Do naturally thin people actually think different?
Replies
-
some people enjoy food , and are more hungry than other people and those other people are thin because they are not always hungry and thinking about food.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.
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.)
Wow, I don’t truly understand applies statistics (standard deviation and all that) and I suck at math. Thank you so much for doing that. I knew it was a huge difference even if it was merely 200 calories but 600+ yup, an extra meal a day!
Gosh, I’m getting depressed just thinking about it. I’m going to make some herbal tea now and pretend that I’m not hungry until dinner. And this is maintenance, Sigh.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.)
Wow, I don’t truly understand applies statistics (standard deviation and all that) and I suck at math. Thank you so much for doing that. I knew it was a huge difference even if it was merely 200 calories but 600+ yup, an extra meal a day!
Gosh, I’m getting depressed just thinking about it. I’m going to make some herbal tea now and pretend that I’m not hungry until dinner. And this is maintenance, Sigh.
Well, the point is not to get depressed. There is nothing to gain by that.
The point is to recognize issues and reality and formulate strategies to cope.
I can eat all I want, watch tv and read books all I want, and be obese.
I can moderate what I eat most of the time, walk and listen to audiobooks, and be normal weight.
And I can take care to ensure that I lose weight carefully so as to avoid any extra adaptation as much as possible...
Which is what I have done / am trying to do based on what i knew at the time and modified based on what i subsequently discover 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.)
Okay, maybe I am misreading, and it's frustrating we only have the abstract, but I am reading those stats as for ALL humans, not merely people of the exact same size.
Also, that people vary in RMR doesn't mean that they will vary proportionally when you use the multiplier -- no reason why someone with a slightly higher or lower sedentary metabolism wouldn't get the same credit for actual activity. So I think applying it to the multiplier here wouldn't necessarily follow.
If someone of that size is usually 1500 sedentary and gets 1200 extra calories for movement that = active, then it would seem to follow that someone with a 2 deviation from the mean metabolism (on the low side) would have a 2450 TDEE (vs. 2700) for being active, all else equal (and assuming we are comparing like size to like size, which seems unclear to me).
The abstract points out that the MAIN difference between people, which can be significant, is non exercise daily movement, not differences in RMR. That's mostly about how much you actually move.3 -
lemurcat12 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.
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.)
Okay, maybe I am misreading, and it's frustrating we only have the abstract, but I am reading those stats as for ALL humans, not merely people of the exact same size.
Also, that people vary in RMR doesn't mean that they will vary proportionally when you use the multiplier -- no reason why someone with a slightly higher or lower sedentary metabolism wouldn't get the same credit for actual activity. So I think applying it to the multiplier here wouldn't necessarily follow.
If someone of that size is usually 1500 sedentary and gets 1200 extra calories for movement that = active, then it would seem to follow that someone with a 2 deviation from the mean metabolism (on the low side) would have a 2450 TDEE (vs. 2700) for being active, all else equal (and assuming we are comparing like size to like size, which seems unclear to me).
The abstract points out that the MAIN difference between people, which can be significant, is non exercise daily movement, not differences in RMR. That's mostly about how much you actually move.
The total day metabolic chamber coefficient was 5% to 10%.
So with a mean of 2000, and 10% coefficient of variation, i.e. 200 Cal standard deviation: 2 standard deviation down is 1600 and 2 up is 2400. (I have an arithmetic error in my metabolic chamber tdee PAV8888 above, the whole day values should be more spread)
So 2.5% of your 2000 a day tdee peops are at 1600 and 2.5% of your 2000 a day peops are actually at 2400. 95% are in between with most clustered in the 1800 to 2200 range.
Nothing earth shattering. People do vary and some of us ARE more efficient at operating on less calories.
Which sucks if you like cookies on one end and sucks just as bad if you're a "hard gainer" who only wants to eat clean vegetables sitting on the other end!
2 -
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.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.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.
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.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.
So you're saying they looked at a whole whack of random people and found that more or less people eat 1600 to 2400 Cal sort of thing?
Like... as a population?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.
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.)
Additionally, I think it's misleading to stack all the pluses on one side, and all the minuses on the other.
Maybe that sets a theoretical range (?) on top of our corrected view of BMR variability, but even if so I think not a practical one. The probability of all plus or all minus in each contributing component would be pretty low, i.e. you'd be way out at an improbable extreme of outlier-hood (like twitchy, daily-active, high exercising, optimal food eating people, vs. their exact opposites). Out there, the population is vanishingly thin (no pun intended).3 -
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.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.
Thank you for all of this . . . and apologies for opening a can of worms. I'm still poking around, and will include checking in my institutional access if necessary, to see if I can get full text. I'll STFU now on this sub-thread, unless/until I do. I think I misinterpreted the Examine article, too, and need to think harder. I'm not always correct, but try to be educable.
Again, thanks, and apologies, apologies, apologies!3 -
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.)
Additionally, I think it's misleading to stack all the pluses on one side, and all the minuses on the other.
Maybe that sets a theoretical range (?) on top of our corrected view of BMR variability, but even if so I think not a practical one. The probability of all plus or all minus in each contributing component would be pretty low, i.e. you'd be way out at an improbable extreme of outlier-hood (like twitchy, daily-active, high exercising, optimal food eating people, vs. their exact opposites). Out there, the population is vanishingly thin (no pun intended).
You're right that random + and - would cancel, not add up.
My base disagreement is with characterising as marginally small.
Accepting that an issue exists does not mean giving up in disgust. It means finding ways to counter act.
Calling it insignificant minimizes instead of recognizes the effort that some people may have to make.
200 even 500 Cal is not insurmountable. But it is not nothing, and thus worth spending some time trying to mitigate.2 -
alwaysbloated wrote: »
This was long, and a but repetitive (seemingly multiple episodes tacked together), but very on point and interesting. Thanks for bringing it in.2 -
Which sucks if you like cookies on one end and sucks just as bad if you're a "hard gainer" who only wants to eat clean vegetables sitting on the other end!
Yeah, that's pretty much my point. I don't think the "naturally thin" thing is really about one's RMR or variations in it compared to others.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.
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.)
Wow, I don’t truly understand applies statistics (standard deviation and all that) and I suck at math. Thank you so much for doing that. I knew it was a huge difference even if it was merely 200 calories but 600+ yup, an extra meal a day!
Gosh, I’m getting depressed just thinking about it. I’m going to make some herbal tea now and pretend that I’m not hungry until dinner. And this is maintenance, Sigh.
Well, the point is not to get depressed. There is nothing to gain by that.
The point is to recognize issues and reality and formulate str
I can eat all I want, watch tv and read books all I want, and be obese.
I can moderate what I eat most of the time, walk and listen to audiobooks, and be normal weight.
And I can take care to ensure that I lose weight carefully so as to avoid any extra adaptation as much as possible...
Which is what I have done / am trying to do based on what i knew at the time and modified based on what i subsequently discover
That's why I got 90 lbs overweight. I ate everything I wanted. Then I was put on a medication that changes metabolism and other things and gained another 90.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
I’m naturally average, I’m 172cm and was 135 at my heaviest in university. All my teen years of overeating KFC multiple times a week had caught up to me. I never exercised, but I did walk from one class to another? My friends would say if they ate like me they’d be a lot heavier. I’m also the friend that finishes up other people’s meals when they can’t finish.
BUT my metabolism is slowing with age. I never really gained noticeable holiday weight, but this last summer in Italy I went from 123 to 133lb and didn’t come back down since. Ate and drank just as much as I did the last time I was in Italy, walked even more.
Eating was and still is the best part of my day, I’m always thinking about the next meal, and this diet thing is really really hard. I’m used to feeling stuffed, and really want all-you-can-eat Korean BBQ.3 -
My husband is "naturally thin" he only eats one meal a day, that's his natural appetite. He eats mostly junk food but when I sat down and calculated the calories they were within maintenance for a 6ft man. He's also very active, I bought his a fitbit for xmass and he clocks 20 000 steps most days without even trying. He's always been into sports and playing various different things depending on time of the year and he honestly never sits down until late evening. He has ADHD and is always go go go. People like at him about being so "lucky" that he gets to eat what he wants and never gain weight (even he believes that), but realistically he is just such a naturally active and not hungry person and that's the only reason he's lean. I've also been effortlessly thin my whole life.. . Until I became pregnant with my second and was put on bed rest and gained 20 pounds. Turns out I was also just a naturally active person who burned lots of unintentional calories6
-
I'm a life-long thin person and I enjoy food. It's not just "fuel" to me. I love to cook and I take pleasure is savoring delicious dishes. But I'm also somewhat selective about what goes in my face. I don't waste my calories on random crap that doesn't taste great and/or fill a nutritional need. (I'd rather bake delicious homemade cookies than eat blah packaged ones, for example.)
But I also enjoy lots of physical activity, I don't mindlessly eat out of boredom, and I don't feel shame or guilt regarding food, nor do I eat to soothe negative emotions.
Not sure if that's a different mindset from non-thin people, but that's my mindset...3 -
elisa123gal wrote: »some people enjoy food , and are more hungry than other people and those other people are thin because they are not always hungry and thinking about food.
I for one love food and am very, very often hungry/thinking about food, but I save indulgent foods for rare treats, and I tell myself often that it's ok to feel hungry and not immediately eat. Sometimes you just have to feel hungry. I make a conscious effort to eat slowly and recognize as soon as I'm not "hungry" (not even "full") when eating, because if I continue I will wind up feeling overfull and sick. Some of that is just good luck I think - that I don't like feeling too full - but I've also noticed that the more you make yourself consciously recognize when you're no longer hungry and eat smaller portions, the easier it becomes to stop eating after a smaller portion.
In short - I assure you that many naturally thin people love food and feel hungry often. Of course there are others who don't as well.3 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »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, it is called behavior. There is no significant in metabolism between two people of the same height, weight, and activity level.
Well, I would call 200 to 600 calories a day significant.
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
Compare that to the differences in neat between people where your job and general activity during the day can make up double and triple that.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.
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.)
The thing is that this distribution is for the whole population. You have in there sub 5' tall grannies as well as 7' tall high school basketballers. That's the main cause of the distribution, the boring old "more mass equals more BMR".4 -
Well, most thin people do say they forget to eat or they're not really interested as much.. which makes them NOT naturally thin, they're just consuming far fewer calories. I'm sure people think I'm "naturally thin" too because they don't see the meal planning and hard work I put in at the gym. I don't believe naturally thin exists. When you see a thin person eating a ton of food, likely they accidentally fasted the day before. I know someone who runs a lot, but running takes his appetite away. I used to have to remind him to eat constantly. Not naturally thin, just not eating, and running too much.
And as a thin person, i don't see food as anything but nourishment to keep me alive and fuel my workouts.. Though it wasn't always that way. I used to be overweight and I overate often. I had a different relationship with food and saw it as more of a comfort. Reprogramming my thinking and sorting out unhealthy attachments came with changing my entire lifestyle.6 -
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.
There wasn't any change in my thinking, just in my lifestyle.
And how do you decide a "naturally thin" person? Someone who's thin at that moment? Someone who used to be overweight but isn't anymore? If someone is like me and stopped being "naturally" thin, does their data point get removed?4 -
I think it should be "unconsciously thin" rather than "naturally thin", i.e. no conscious effort is made to stay thin, they unconsciously maintain a CI = CO balance.15
-
MonkeysForSale wrote: »I think it should be "unconsciously thin" rather than "naturally thin", i.e. no conscious effort is made to stay thin, they unconsciously maintain a CI = CO balance.
I like this description a lot better than naturally thin4 -
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.
There wasn't any change in my thinking, just in my lifestyle.
And how do you decide a "naturally thin" person? Someone who's thin at that moment? Someone who used to be overweight but isn't anymore? If someone is like me and stopped being "naturally" thin, does their data point get removed?
Okay, thank you for answering my question. To me, I would define naturally thin people by those who are able, like another person posted, to maintain a weight without a ton of conscious effort. As for you, do you feel like maintaining your current lifestyle (and subsequent body weight) is a lot of effort? If not, then I would say you're unconsciously (naturally) thin (:0 -
MonkeysForSale wrote: »I think it should be "unconsciously thin" rather than "naturally thin", i.e. no conscious effort is made to stay thin, they unconsciously maintain a CI = CO balance.
Yes, this is what I've been assuming was meant by "naturally thin."
I will add that I'm also assuming it means "no matter what the food environment."
There are many food enviroments in which I am normal weight to thin without effort (I was when younger). But I'm not naturally thin -- given the right environment (most today), I have to make a conscious effort to not overeat by adopting specific habits and mindfulness. This is not necessarily a feeling that I am expending a lot of effort, but it gets far more challenging at some times than others (i.e., my struggles with emotional eating are obviously more of an issue at some times and not others).2 -
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.
There wasn't any change in my thinking, just in my lifestyle.
And how do you decide a "naturally thin" person? Someone who's thin at that moment? Someone who used to be overweight but isn't anymore? If someone is like me and stopped being "naturally" thin, does their data point get removed?
I see naturally thin as someone who has been thin, be!is r at a healthy bmi, his or her entire life without much effort, and this does exist. I have two sisters who prove it. I have to put in a lot of effort constantly to even lose weight. I just hate feeling hungry.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.
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.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.
So you're saying they looked at a whole whack of random people and found that more or less people eat 1600 to 2400 Cal sort of thing?
Like... as a population?
Yes - this is a population study identifying the statistical distribution of BMR. Age/weight/height/gender/activity level are all variables.4 -
MonkeysForSale wrote: »I think it should be "unconsciously thin" rather than "naturally thin", i.e. no conscious effort is made to stay thin, they unconsciously maintain a CI = CO balance.
This is the perfect definition and should be posted on MFP somewhere as a reference so people are talking about the same thing.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.
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.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.
So you're saying they looked at a whole whack of random people and found that more or less people eat 1600 to 2400 Cal sort of thing?
Like... as a population?
Yes - this is a population study identifying the statistical distribution of BMR. Age/weight/height/gender/activity level are all variables.
Well... this is a tiny bit anticlimactic then!
Err... everything I said above... comparison and all that... obviously it all doesn't apply even remotely since I was barking up the wrong tree!6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoRh5-gCCrc&index=269&list=WL
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions