »There is no such thing as "naturally thin".
How is there not? There absolutely is people who are naturally thin within putting any effort into it. It's scientifically proven. It's called a high metabolism. Some people are gifted.
No...so much no...
Needs no+ or no^2.4 -
WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Yes - naturally thin people don't tend to care about food as anything but nourishment. There's zero emotional attachment to it.
That seems like a massive generalization. Maybe you could say that thinner people are less likely to self-medicate with food, but to say they don't care about food as anything but nourishment? No way. I know lots of thin people who love food, work in the food industry, and so on. They just eat fewer or equal to the number of calories they burn. Sometimes without thinking about it, sometimes with effort.
I don't think it's selfmedication. I was thin as a small child and started getting heavier when I started school. I loved school and had no trauma. Are you saying I and kids who are heavier are self medicating? I don't think that is generally the case. I am still pretty happy but very obese. I just have a tendency to eat too much and I hate feeling hungry. I like the full feeling. Long term medications contributed as well added an extra 90 lbs to my high weight.
No, that wasn't what I meant,. I was specifically responding to the idea that naturally thin people don't tend to care about food, with the idea that instead, naturally thin people might be *less likely* to self-medicate with food (i.e. eat emotionally, i.e. "care" about food). That doesn't mean that all overweight people self-medicate, just that it may be more common among heavier people than among people who never struggle with weight gain.
Also, self-medicating doesn't have to imply that you've gone through a trauma - eating triggers a pleasure response in the brain, so it's perfectly reasonable that many people eat in response to negative emotions triggered by even mundane events, like being bored, being sad over doing poorly in school or fighting with a friend, being physically injured, and so on. How many of our parents offered food as a reward for doing something difficult? Part of the reason that strategy works because food makes us happy.0 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
4 -
5738_Cassiel wrote: »I was "naturally thin" until I wasn't. People aren't magically one or the other.
How does this answer my question? I never said people are magically one or the other. My question was this:
Is there an actual difference between the way naturally thin people and overweight people think?
The implication is that there may or may not be an actual difference. The implication is also that people are of different sizes. I am simply asking if there is a comparison between 2 of the hundreds of variations of generalized body types/sizes.
In this thread formerly thin people have said that they gained weight due to things like becomming more sedentary through a change in lifestyle, emotional/boredom eating, medication altering appetite, slightly overeating over time.
Thin people have said they notice if they are gaining weight within 5 lbs and do something about it right away.
People have observed behaviors of thin people that included being pretty active, not eating large portions, stopping when full, not snacking, a preference for lower fat foods.
I was always very thin until about age 25 years. I started skipping breakfast and lunch as a teen. I sometimes would get busy and not eat some meals. I grew up poor in a family of 5 so we weren't eating out a lot or buying lots of snack food or able to eat however much we wanted often. My family were tv watchers/book readers, not go for a hike or play sports types. I snacked on plain popcorn, dry cereal or saltine crackers as a kid. I loved food. I could eat quite a bit, was not picky and would sometimes eat past feeling full if there was the opportunity to do so. As a young adult I had a job where I was on my feet all day. I did not have a car and walked a lot more but I was not athletic. I did not think about calories or eating healthy. I gained maybe 2 lbs in college. My weight was stable for years without effort or thought. I gained weight after becoming a SAHP when my lifestyle became much more sedentary. I have never been an emotional eater. My eating habits did not change much at first. My dd developed sleep issues though and I got by on maybe 4 hours of sleep for years and kind of ate more to make up for the lack of sleep. I did not care that I was gaining. It took time to get very overweight but I gradually did. I maintained the same weight for long periods even though I was not thin. I don't think my thoughts about food changed until I started trying to lose weight. It takes effort for me to lose weight. Maintaining is easier than losing for me. I prefer salty foods to sweets.
I live with my dh and dd and both had weight changes in the last few years. Dh had also been a thin child and young adult. He gradually gained weight but never looked overweight. In the last 5 years my dh went on a medication for anxiety that changed his appetite and some food preferences. He lost 30 lbs in a year without consciously dieting or changing activity. He just started eating much less at meals. His reaction to stress and anxiety is to not eat usually because he feels like crap anyway. So he gained and lost weight and then maintained without really thinking about any of it. If he hadn't started the medication he might have been maintaing at overweight though. Dh loves ice cream and sweets.
Dd has always been thin without trying to be. She stopped gaining weight and at 17 years was underweight. She also has severe anxiety and also responds by not eating as much, vomiting. When we tracked her food she was not getting enough calories. We started giving her full fat dairy and buying more appealing calorie dense foods for her. She started taking a medication that increased her appetite as a side effect. In about 6 months she gained about 20 lbs to just be in the healthy weight range. It took effort to get her there. I guess you could call her naturally thin since she has never been overweight. She loves pasta, cheeseburgers, french fries, candy, chips. She likes fruit. She is picky about food. She thinks about food as more than fuel. Sometimes she eats a lot. Sometimes not much at all. She has never been very good at identifying hunger signals.
So I don't think "naturally" thin people have so much in common other than just happening to eat the right amount of calories to maintain their weight.10 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »All the "naturally thin" people I know (my husband and all my in-laws) genuinely don't want food if they're not hungry. That's the main difference I notice.
They also get antsy when they have eaten a lot, and want to get up and go for a long walk or something. It's not necessarily the same day, might be the following day, but it happens. They also eat less on following days.
It's not a difference in how they and I *think*. They barely think about it at all. It's a difference in feelings and reactions.
Intuitive eating like that just blows my mind. I know a lot of people like this. The concept of body and mind being so in tune and autoregulating the calorie intake and expendurw without much concious awareness of the process! That's how our bodies are supposed to.work idea. But I don't think i'll ever be alble to learn this. I've had disordered eating since I was 10 and later a full blown ED. My hunger cues are forever messed up. Still I often dream that some day I'll ve able to mentain not trough logging, not even through habit but intuitively.
I don't actually think that's how our bodies are supposed to work or that not being able to do that makes you messed up.
