Do naturally thin people actually think different?

Options
12357…10

Replies

  • MegaMooseEsq
    MegaMooseEsq Posts: 3,118 Member
    Options
    gebeziseva wrote: »
    I was naturally thin up until several years. And then I quit smoking. Now I'm no longer naturally thin. I lost the gained weight but can no longer maintain without depriving myself.
    Where my brain was craving a cigarette is now craving food. Even after almost 3 years not smoking. I have no desire to light up now. But I think of food every couple of minutes. I don't think I will be naturally thin ever again.
    I used to smoke around 40 cigs a day for 20 years. My brain is sadly ruined by that.
    The fact that due to health issues I'm completely sedentiary and maintain at 1500cals doesn't help at all. I used to be able to exercise a bit but now I can't.
    I'm really strugling.

    That sounds really rough. Congratulations for quitting smoking, though - three years is huge!
  • WillingtoLose1001984
    WillingtoLose1001984 Posts: 240 Member
    Options
    pinuplove wrote: »
    My husband forgets to eat, and he's not 'naturally thin.' Just absent-minded and able to ignore hunger pangs :tongue:

    There have been many discussions here over the years along these same lines. 'Naturally thin' isn't something that can be quantified. You don't know their activity level, nor do you follow them around all day counting what they consume (I hope!) They may simply be more active and/or eat less than you imagine.

    Do some people get more enjoyment out of food than others? Certainly. Does that mean those who enjoy food to a greater degree are destined to be fat? Certainly not.

    My sister's are naturally thin and always have been. I'm not sure they forget to eat but I know they eat smaller portions than me. I never could figure out how they could eat so little. Every one ive seen who is smaller than me eats less on average all my life.
  • WillingtoLose1001984
    WillingtoLose1001984 Posts: 240 Member
    edited January 2018
    Options
    steveko89 wrote: »
    I think it's more apt to say "someone who's never been overweight thinks differently than someone who is or has been overweight".

    I also think "naturally thin" is an unproductive and unnecessary label. As others have stated, you have no idea how any given person thinks about food, nutrition, exercise nor how much effort and thought they dedicate to those pursuits. Additionally, unless you've known a person for the entirety of their life, you don't know that they haven't needed to lose or possibly even gain weight to get to the perceived ideal/healthy weight where they are now and the requisite mental effects those journeys have had.

    But there is a difference between needing to lose 10 vanity lbs and being 30 or more lbs overweight your entire life. It's a totally different ballgame. I wouldn't say I had more issues than those around me who are thinner until self consciousness came into the picture and people treated me not so great because of weight. Fat shaming is a major issue. I didn't want to go anywhere for a while because of it.
  • WillingtoLose1001984
    WillingtoLose1001984 Posts: 240 Member
    Options
    JMcGee2018 wrote: »
    From my experience, they sometimes forget to eat (what!?!) and then have this strange ability to actual STOP eating when they are full. Like they will be eating something delicious, and then all of the sudden say "I'm full" and put the fork down. It's madness!

    My sister actually hates feeling full and I love it. That is a major difference between us. She eats everything but in very small portions as well. She's 5' 10" and 130 lbs.
  • DamienAngelica
    DamienAngelica Posts: 281 Member
    Options
    I was always thin until I quit smoking. My already large appetite increased and I made terrible choices in what and how much I ate. I had the "carrying a few extra pounds is better than being a smoker" mentality and had to rewire my brain, so to speak, to get back to mindful eating and healthy habits.
  • SoDamnHungry
    SoDamnHungry Posts: 6,998 Member
    Options
    So, I'm gonna put in my two cents. I'm a "naturally thin" person (according to how this thread seems to be viewing them). I have a serious attachment to food, and I LOVE eating. I spend all day thinking about food. But I know how to eat within reason, despite once in awhile going hog wild and eating everything under the sun.

    All people think of food differently. Some obsess over it, some really don't care about it at all. Some snack all day, some just need one big meal at night. Knowing how much food to eat to maintain your body is very intuitive for some people, and for others it's extremely easy to overeat because they lack awareness of calories or they simply feel they need more food than they do. FWIW, I have never once "forgotten" to eat.
  • aniracace
    aniracace Posts: 39 Member
    Options
    jeanona wrote: »
    I must have a different perception than most here.

    To me, being “thin” means being underweight. With that meaning, IMO, being “naturally thin” (ie, naturally underweight) is quite rare. Many underweight people are underweight for reasons other than through nature (eg, because of an ED or metabolic disorder, because of stress, because of not having enough food to go round etc) and when these reasons are corrected, they put on weight.

    If we are talking about being “naturally at a healthy weight”, neither thin nor fat, then yes, a lot of people can manage their weight very well because of all the reasons already stated in this thread (eg, because more active, because not liking the feeling of fullness, because of conscious weight management etc).

    Hmmm, when I envision naturally thin, I think of someone who is still within a healthy weight, just at the lower end, you know?
  • WillingtoLose1001984
    WillingtoLose1001984 Posts: 240 Member
    Options
    MegaMooseEsq wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Yes - naturally thin people don't tend to care about food as anything but nourishment. There's zero emotional attachment to it.

    That seems like a massive generalization. Maybe you could say that thinner people are less likely to self-medicate with food, but to say they don't care about food as anything but nourishment? No way. I know lots of thin people who love food, work in the food industry, and so on. They just eat fewer or equal to the number of calories they burn. Sometimes without thinking about it, sometimes with effort.

    I don't think it's selfmedication. I was thin as a small child and started getting heavier when I started school. I loved school and had no trauma. Are you saying I and kids who are heavier are self medicating? I don't think that is generally the case. I am still pretty happy but very obese. I just have a tendency to eat too much and I hate feeling hungry. I like the full feeling. Long term medications contributed as well added an extra 90 lbs to my high weight.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Options
    CatchMom13 wrote: »
    kristen8000 wrote: »
    There is no such thing as "naturally thin".

    How is there not? There absolutely is people who are naturally thin within putting any effort into it. It's scientifically proven. It's called a high metabolism. Some people are gifted.

    No...so much no...

    Needs no+ or no^2.
  • MegaMooseEsq
    MegaMooseEsq Posts: 3,118 Member
    Options
    WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »
    MegaMooseEsq wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Yes - naturally thin people don't tend to care about food as anything but nourishment. There's zero emotional attachment to it.

    That seems like a massive generalization. Maybe you could say that thinner people are less likely to self-medicate with food, but to say they don't care about food as anything but nourishment? No way. I know lots of thin people who love food, work in the food industry, and so on. They just eat fewer or equal to the number of calories they burn. Sometimes without thinking about it, sometimes with effort.

    I don't think it's selfmedication. I was thin as a small child and started getting heavier when I started school. I loved school and had no trauma. Are you saying I and kids who are heavier are self medicating? I don't think that is generally the case. I am still pretty happy but very obese. I just have a tendency to eat too much and I hate feeling hungry. I like the full feeling. Long term medications contributed as well added an extra 90 lbs to my high weight.

    No, that wasn't what I meant,. I was specifically responding to the idea that naturally thin people don't tend to care about food, with the idea that instead, naturally thin people might be *less likely* to self-medicate with food (i.e. eat emotionally, i.e. "care" about food). That doesn't mean that all overweight people self-medicate, just that it may be more common among heavier people than among people who never struggle with weight gain.

    Also, self-medicating doesn't have to imply that you've gone through a trauma - eating triggers a pleasure response in the brain, so it's perfectly reasonable that many people eat in response to negative emotions triggered by even mundane events, like being bored, being sad over doing poorly in school or fighting with a friend, being physically injured, and so on. How many of our parents offered food as a reward for doing something difficult? Part of the reason that strategy works because food makes us happy.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,150 Member
    Options
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    AnnPT77 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. ;)


  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    Options
    MegaMooseEsq wrote: »
    oat_bran wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    oat_bran wrote: »
    CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
    All the "naturally thin" people I know (my husband and all my in-laws) genuinely don't want food if they're not hungry. That's the main difference I notice.

    They also get antsy when they have eaten a lot, and want to get up and go for a long walk or something. It's not necessarily the same day, might be the following day, but it happens. They also eat less on following days.

    It's not a difference in how they and I *think*. They barely think about it at all. It's a difference in feelings and reactions.

    Intuitive eating like that just blows my mind. I know a lot of people like this. The concept of body and mind being so in tune and autoregulating the calorie intake and expendurw without much concious awareness of the process! That's how our bodies are supposed to.work idea. But I don't think i'll ever be alble to learn this. I've had disordered eating since I was 10 and later a full blown ED. My hunger cues are forever messed up. Still I often dream that some day I'll ve able to mentain not trough logging, not even through habit but intuitively.

    I don't actually think that's how our bodies are supposed to work or that not being able to do that makes you messed up.

    For most of human history access to food was insecure and it was beneficial to be able to/want to eat when it was available, even if that meant putting on some weight, and to be able to go without for a while too. Thus, it seems totally normal and even beneficial to want to eat based on cues like food being available and nearby, even if you just ate, and to find food desirable when it has qualities consistent with it being high cal (high in fat and sugar), and for variety to mean that you eat more (during most of human history wanting a variety would have meant getting a variety of nutrients, and good for you, not wanting to eat pie after having a huge steak).

    Thus, it's really not surprising to me that a majority of people seem to easily become overweight or obese in the current environment (more, really), and only a small minority seem not to have to work at staying slim to avoid obesity. I don't think that's because all of us who find it easy to overeat have messed up hunger signals (vs. just responding to cues in a normal human way).

    I think emotional eating can be messed up signals, but wanting to eat easily more than you actually need is probably just normal. Some are different, but not because the rest of us must be screwed up.

    That's why I don't believe in intuitive eating for myself (or probably most). I don't log at maintenance, but not because I can intuitively eat; because I make a point of mindfully eating.

    Do you live in the US? I don't know how true it is about the majority of people being overweight there, but you know, things are not everywhere like this. And it's not only about industrialized nations and availability of food. I live in France and the majority of (middle and upper class) people are at a healthy weight despite aggressive availability of food that isn't much different from the US. Lower class people may have slightly different statistics (when you're financially insecure all the time, people tend to overeat on cheap foods sporadically).

    The vast majority of my friends and colleagues are at a healthy weight and they appear to be intuitive earing. The food is just as available as in the US and almost just as advertized etc. It's just that the culture around food is different. People are used to eat healthy portions of foods and regular times and snacking us somewhat discouraged. I'm not saying there are no overweight people or no eating disorders. There are, of course, and I know several people with food problems. But a lot or the majority of people I interact with on a daily basis appear to be "intuitive eaters". They stop when they are full e en when there's more delicious food available, even if there's still food on their plate. They eat sweet and junk food quite often but they stop after eating a little. They don't think much about food at all outside of meal times. And some are just used to eating one or 2 meals a day and don't even feel peckish in between.

    I come from another European country, which is also economically devepped and has a somewhat different food culture, but the weight statistics are similar.

    So I think that even though it makes a lot of sense to say "we are evolutionary disigned to overeat if food is available", in reality our bodies are more complicated than that. I think our bodies evolved beyond the idea of a constant threat of famine. If not the majority of people in all industrialized countries would be overweight. But this doesn't appear to be true.

    I see your point, but I think you missed two important (and related) environmental and cultural differences between the US and Europe: daily activity level and access to fresh food. European countries are set up to support and encourage walking and biking in a way that the United States simply isn't. Both cities and rural areas in the US are very car-centric both by design and simple geography. Looking at vehicles per capita, the US is 795 per 1000 people, while France is 578 per 1000 people. That isn't about wealth, it's about culture and necessity.

    Related to that, I don't think the US encourages cooking at home to nearly the extent much of Europe does. It's harder to find fresh food in much of the US, and since we work longer hours on average across the economic spectrum, making the time to cook becomes more difficult and less of a priority. When you take our relative lack of a social safety net into account, the differences just grow more profound. Looking at obesity rates across the globe, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and South Africa all have higher obesity rates than any European country, and I suspect that similar factors are in play.

    I agree with the point with some of the weight problems being related to walking vs. driving--I have discussed this extensively with my Polish sister in law, and this is a big difference that she sees (she is also down on all the added sugar, and points out how sweet American desserts are in comparison to European desserts). I didn't even think of the crazy working/commuting hours for Americans--that is a great point.

    I also think, particularly in France, that there is some suspicious correlation with smoking. A couple other people on the thread noted their weight spiked when they stopped smoking. France has made great strides in reducing its smoking rate, although it is still high compared to the US, but as the smoking rate has crept down, the weight problem has crept up. A coffee and cigarette breakfast, as in the famous poem, tends to not be high calorie.

    Finally, I do believe the food culture plays a very important role--French hallmarks are modesty in eating, respect for the food, access to beautiful and lovingly grown whole foods, gorgeous vegetables treated with great respect, respect for oneself, and a culture that certainly doesn't shy away from weight shaming all act as a braking mechanism. I don't know if I would call this intuitive, in the sense of being naturally inborn, rather I think it stems from internalized cultural considerations. And I think a lot of the culture in the US is fundamentally broken. (Which is not to say that there aren't also a lot of broken bodies in the US for various reasons).

    Personally, I was naturally, effortlessly thin my whole life until I became pregnant in my 30s. I think my hormones must have changed because after several months of morning sickness I suddenly went from being a fairly light eater to enthusiastically finishing my plate and anything my husband didn't eat, LOL. Before I might have eaten 2 slices of pizza, now I can easily eat 3 or 4. So it took a lot of discipline to get back to my pre-baby weight (I spent several years waiting for it to melt off which didn't work), and I've been easily maintaining for almost 2 years more through mindful eating and loose logging than through intuitive eating.

    My husband is also naturally thin, and is still a pretty light eater who rarely eats breakfast. At one point when he felt the weight creeping up, he just cut out sodas, and at another point, just cut out fries.
  • jeanona
    jeanona Posts: 155 Member
    Options
    5738_Cassiel wrote: »
    jeanona wrote: »
    I must have a different perception than most here.

    To me, being “thin” means being underweight. With that meaning, IMO, being “naturally thin” (ie, naturally underweight) is quite rare. Many underweight people are underweight for reasons other than through nature (eg, because of an ED or metabolic disorder, because of stress, because of not having enough food to go round etc) and when these reasons are corrected, they put on weight.

    If we are talking about being “naturally at a healthy weight”, neither thin nor fat, then yes, a lot of people can manage their weight very well because of all the reasons already stated in this thread (eg, because more active, because not liking the feeling of fullness, because of conscious weight management etc).

    Hmmm, when I envision naturally thin, I think of someone who is still within a healthy weight, just at the lower end, you know?


    What do you mean by “lower end”? BMI type of lower end? So 18.5-19?

    If so, I still think the lower you go, the rarer it becomes for someone to be naturally thin. I think most people at a healthy weight sit in the middle of the range (21-22 or so) unless they’re consciously trying to stay as low as possible. Those who are at the lower end would have a smaller frame size.

Categories