For most of human history access to food was insecure and it was beneficial to be able to/want to eat when it was available, even if that meant putting on some weight, and to be able to go without for a while too. Thus, it seems totally normal and even beneficial to want to eat based on cues like food being available and nearby, even if you just ate, and to find food desirable when it has qualities consistent with it being high cal (high in fat and sugar), and for variety to mean that you eat more (during most of human history wanting a variety would have meant getting a variety of nutrients, and good for you, not wanting to eat pie after having a huge steak).
Thus, it's really not surprising to me that a majority of people seem to easily become overweight or obese in the current environment (more, really), and only a small minority seem not to have to work at staying slim to avoid obesity. I don't think that's because all of us who find it easy to overeat have messed up hunger signals (vs. just responding to cues in a normal human way).
I think emotional eating can be messed up signals, but wanting to eat easily more than you actually need is probably just normal. Some are different, but not because the rest of us must be screwed up.
That's why I don't believe in intuitive eating for myself (or probably most). I don't log at maintenance, but not because I can intuitively eat; because I make a point of mindfully eating.
Do you live in the US? I don't know how true it is about the majority of people being overweight there, but you know, things are not everywhere like this. And it's not only about industrialized nations and availability of food. I live in France and the majority of (middle and upper class) people are at a healthy weight despite aggressive availability of food that isn't much different from the US. Lower class people may have slightly different statistics (when you're financially insecure all the time, people tend to overeat on cheap foods sporadically).
The vast majority of my friends and colleagues are at a healthy weight and they appear to be intuitive earing. The food is just as available as in the US and almost just as advertized etc. It's just that the culture around food is different. People are used to eat healthy portions of foods and regular times and snacking us somewhat discouraged. I'm not saying there are no overweight people or no eating disorders. There are, of course, and I know several people with food problems. But a lot or the majority of people I interact with on a daily basis appear to be "intuitive eaters". They stop when they are full e en when there's more delicious food available, even if there's still food on their plate. They eat sweet and junk food quite often but they stop after eating a little. They don't think much about food at all outside of meal times. And some are just used to eating one or 2 meals a day and don't even feel peckish in between.
I come from another European country, which is also economically devepped and has a somewhat different food culture, but the weight statistics are similar.
So I think that even though it makes a lot of sense to say "we are evolutionary disigned to overeat if food is available", in reality our bodies are more complicated than that. I think our bodies evolved beyond the idea of a constant threat of famine. If not the majority of people in all industrialized countries would be overweight. But this doesn't appear to be true.
I see your point, but I think you missed two important (and related) environmental and cultural differences between the US and Europe: daily activity level and access to fresh food. European countries are set up to support and encourage walking and biking in a way that the United States simply isn't. Both cities and rural areas in the US are very car-centric both by design and simple geography. Looking at vehicles per capita, the US is 795 per 1000 people, while France is 578 per 1000 people. That isn't about wealth, it's about culture and necessity.
Related to that, I don't think the US encourages cooking at home to nearly the extent much of Europe does. It's harder to find fresh food in much of the US, and since we work longer hours on average across the economic spectrum, making the time to cook becomes more difficult and less of a priority. When you take our relative lack of a social safety net into account, the differences just grow more profound. Looking at obesity rates across the globe, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and South Africa all have higher obesity rates than any European country, and I suspect that similar factors are in play.
I agree with the point with some of the weight problems being related to walking vs. driving--I have discussed this extensively with my Polish sister in law, and this is a big difference that she sees (she is also down on all the added sugar, and points out how sweet American desserts are in comparison to European desserts). I didn't even think of the crazy working/commuting hours for Americans--that is a great point.
I also think, particularly in France, that there is some suspicious correlation with smoking. A couple other people on the thread noted their weight spiked when they stopped smoking. France has made great strides in reducing its smoking rate, although it is still high compared to the US, but as the smoking rate has crept down, the weight problem has crept up. A coffee and cigarette breakfast, as in the famous poem, tends to not be high calorie.
Finally, I do believe the food culture plays a very important role--French hallmarks are modesty in eating, respect for the food, access to beautiful and lovingly grown whole foods, gorgeous vegetables treated with great respect, respect for oneself, and a culture that certainly doesn't shy away from weight shaming all act as a braking mechanism. I don't know if I would call this intuitive, in the sense of being naturally inborn, rather I think it stems from internalized cultural considerations. And I think a lot of the culture in the US is fundamentally broken. (Which is not to say that there aren't also a lot of broken bodies in the US for various reasons).
Personally, I was naturally, effortlessly thin my whole life until I became pregnant in my 30s. I think my hormones must have changed because after several months of morning sickness I suddenly went from being a fairly light eater to enthusiastically finishing my plate and anything my husband didn't eat, LOL. Before I might have eaten 2 slices of pizza, now I can easily eat 3 or 4. So it took a lot of discipline to get back to my pre-baby weight (I spent several years waiting for it to melt off which didn't work), and I've been easily maintaining for almost 2 years more through mindful eating and loose logging than through intuitive eating.
My husband is also naturally thin, and is still a pretty light eater who rarely eats breakfast. At one point when he felt the weight creeping up, he just cut out sodas, and at another point, just cut out fries.3 -
5738_Cassiel wrote: »I must have a different perception than most here.
To me, being “thin” means being underweight. With that meaning, IMO, being “naturally thin” (ie, naturally underweight) is quite rare. Many underweight people are underweight for reasons other than through nature (eg, because of an ED or metabolic disorder, because of stress, because of not having enough food to go round etc) and when these reasons are corrected, they put on weight.
If we are talking about being “naturally at a healthy weight”, neither thin nor fat, then yes, a lot of people can manage their weight very well because of all the reasons already stated in this thread (eg, because more active, because not liking the feeling of fullness, because of conscious weight management etc).
Hmmm, when I envision naturally thin, I think of someone who is still within a healthy weight, just at the lower end, you know?
What do you mean by “lower end”? BMI type of lower end? So 18.5-19?
If so, I still think the lower you go, the rarer it becomes for someone to be naturally thin. I think most people at a healthy weight sit in the middle of the range (21-22 or so) unless they’re consciously trying to stay as low as possible. Those who are at the lower end would have a smaller frame size.
0 -
CatchMom13 wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »There is no such thing as "naturally thin".
How is there not? There absolutely is people who are naturally thin within putting any effort into it.
I believe this is true, from talking to people who fall in this category.It's scientifically proven.
How could it be scientifically proven whether people put effort into not gaining weight or not?It's called a high metabolism.
No, I don't think that's what we are talking about. Some people have high metabolisms (TDEEs of 3000+ calories) and struggle not to gain. Others have low TDEEs (say 1500) and stay thin without thinking about it. Many or most are in-between.
Also, you have a ton of control over what your TDEE is.
If you mean the fact that some people reduce calories and don't have their TDEE go down much whereas others do, and that some raise calories and seem to naturally compensate by increasing NEAT whereas others do not, yeah, I think that's a thing, although I think "naturally thin" is more complex or broader than that.5 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Metabolism is for sure a factor - one of many.
But so-called "high metabolism", as an explanation of why some people are allegedly "naturally thin", is neither a necessary condition, nor a sufficient one.
It's not a necessary condition, because some people stay thin lifelong with slower metabolisms: They have active lives, strong satiation cues, little interest in food/eating, strong desire to stay thin and the self-discipline to white-knuckle that desire, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
It's not a sufficient condition, because some people get fat despite a faster metabolism. They're sedentary, have poor satiation cues, can't resist eating as much as larger spouses/peers, adore food and eating, have some emotional reason for overeating, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
We see posts like this:CatchMom13 wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »There is no such thing as "naturally thin".
How is there not? There absolutely is people who are naturally thin within putting any effort into it. It's scientifically proven. It's called a high metabolism. Some people are gifted.
But "high metabolism" is just not that magic. It's just one of a number of potential contributing factors, at least several other common ones of which are of similar caloric magnitude.
200 to 600 calories is huge if those are calories you can't eat. On the flip side, it's easy to eat them. 200 (the more common variant) is half a mocha latte. 600 is around 3T of peanut butter.
Posts like the one just above make it sound like high metabolism is a magic bullet. It's not. Is it a help? Absolutely.
And the thought that it's a magic bullet becomes part of some people's self justification for staying fat, just like "too old", "hypothyroid", "short", "hate exercise", and more. Any of those can contribute to how hard or easy it is to lose weight, no question. But they don't make as much difference, numerically, as some people think.
I started last year obese and at 195 pounds. (Prob had slipped from overweight to obese about 6 months earlier. ). I put on 20 pounds ish in 2015 and again in 2016. No excuses, I did that.
Why? Well 20 pounds a year is about 200 calories a day.
Anything change in that time? Yeah, menopause. Activity change? No. Eating habits change? No. Hmmm, maybe the “mythical” metabolic post menopause slowdown? (Bring on the woos).
All I know is I lost it - much slower than any calculator or MFP said I should. And I seem to be hitting maintenance at <1400 daily calories. I sure fire was less active 5 years ago and ate more than that - a lot more. And held a stable weight (just overweight by BMI) for almost a decade.
I became obese because I ate about 200 extra calories than my body used a day: basic CICO. But what frustrates me is reading post after post dismissing metabolism as a possible cause when I know for a fact in some cases (mine for example, and I really doubt I’m an outlier- just at the slow end of normal) the whole problem is a slow metabolism.
No excuses, I did the hangry making work and I lost that weight and am 3 pounds above a normal BMI weight now (Basically where I was for the decade prior to menopause). But I had to eat 1200 calories for an average loss of less than a pound a week. And maintenance seems to be settling at 1350ish (hoping and praying I’m wrong, but 2 weeks stable at that calorie intake indicates that’s the hand I’m dealt).
So, me? I naturally really have huge empathy for others who have to deal with the fact that they experience a 20 pound weight gain a year from the ‘small factor’ of 200 extra calories a day they would have if their metabolism were not on the slower side. It isn’t an excuse, but it is an unfortunate challenge and extra hurdle.
And the MFP forum standard dismissal of this slower end metabolism reality for many people as ‘woo’ or just a small factor - well frankly if you want people like that to give up, or feel that their struggles are trivial and/or trivialized, then you are taking the right approach.
I’m sorry Ann, and I won’t stalk you on this subject any further. But I respect you, and you seem reasonable so I wanted to try to communicate with someone on MFP that ... well ... that there are significant number of people in that low end of the metabolic bell curve - maybe not statistically significant but a whole lot of folks for whom 100 or 200 calories a day IS indeed likely the difference between obesity and healthy weight. And I sure do hope they don’t come to these forums much.7 -
5738_Cassiel wrote: »I must have a different perception than most here.
To me, being “thin” means being underweight. With that meaning, IMO, being “naturally thin” (ie, naturally underweight) is quite rare. Many underweight people are underweight for reasons other than through nature (eg, because of an ED or metabolic disorder, because of stress, because of not having enough food to go round etc) and when these reasons are corrected, they put on weight.
If we are talking about being “naturally at a healthy weight”, neither thin nor fat, then yes, a lot of people can manage their weight very well because of all the reasons already stated in this thread (eg, because more active, because not liking the feeling of fullness, because of conscious weight management etc).
Hmmm, when I envision naturally thin, I think of someone who is still within a healthy weight, just at the lower end, you know?
What do you mean by “lower end”? BMI type of lower end? So 18.5-19?
If so, I still think the lower you go, the rarer it becomes for someone to be naturally thin. I think most people at a healthy weight sit in the middle of the range (21-22 or so) unless they’re consciously trying to stay as low as possible. Those who are at the lower end would have a smaller frame size.
When it comes to those at the very bottom of the BMI scale, you also need to include people with medical conditions (does that count as natural or not?). The skinniest people I know both have GI issues.0 -
The thing with the low metabolism thing -- which REALLY seems like a separate issue for the reasons I mentioned above -- is that IF one's metabolism is slower one is using fewer calories, and IF one's metabolism is higher one is using more calories, all else equal. So neither is in a preferred position. The slower metabolism person needs fewer calories and if hungrier it's mental hunger, not a result of the fewer calories. It's the same as claiming that a big guy can't be hungry or struggle with weight loss because he gets 4000 calories or whatever -- of course that's not true.
Beyond that, "natural" metabolism is only a small factor (and hard to tease out) because other things matter. One mentioned above is natural movements (which is likely a big reason why "metabolisms" differ), like fidgeting or the like. Another is daily movement. Getting an additional 200 calories per day seems not to hard, as you can do that by adding walking. I realized when I ran the numbers that I'd been in denial about my likely TDEE before I gained weight (not that I knew the word TDEE), as I'd assumed it was like 2000 calories, and I was super active for ages before. And then, for various reasons, I stopped being active and was essentially sedentary and gained rapidly, because I didn't change what I was eating.
Anyway, when I ran the numbers over and over (since I couldn't believe MFP was telling me my calories should be 1200), I realized that at a healthy weight, if sedentary, my calories likely WOULD be 1550 or so (assuming I was average -- the one test I've had put my RMR a bit below average, but I don't know that I trust it). Anyway, that seemed unacceptable to me and I knew I probably would not be able to workout hard every day, so I looked instead at what it would be if I were just lightly active, and saw 1800 or so, and figured that would be okay for a rest day, and so just decided to arrange my life so I would at least have those extra calories. That was consistent with my weight loss plan anyway, since the very first thing I did, even before starting to work out regularly, was to decide I would walk a lot more, absolutely everywhere I could, which was a lot since I'm in a city, and I think is why I did lose faster than MFP said I would -- since I'd said sedentary (without exercise) and my job is, and yet I routinely got well over 10K steps, usually more like 15K, when I tracked.
Point being that "metabolism" as in TDEE is not just a thing and also the issue isn't how many calories one gets alone, but how many calories one gets vs. one wants/eats. Again, you can have a high metabolism and a mismatch or a low metabolism and a perfect match. Some of the "naturally thin" people I know aren't active at all and don't eat much, they may have quite low TDEEs.4 -
[quote=
Thinking of food as math and budgeting it like money was a very effective tool for me, tbh.[/quote]
I love this!
1 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Metabolism is for sure a factor - one of many.
But so-called "high metabolism", as an explanation of why some people are allegedly "naturally thin", is neither a necessary condition, nor a sufficient one.
It's not a necessary condition, because some people stay thin lifelong with slower metabolisms: They have active lives, strong satiation cues, little interest in food/eating, strong desire to stay thin and the self-discipline to white-knuckle that desire, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
It's not a sufficient condition, because some people get fat despite a faster metabolism. They're sedentary, have poor satiation cues, can't resist eating as much as larger spouses/peers, adore food and eating, have some emotional reason for overeating, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
We see posts like this:CatchMom13 wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »There is no such thing as "naturally thin".
How is there not? There absolutely is people who are naturally thin within putting any effort into it. It's scientifically proven. It's called a high metabolism. Some people are gifted.
But "high metabolism" is just not that magic. It's just one of a number of potential contributing factors, at least several other common ones of which are of similar caloric magnitude.
200 to 600 calories is huge if those are calories you can't eat. On the flip side, it's easy to eat them. 200 (the more common variant) is half a mocha latte. 600 is around 3T of peanut butter.
Posts like the one just above make it sound like high metabolism is a magic bullet. It's not. Is it a help? Absolutely.
And the thought that it's a magic bullet becomes part of some people's self justification for staying fat, just like "too old", "hypothyroid", "short", "hate exercise", and more. Any of those can contribute to how hard or easy it is to lose weight, no question. But they don't make as much difference, numerically, as some people think.
I started last year obese and at 195 pounds. (Prob had slipped from overweight to obese about 6 months earlier. ). I put on 20 pounds ish in 2015 and again in 2016. No excuses, I did that.
Why? Well 20 pounds a year is about 200 calories a day.
Anything change in that time? Yeah, menopause. Activity change? No. Eating habits change? No. Hmmm, maybe the “mythical” metabolic post menopause slowdown? (Bring on the woos).
All I know is I lost it - much slower than any calculator or MFP said I should. And I seem to be hitting maintenance at <1400 daily calories. I sure fire was less active 5 years ago and ate more than that - a lot more. And held a stable weight (just overweight by BMI) for almost a decade.
I became obese because I ate about 200 extra calories than my body used a day: basic CICO. But what frustrates me is reading post after post dismissing metabolism as a possible cause when I know for a fact in some cases (mine for example, and I really doubt I’m an outlier- just at the slow end of normal) the whole problem is a slow metabolism.
No excuses, I did the hangry making work and I lost that weight and am 3 pounds above a normal BMI weight now (Basically where I was for the decade prior to menopause). But I had to eat 1200 calories for an average loss of less than a pound a week. And maintenance seems to be settling at 1350ish (hoping and praying I’m wrong, but 2 weeks stable at that calorie intake indicates that’s the hand I’m dealt).
So, me? I naturally really have huge empathy for others who have to deal with the fact that they experience a 20 pound weight gain a year from the ‘small factor’ of 200 extra calories a day they would have if their metabolism were not on the slower side. It isn’t an excuse, but it is an unfortunate challenge and extra hurdle.
And the MFP forum standard dismissal of this slower end metabolism reality for many people as ‘woo’ or just a small factor - well frankly if you want people like that to give up, or feel that their struggles are trivial and/or trivialized, then you are taking the right approach.
I’m sorry Ann, and I won’t stalk you on this subject any further. But I respect you, and you seem reasonable so I wanted to try to communicate with someone on MFP that ... well ... that there are significant number of people in that low end of the metabolic bell curve - maybe not statistically significant but a whole lot of folks for whom 100 or 200 calories a day IS indeed likely the difference between obesity and healthy weight. And I sure do hope they don’t come to these forums much.
I don't think that people mean to woo the idea that the slow end of the metabolism scale exists, but it's more that there's a tendency to assume that most people who think that they are on the slow end likely aren't, because it's just such a common excuse for not losing weight among people who don't really understand CICO.* You don't really see the reverse much probably because it's just a lot more common for people to underestimate calories in and overestimate calories out, and because people rarely post to complain about losing too fast (although it does happen). If I recall correctly, you're also somewhat older and shorter, right? It makes sense that those few hundred calories make a lot more difference on that end of things. I get why it makes sense to start with the most common answers when the question is "why aren't I losing," but it's good to be reminded that some people really do struggle more than others for reasons outside their control.
*ETA: I was one of those people who thought they had a slow metabolism because that's what I'd always heard from my mom about why she couldn't lose weight, even though I actually stayed a pretty stable weight for most of my teens and twenties (usually just above the normal BMI). I clearly had no idea what I was talking about.3 -
My parents were both thin and food for them was just a necessity to stay alive. They didn't plan events focused on food, instead they'd plan fishing or camping trips. They'd go to the park for walks or to a nearby festival to look at the crafts and just enjoy themselves. They even noticed the difference in how they thought about food compared to others. They said some people live to eat while they simply ate to live. My dad eats hot dogs and sweets almost daily but his meals are small and he's very active, even in his mid 70s. For me, I was introduced to good food when I met my husband's family. All of their events centered on big meals. I liked that! Ha but I gained 50 pounds over the years and have struggled since to have a better relationship with food and not center every weekend adventure or family gathering around eating too much.
See that's what's different about some people and families. Some think of going out to eat as the major treat in their lives or going to the movies. They dont really do active activities except maybe shopping.1 -
gebeziseva wrote: »I was naturally thin up until several years. And then I quit smoking. Now I'm no longer naturally thin. I lost the gained weight but can no longer maintain without depriving myself.
Where my brain was craving a cigarette is now craving food. Even after almost 3 years not smoking. I have no desire to light up now. But I think of food every couple of minutes. I don't think I will be naturally thin ever again.
I used to smoke around 40 cigs a day for 20 years. My brain is sadly ruined by that.
The fact that due to health issues I'm completely sedentiary and maintain at 1500cals doesn't help at all. I used to be able to exercise a bit but now I can't.
I'm really strugling.
I think i read that nicotine lowers your set point so you tend to weigh less.
7 -
WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »I was naturally thin up until several years. And then I quit smoking. Now I'm no longer naturally thin. I lost the gained weight but can no longer maintain without depriving myself.
Where my brain was craving a cigarette is now craving food. Even after almost 3 years not smoking. I have no desire to light up now. But I think of food every couple of minutes. I don't think I will be naturally thin ever again.
I used to smoke around 40 cigs a day for 20 years. My brain is sadly ruined by that.
The fact that due to health issues I'm completely sedentiary and maintain at 1500cals doesn't help at all. I used to be able to exercise a bit but now I can't.
I'm really strugling.
I think i read that nicotine lowers your set point so you tend to weigh less.
I think it's more a matter of, if you are sticking a cigarette in your piehole, it makes it a little more difficult to stick in pie. YMMV.6 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
2 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Metabolism is for sure a factor - one of many.
But so-called "high metabolism", as an explanation of why some people are allegedly "naturally thin", is neither a necessary condition, nor a sufficient one.
It's not a necessary condition, because some people stay thin lifelong with slower metabolisms: They have active lives, strong satiation cues, little interest in food/eating, strong desire to stay thin and the self-discipline to white-knuckle that desire, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
It's not a sufficient condition, because some people get fat despite a faster metabolism. They're sedentary, have poor satiation cues, can't resist eating as much as larger spouses/peers, adore food and eating, have some emotional reason for overeating, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
We see posts like this:CatchMom13 wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »There is no such thing as "naturally thin".
How is there not? There absolutely is people who are naturally thin within putting any effort into it. It's scientifically proven. It's called a high metabolism. Some people are gifted.
But "high metabolism" is just not that magic. It's just one of a number of potential contributing factors, at least several other common ones of which are of similar caloric magnitude.
200 to 600 calories is huge if those are calories you can't eat. On the flip side, it's easy to eat them. 200 (the more common variant) is half a mocha latte. 600 is around 3T of peanut butter.
Posts like the one just above make it sound like high metabolism is a magic bullet. It's not. Is it a help? Absolutely.
And the thought that it's a magic bullet becomes part of some people's self justification for staying fat, just like "too old", "hypothyroid", "short", "hate exercise", and more. Any of those can contribute to how hard or easy it is to lose weight, no question. But they don't make as much difference, numerically, as some people think.
I started last year obese and at 195 pounds. (Prob had slipped from overweight to obese about 6 months earlier. ). I put on 20 pounds ish in 2015 and again in 2016. No excuses, I did that.
Why? Well 20 pounds a year is about 200 calories a day.
Anything change in that time? Yeah, menopause. Activity change? No. Eating habits change? No. Hmmm, maybe the “mythical” metabolic post menopause slowdown? (Bring on the woos).
All I know is I lost it - much slower than any calculator or MFP said I should. And I seem to be hitting maintenance at <1400 daily calories. I sure fire was less active 5 years ago and ate more than that - a lot more. And held a stable weight (just overweight by BMI) for almost a decade.
I became obese because I ate about 200 extra calories than my body used a day: basic CICO. But what frustrates me is reading post after post dismissing metabolism as a possible cause when I know for a fact in some cases (mine for example, and I really doubt I’m an outlier- just at the slow end of normal) the whole problem is a slow metabolism.
No excuses, I did the hangry making work and I lost that weight and am 3 pounds above a normal BMI weight now (Basically where I was for the decade prior to menopause). But I had to eat 1200 calories for an average loss of less than a pound a week. And maintenance seems to be settling at 1350ish (hoping and praying I’m wrong, but 2 weeks stable at that calorie intake indicates that’s the hand I’m dealt).
So, me? I naturally really have huge empathy for others who have to deal with the fact that they experience a 20 pound weight gain a year from the ‘small factor’ of 200 extra calories a day they would have if their metabolism were not on the slower side. It isn’t an excuse, but it is an unfortunate challenge and extra hurdle.
And the MFP forum standard dismissal of this slower end metabolism reality for many people as ‘woo’ or just a small factor - well frankly if you want people like that to give up, or feel that their struggles are trivial and/or trivialized, then you are taking the right approach.
I’m sorry Ann, and I won’t stalk you on this subject any further. But I respect you, and you seem reasonable so I wanted to try to communicate with someone on MFP that ... well ... that there are significant number of people in that low end of the metabolic bell curve - maybe not statistically significant but a whole lot of folks for whom 100 or 200 calories a day IS indeed likely the difference between obesity and healthy weight. And I sure do hope they don’t come to these forums much.
I don't think that people mean to woo the idea that the slow end of the metabolism scale exists, but it's more that there's a tendency to assume that most people who think that they are on the slow end likely aren't, because it's just such a common excuse for not losing weight among people who don't really understand CICO.* You don't really see the reverse much probably because it's just a lot more common for people to underestimate calories in and overestimate calories out, and because people rarely post to complain about losing too fast (although it does happen). If I recall correctly, you're also somewhat older and shorter, right? It makes sense that those few hundred calories make a lot more difference on that end of things. I get why it makes sense to start with the most common answers when the question is "why aren't I losing," but it's good to be reminded that some people really do struggle more than others for reasons outside their control.
*ETA: I was one of those people who thought they had a slow metabolism because that's what I'd always heard from my mom about why she couldn't lose weight, even though I actually stayed a pretty stable weight for most of my teens and twenties (usually just above the normal BMI). I clearly had no idea what I was talking about.
I think this is valid - my mom is a good example of someone who claims to have a low metabolism, but has no way of knowing because she won't face the reality of CICO. After seeing my successful weight loss she asked me to help her set up a MFP account, and I said she should start off slowly at half a pound a week. It gave her 1600 calories or thereabouts, and she said, "Oh, if I ate that much food I would gain a pound a day!" And never bothered going back to the program.
Well... she eats a ton of food a day. I challenged her to just log what she ate for a week without changes, and she said she would but then didn't. But I have lived with her. I know my normal weight husband from a normal weight family used to secretly take his plate outside and scrape two thirds of it off into the trash when he ate at our house because the volume of food we ate at a meal quite literally sickened him. He would tell my mother he wasn't hungry and to give him a small amount, and she would give him enough for four people - unlike the rest of us who were eating enough for six people. I don't live at home anymore, but considering my mom has mentioned she eats a large Wendy's fry every day on the way home from dance class, and regularly picks up and eats an entire box of chocolate when she is "trying to lose weight," but "just needed a little something" to make her feel better about stress of some sort, my mom probably has a great metabolism. I know my metabolism is fine, considering - when I log properly I lose at more than the expected rate.
I think it's been demonstrated by many, many studies that there are definitely physical differences between different people which make it easier for some to maintain a normal weight. Everything from gut biome to hunger hormones. But I also think that it's very tempting for people to self diagnose themselves as being in some special group instead of just doing the work of logging.3 -
French_Peasant wrote: »WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »I was naturally thin up until several years. And then I quit smoking. Now I'm no longer naturally thin. I lost the gained weight but can no longer maintain without depriving myself.
Where my brain was craving a cigarette is now craving food. Even after almost 3 years not smoking. I have no desire to light up now. But I think of food every couple of minutes. I don't think I will be naturally thin ever again.
I used to smoke around 40 cigs a day for 20 years. My brain is sadly ruined by that.
The fact that due to health issues I'm completely sedentiary and maintain at 1500cals doesn't help at all. I used to be able to exercise a bit but now I can't.
I'm really strugling.
I think i read that nicotine lowers your set point so you tend to weigh less.
I think it's more a matter of, if you are sticking a cigarette in your piehole, it makes it a little more difficult to stick in pie. YMMV.
Nicotine is also known to be an appetite suppressant. I know it functioned that way for me when I used to smoke.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »I was naturally thin up until several years. And then I quit smoking. Now I'm no longer naturally thin. I lost the gained weight but can no longer maintain without depriving myself.
Where my brain was craving a cigarette is now craving food. Even after almost 3 years not smoking. I have no desire to light up now. But I think of food every couple of minutes. I don't think I will be naturally thin ever again.
I used to smoke around 40 cigs a day for 20 years. My brain is sadly ruined by that.
The fact that due to health issues I'm completely sedentiary and maintain at 1500cals doesn't help at all. I used to be able to exercise a bit but now I can't.
I'm really strugling.
I think i read that nicotine lowers your set point so you tend to weigh less.
I think it's more a matter of, if you are sticking a cigarette in your piehole, it makes it a little more difficult to stick in pie. YMMV.
Nicotine is also known to be an appetite suppressant. I know it functioned that way for me when I used to smoke.
Oh, definitely, and I think that is well supported in the peer reviewed literature.
I was just raising an eyebrow at the "lowering set point" concept, which does not appear to be well supported in the lit. I don't have a chance to dig too deep, but I found a rat study that looks like it functioned more as an appetite suppressant, and a study from 2002 based on 7 smokers who were doing some kind of self-reporting and then it was claimed it lowered their set-point weight-wise. Looks a little shady to me. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12126990
3 -
French_Peasant wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »I was naturally thin up until several years. And then I quit smoking. Now I'm no longer naturally thin. I lost the gained weight but can no longer maintain without depriving myself.
Where my brain was craving a cigarette is now craving food. Even after almost 3 years not smoking. I have no desire to light up now. But I think of food every couple of minutes. I don't think I will be naturally thin ever again.
I used to smoke around 40 cigs a day for 20 years. My brain is sadly ruined by that.
The fact that due to health issues I'm completely sedentiary and maintain at 1500cals doesn't help at all. I used to be able to exercise a bit but now I can't.
I'm really strugling.
I think i read that nicotine lowers your set point so you tend to weigh less.
I think it's more a matter of, if you are sticking a cigarette in your piehole, it makes it a little more difficult to stick in pie. YMMV.
Nicotine is also known to be an appetite suppressant. I know it functioned that way for me when I used to smoke.
Oh, definitely, and I think that is well supported in the peer reviewed literature.
I was just raising an eyebrow at the "lowering set point" concept, which does not appear to be well supported in the lit. I don't have a chance to dig too deep, but I found a rat study that looks like it functioned more as an appetite suppressant, and a study from 2002 based on 7 smokers who were doing some kind of self-reporting and then it was claimed it lowered their set-point weight-wise. Looks a little shady to me. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12126990
Well the appetite supressant angle makes a lot of sense!0 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Metabolism is for sure a factor - one of many.
But so-called "high metabolism", as an explanation of why some people are allegedly "naturally thin", is neither a necessary condition, nor a sufficient one.
It's not a necessary condition, because some people stay thin lifelong with slower metabolisms: They have active lives, strong satiation cues, little interest in food/eating, strong desire to stay thin and the self-discipline to white-knuckle that desire, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
It's not a sufficient condition, because some people get fat despite a faster metabolism. They're sedentary, have poor satiation cues, can't resist eating as much as larger spouses/peers, adore food and eating, have some emotional reason for overeating, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
We see posts like this:CatchMom13 wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »There is no such thing as "naturally thin".
How is there not? There absolutely is people who are naturally thin within putting any effort into it. It's scientifically proven. It's called a high metabolism. Some people are gifted.
But "high metabolism" is just not that magic. It's just one of a number of potential contributing factors, at least several other common ones of which are of similar caloric magnitude.
200 to 600 calories is huge if those are calories you can't eat. On the flip side, it's easy to eat them. 200 (the more common variant) is half a mocha latte. 600 is around 3T of peanut butter.
Posts like the one just above make it sound like high metabolism is a magic bullet. It's not. Is it a help? Absolutely.
And the thought that it's a magic bullet becomes part of some people's self justification for staying fat, just like "too old", "hypothyroid", "short", "hate exercise", and more. Any of those can contribute to how hard or easy it is to lose weight, no question. But they don't make as much difference, numerically, as some people think.
I started last year obese and at 195 pounds. (Prob had slipped from overweight to obese about 6 months earlier. ). I put on 20 pounds ish in 2015 and again in 2016. No excuses, I did that.
Why? Well 20 pounds a year is about 200 calories a day.
Anything change in that time? Yeah, menopause. Activity change? No. Eating habits change? No. Hmmm, maybe the “mythical” metabolic post menopause slowdown? (Bring on the woos).
All I know is I lost it - much slower than any calculator or MFP said I should. And I seem to be hitting maintenance at <1400 daily calories. I sure fire was less active 5 years ago and ate more than that - a lot more. And held a stable weight (just overweight by BMI) for almost a decade.
I became obese because I ate about 200 extra calories than my body used a day: basic CICO. But what frustrates me is reading post after post dismissing metabolism as a possible cause when I know for a fact in some cases (mine for example, and I really doubt I’m an outlier- just at the slow end of normal) the whole problem is a slow metabolism.
No excuses, I did the hangry making work and I lost that weight and am 3 pounds above a normal BMI weight now (Basically where I was for the decade prior to menopause). But I had to eat 1200 calories for an average loss of less than a pound a week. And maintenance seems to be settling at 1350ish (hoping and praying I’m wrong, but 2 weeks stable at that calorie intake indicates that’s the hand I’m dealt).
So, me? I naturally really have huge empathy for others who have to deal with the fact that they experience a 20 pound weight gain a year from the ‘small factor’ of 200 extra calories a day they would have if their metabolism were not on the slower side. It isn’t an excuse, but it is an unfortunate challenge and extra hurdle.
And the MFP forum standard dismissal of this slower end metabolism reality for many people as ‘woo’ or just a small factor - well frankly if you want people like that to give up, or feel that their struggles are trivial and/or trivialized, then you are taking the right approach.
I’m sorry Ann, and I won’t stalk you on this subject any further. But I respect you, and you seem reasonable so I wanted to try to communicate with someone on MFP that ... well ... that there are significant number of people in that low end of the metabolic bell curve - maybe not statistically significant but a whole lot of folks for whom 100 or 200 calories a day IS indeed likely the difference between obesity and healthy weight. And I sure do hope they don’t come to these forums much.
I don't mean to dismiss or discourage anyone. I'm sorry I'm discouraging you or others like you. It's just that I don't know how to accomplish that, given what you've said, unless I stop telling my truth.
I am routinely saying that those calories are a big deal for people on the unlucky side of the bell curve. People like you need to target the same macros at the same body size, but have less wiggle room to get them all in. You need to eat that much less (a bigger gap) compared to others around you who may be bigger or more active. Moreover, you have to eat less than people of the same size in order to maintain the same weight. That s**ks.
I think you may've seen me come into threads where I feel someone is being criticized or diminished as logging inaccurately or even lying, to say that they may instead be on the unlucky side of the bell curve and deserve consideration of that possibility. Certainly, I've done this multiple times.
I don't know, from the standpoint of hunger and satiety, that we can draw any conclusions, for reasons @lemurcat12 outlined very well above. Simplistically, a person who requires 400 more calories may get hungry 400 calories sooner, and struggle just as hard in that way to stay in calorie goal - there's no way to know.
What I feel like is getting lost in how you're presenting it is that we all have feelings and experiences, and I think the right to speak about them honestly.
I long assumed I had a "slow metabolism". I was obese (183 when I started losing, but up into the 190s at other times). I was much more active workout-wise in recent years than many similar-height but thinner people around me who seemed to eat as much as I did. I was "older" (59 when I started weight loss for serious). I was then almost 15 years past chemotherapy-induced menopause (age 45), and had been on anti-estrogen drugs for 7.5 years of that, which makes a person sort of hyper-menopausal - weight gain is one common side effect of those drugs. I was hypothyroid. I won't call myself short, at 5'5", but I'm not tall. From a brief period of non-obesity in college, I knew I had a small frame.
Only when I started losing weight did I discover that I was on the lucky side of the bell curve, though I have no idea why. I can eat several hundred more calories daily than I "should" be able to. I'm grateful. I routinely say that I feel very lucky, and I don't indulge here in "I can eat X therefore so can you" (the opposite, in fact).
But when people (like one I quoted above) essentially say a high metabolism makes it possible to stay thin without putting in any effort, I think I'm entitled to tell my truth.
I became obese despite a "high metabolism". It was easy to do so. When people say it should've been no effort for people like me to stay thin, they are dismissing and trivializing people like me. Are they implying that we're lazy gluttons, that's why we got fat? Do I need to keep quiet?
Beyond that, because of the circumstances outlined above, I truly believed I had a slow metabolism. In retrospect, that was incorrect, but - given my circumstances - I don't think it was irrational. I think it's a true and accurate representation of my truth to say that metabolism is not the magic bullet that some people seem to believe. A big factor, certainly, but one of at least several.
I don't think I should feel obligated to suppress my feelings or experiences, presented as sensitively, carefully and sympathetically as I can manage.12 -
.Most of the people I know who have always been at a healthy weight work at it. They talk about health and healthy foods a lot. They make an effort to exercise regularly, not for weight loss but because it's good for them, helps them manage stress. They try to eat healthy because they feel better that way. They frequently talk about wanting to lose those pesky 5 pounds.
It's perhaps a mindset, but it isn't one that is far off from what MFP is all about: eat right and be active.
I’ve been “accused” of being naturally thin with “good genes”. I laughed. I maintained in about a ten pound range for 30 years. Then the 50’s came and I maintained in a 15 pound range. By 60 I was up 20 pounds. To me, that was really really high. Now I’ve lost 15 and am back in my normal range, with more work than in the past. And have 5# of, to me, “non-vanity” weight to be fit.
I also need to exercise and love it. I’ve worked out my whole life, from jogging for decades, to now biking inside every morning and rowing, with a twice a week strength and endurance class after work.
Exercise and fitting into my jeans have been my tools. But at 10-20# up a switch gets flipped and my weight is “unacceptable” and I lose some. It isn’t easy, however.
1 -
fiddletime wrote: »
.Most of the people I know who have always been at a healthy weight work at it. They talk about health and healthy foods a lot. They make an effort to exercise regularly, not for weight loss but because it's good for them, helps them manage stress. They try to eat healthy because they feel better that way. They frequently talk about wanting to lose those pesky 5 pounds.
It's perhaps a mindset, but it isn't one that is far off from what MFP is all about: eat right and be active.
I’ve been “accused” of being naturally thin with “good genes”. I laughed. I maintained in about a ten pound range for 30 years. Then the 50’s came and I maintained in a 15 pound range. By 60 I was up 20 pounds. To me, that was really really high. Now I’ve lost 15 and am back in my normal range, with more work than in the past. And have 5# of, to me, “non-vanity” weight to be fit.
I also need to exercise and love it. I’ve worked out my whole life, from jogging for decades, to now biking inside every morning and rowing, with a twice a week strength and endurance class after work.
Exercise and fitting into my jeans have been my tools. But at 10-20# up a switch gets flipped and my weight is “unacceptable” and I lose some. It isn’t easy, however.
Looking at your profile pic I would not have guessed you were over 60, so you're doing something right!2 -
In my mind- it’s more normal to eat more than you need to. It seems like it would be a survival instinct to eat as much as possible because who knows when we might get another meal. “ Cave man times” and all that. Maybe I’m wrong.CattOfTheGarage wrote: »All the "naturally thin" people I know (my husband and all my in-laws) genuinely don't want food if they're not hungry. That's the main difference I notice.
They also get antsy when they have eaten a lot, and want to get up and go for a long walk or something. It's not necessarily the same day, might be the following day, but it happens. They also eat less on following days.
It's not a difference in how they and I *think*. They barely think about it at all. It's a difference in feelings and reactions.
Intuitive eating like that just blows my mind. I know a lot of people like this. The concept of body and mind being so in tune and autoregulating the calorie intake and expendurw without much concious awareness of the process! That's how our bodies are supposed to.work idea. But I don't think i'll ever be alble to learn this. I've had disordered eating since I was 10 and later a full blown ED. My hunger cues are forever messed up. Still I often dream that some day I'll ve able to mentain not trough logging, not even through habit but intuitively.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
We're all from the same tribe when you put a pizza in front of us.4
-
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
OK, my knowledge of stats sucks (and I have proof that confirms that!)
However.... using the abstract sited:
8% co-efficient of variation (defined according to wikepedia as standard deviation divided by mean) for resting metabolic rate.
Let's assume a 1500 RMR (slightly lower than my MFP BMR of 1518, just for ease of number crunching).
Using 8% co-efficient of variation, this means a standard deviation of 120 Cal.
Which means that a person who is TWO standard deviations from the mean would be 240 Cal away
So 2.5% of the population would be at 1260BMR instead of 1500. and 2.5% of the population at 1740 instead of 1500. And 95% in-between assuming a normal distribution.
I am a very active person on MFP (actually exceed that most of the time). That is an activity factor of 1.8 on MFP.
1260 x 1.8 = 2268
1500 x 1.8 = 2700 and
1740 x 1.8 = 3131 (for the lucky people on the other end of the spectrum)
So same activity, same "expected BMR", and at the margins of what the quoted abstract lists we have one PAV8888 eating 2268 Cal to maintain and at the other end a different but identically active PAV8888 eating 3131 to maintain!
I don't call that a SMALL difference.
You then ADD to that a 1-2% exercise energy expenditure coefficient of variation. And even better, according to that paper, the one that so many people around here seem to believe is minor, a 20% coefficient of variation for diet-induced thermogenesis.
Now, according to that paper's summary, regardless of all that, the people they stuck in a metabolic chamber all pretty much ended up within a 5% to 10% coefficient of variation for the whole day (so all the PAV8888s in the metabolic chamber ranged, using the 10% figure, from a TDEE of 2430 to 2970 due to their non-exercise activity habits... which is less than I demonstrate above, but which is still an extra meal!)
So... what am I mis-reading? *I am on phone and have only accessed the abstract*
(And no, when I was gaining weight it wasn't because my metabolism was slow. It was because I was both inactive and eating more calories on average than I do now that I am multiple times more active. My actual base metabolism IS actually slower now.)5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions