Do naturally thin people actually think different?
Replies
-
stevencloser 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.)
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".
Ya, I used to split a pizza equally with my OH until I realized, "Duh, he's a foot taller than me - I need less food than he does."6 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
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!
Depends on your perspective. To a rational mind this is the most positive outcome as all data proves beyond reasonable doubt that weight management is an output of your behavior. You are in control. If your current situation is not ideal, then you have complete control of the results.
The concept of low/high metabolism is a myth. There are no naturally skinny people. There are no naturally fat people.
To the original question posed by the OP I would suggest the following: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions. Unsuccessful people blame everything but themselves, thereby robbing themselves of a priceless opportunity to grow, learn, and mature.12 -
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.
Our guests at Thanksgiving often talk about my skinny mother's "high metabolism." I tell them they should follow her around for a day. She is VERY active.
Now that she's 80, she's starting to slow down, but last summer she could outwork my brother and me combined. She's a little Energizer Bunny.7 -
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!
Depends on your perspective. To a rational mind this is the most positive outcome as all data proves beyond reasonable doubt that weight management is an output of your behavior. You are in control. If your current situation is not ideal, then you have complete control of the results.
The concept of low/high metabolism is a myth. There are no naturally skinny people. There are no naturally fat people.
To the original question posed by the OP I would suggest the following: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions. Unsuccessful people blame everything but themselves, thereby robbing themselves of a priceless opportunity to grow, learn, and mature.
That last bit doesn't seem entirely helpful, though. It's nice to think that everyone can succeed if they just look inward and start implementing solutions, but people do have legitimately different circumstances, many of which are out of their control. Even if metabolism isn't the problem that many people think it is, there are dozens of other factors that can influence how difficult it might be to lose weight. It doesn't get talked about around here much that I've seen, but economic circumstances can be a huge factor in how much effort needs to be expended to lose weight. Mental and physical illnesses can come into play, fortunate or unfortunate combos of genetics, and so on. I think a pragmatic approach is better than this success or failure model. Recognize that you may have certain challenges or advantages, do your best not to compare your successes to others, and acknowledge that sometimes people have different priorities in life.5 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
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!
Depends on your perspective. To a rational mind this is the most positive outcome as all data proves beyond reasonable doubt that weight management is an output of your behavior. You are in control. If your current situation is not ideal, then you have complete control of the results.
The concept of low/high metabolism is a myth. There are no naturally skinny people. There are no naturally fat people.
To the original question posed by the OP I would suggest the following: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions. Unsuccessful people blame everything but themselves, thereby robbing themselves of a priceless opportunity to grow, learn, and mature.
That last bit doesn't seem entirely helpful, though. It's nice to think that everyone can succeed if they just look inward and start implementing solutions, but people do have legitimately different circumstances, many of which are out of their control. Even if metabolism isn't the problem that many people think it is, there are dozens of other factors that can influence how difficult it might be to lose weight. It doesn't get talked about around here much that I've seen, but economic circumstances can be a huge factor in how much effort needs to be expended to lose weight. Mental and physical illnesses can come into play, fortunate or unfortunate combos of genetics, and so on. I think a pragmatic approach is better than this success or failure model. Recognize that you may have certain challenges or advantages, do your best not to compare your successes to others, and acknowledge that sometimes people have different priorities in life.
I'll restate: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions.
There are issues beyond our control, but until we analyze each issue with an objective mindset then how can we know? This isn't an issue of pragmatism, nor is comparison required. Comparison, like blaming others, is a useless exercise.
8 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
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!
Depends on your perspective. To a rational mind this is the most positive outcome as all data proves beyond reasonable doubt that weight management is an output of your behavior. You are in control. If your current situation is not ideal, then you have complete control of the results.
The concept of low/high metabolism is a myth. There are no naturally skinny people. There are no naturally fat people.
To the original question posed by the OP I would suggest the following: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions. Unsuccessful people blame everything but themselves, thereby robbing themselves of a priceless opportunity to grow, learn, and mature.
That last bit doesn't seem entirely helpful, though. It's nice to think that everyone can succeed if they just look inward and start implementing solutions, but people do have legitimately different circumstances, many of which are out of their control. Even if metabolism isn't the problem that many people think it is, there are dozens of other factors that can influence how difficult it might be to lose weight. It doesn't get talked about around here much that I've seen, but economic circumstances can be a huge factor in how much effort needs to be expended to lose weight. Mental and physical illnesses can come into play, fortunate or unfortunate combos of genetics, and so on. I think a pragmatic approach is better than this success or failure model. Recognize that you may have certain challenges or advantages, do your best not to compare your successes to others, and acknowledge that sometimes people have different priorities in life.
I agree with striving to maintain a posture of compassion toward others (though given some foregoing discussion in this thread, I'm evidently not always successful).
I do think, though, that when we examine ourselves, that the PP you're replying to is completely spot on.
Hands down, the best nugget I ever got from the cargo-boatloads of management education/training I've had over 4+ decades was the following, and it applies to my personal life as much as to good management, to emotions as much as to concrete actions:
Before reacting to a situation, it's vital to ask myself "what did I do to create, promote or allow this situation?"
Not only does that tend to short-circuit blame and excuses, but it also helps clarify the ways I can control or influence the situation to get an improved outcome. It focuses my attention on what power I do have, not on the power I don't.
Sometimes the only power I have is over how I react intellectually or emotionally to something. Even that's a help: Backward looking wishful thinking, blaming other people or circumstances, feeling guilt over what can't change, making excuses (distinct from reasons)? None of those do anything to improve the situation, they just make me feel bad in the present/future, and they can begin to take me further down a road to a general posture of resentment, felt powerlessness, anger, and unhappiness in routine everyday life.
Focusing on what I can't control promotes unhappiness and passivity. Focusing on what I can control (or influence) promotes improvement, however small.
None of that is about judging how others should feel or act, but it's part of how I judge myself.6 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
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!
Depends on your perspective. To a rational mind this is the most positive outcome as all data proves beyond reasonable doubt that weight management is an output of your behavior. You are in control. If your current situation is not ideal, then you have complete control of the results.
The concept of low/high metabolism is a myth. There are no naturally skinny people. There are no naturally fat people.
To the original question posed by the OP I would suggest the following: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions. Unsuccessful people blame everything but themselves, thereby robbing themselves of a priceless opportunity to grow, learn, and mature.
That last bit doesn't seem entirely helpful, though. It's nice to think that everyone can succeed if they just look inward and start implementing solutions, but people do have legitimately different circumstances, many of which are out of their control. Even if metabolism isn't the problem that many people think it is, there are dozens of other factors that can influence how difficult it might be to lose weight. It doesn't get talked about around here much that I've seen, but economic circumstances can be a huge factor in how much effort needs to be expended to lose weight. Mental and physical illnesses can come into play, fortunate or unfortunate combos of genetics, and so on. I think a pragmatic approach is better than this success or failure model. Recognize that you may have certain challenges or advantages, do your best not to compare your successes to others, and acknowledge that sometimes people have different priorities in life.
I'll restate: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions.
There are issues beyond our control, but until we analyze each issue with an objective mindset then how can we know? This isn't an issue of pragmatism, nor is comparison required. Comparison, like blaming others, is a useless exercise.
Okay, with that emphasis, I agree. I'd read it more all-or-nothing than that, but you're absolutely right that it's a lot easier to find a solution when we are our own roadblock.
ETA: I like how you put that, @AnnPT77. I originally read the post as being about willpower, but I like how you interpreted it much better.3 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
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!
Depends on your perspective. To a rational mind this is the most positive outcome as all data proves beyond reasonable doubt that weight management is an output of your behavior. You are in control. If your current situation is not ideal, then you have complete control of the results.
The concept of low/high metabolism is a myth. There are no naturally skinny people. There are no naturally fat people.
To the original question posed by the OP I would suggest the following: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions. Unsuccessful people blame everything but themselves, thereby robbing themselves of a priceless opportunity to grow, learn, and mature.
That last bit doesn't seem entirely helpful, though. It's nice to think that everyone can succeed if they just look inward and start implementing solutions, but people do have legitimately different circumstances, many of which are out of their control. Even if metabolism isn't the problem that many people think it is, there are dozens of other factors that can influence how difficult it might be to lose weight. It doesn't get talked about around here much that I've seen, but economic circumstances can be a huge factor in how much effort needs to be expended to lose weight. Mental and physical illnesses can come into play, fortunate or unfortunate combos of genetics, and so on. I think a pragmatic approach is better than this success or failure model. Recognize that you may have certain challenges or advantages, do your best not to compare your successes to others, and acknowledge that sometimes people have different priorities in life.
I agree with striving to maintain a posture of compassion toward others (though given some foregoing discussion in this thread, I'm evidently not always successful).
I do think, though, that when we examine ourselves, that the PP you're replying to is completely spot on.
Hands down, the best nugget I ever got from the cargo-boatloads of management education/training I've had over 4+ decades was the following, and it applies to my personal life as much as to good management, to emotions as much as to concrete actions:
Before reacting to a situation, it's vital to ask myself "what did I do to create, promote or allow this situation?"
Not only does that tend to short-circuit blame and excuses, but it also helps clarify the ways I can control or influence the situation to get an improved outcome. It focuses my attention on what power I do have, not on the power I don't.
Sometimes the only power I have is over how I react intellectually or emotionally to something. Even that's a help: Backward looking wishful thinking, blaming other people or circumstances, feeling guilt over what can't change, making excuses (distinct from reasons)? None of those do anything to improve the situation, they just make me feel bad in the present/future, and they can begin to take me further down a road to a general posture of resentment, felt powerlessness, anger, and unhappiness in routine everyday life.
Focusing on what I can't control promotes unhappiness and passivity. Focusing on what I can control (or influence) promotes improvement, however small.
None of that is about judging how others should feel or act, but it's part of how I judge myself.
@AnnPT77, this is extraordinarily useful. Thanks for this post. I wish we still had the Awesome button.5 -
alwaysbloated wrote: »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.
I thought the start was very boring, but it got better as it got on. I'm surprised the participants thought they should be huge, when they were doing lots of walking, fasting and playing sports for 2 hours a week. Seems obvious to us?
I liked the high-speed video of the woman at her desk job (would've been fun to have equivalent of her disbelieving colleague for comparison, maybe ). Also, the snack/meal research findings were interesting. I think I can see some of that effect in myself. 0 -
As part of my “lifestyle change” — an expression I despise— I made a point to observe those around me at a healthy weight. As others have said, the differences between them and me are how fast (or slow) they eat and how much (or little) is left on the plate.
I always woof down my food and clean my plate. Not an easy habit to break.5 -
alwaysbloated wrote: »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.
I thought the start was very boring, but it got better as it got on. I'm surprised the participants thought they should be huge, when they were doing lots of walking, fasting and playing sports for 2 hours a week. Seems obvious to us?
I liked the high-speed video of the woman at her desk job (would've been fun to have equivalent of her disbelieving colleague for comparison, maybe ). Also, the snack/meal research findings were interesting. I think I can see some of that effect in myself.
Yes, this. My husband has a good friend who is similarly tiny and super energetic, it's what I picked up on immediately.
I on the other hand am Statue Woman and need a Fitbit to nag me! So it goes 2 -
I used to work with people who would complain that they were fat and that I was one of the lucky ones who could eat whatever they want and not gain weight. They saw me eat breakfast (serving of bran flakes, 1/2 cup 2% milk, fruit--200 to 250 calories), whatever I wanted for lunch, which could have been pizza, a cheeseburger and fries, etc, but generally in the 1100-1300 calorie range. I may or may not have some candy, cookie, cake, etc. as a snack. What they didn't see was what I did when I got home (cut my grass with a push mower, or do a 1 hour exercise video, or garden, and take my two dogs on a 1+ mile walk. Dinner was also smaller--oatmeal, soup, maybe a sandwich. So a total intake of 2000-2300 or so calories and enough movement to use all those calories up.kshama2001 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.
Our guests at Thanksgiving often talk about my skinny mother's "high metabolism." I tell them they should follow her around for a day. She is VERY active.
I used to invite them all the time to spend a week with me and eat what I eat and do what I do and then tell me how lucky I am, but no one ever took me up on it. They would rather blame their metabolisms than take responsibility for how much they ate.
8 -
5738_Cassiel wrote: »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 (:
I've been within my normal BMI range almost my whole life (I edged into "overweight" 3 times for very short periods of time.) And I've been in the low end of my normal BMI range most of my life.
Much of the time I have been able to maintain that without a lot of conscious effort because ...
-- I grew up in a family where we were served small, but adequate meals. They were fairly basic, but my mother tried to follow the Canadian Food Guide, so throughout the day we had vegetables, fruit, grains, meat, and dairy. If we had dessert, it was usually something like a very small bowl of pudding, or maybe a fruit salad, or something like that. When we came home from school, we had a small glass of milk and 1 cookie. To this day, having more than 1 cookie in a sitting seems really decadent to me.
So, having that way of eating ingrained in me from Day 1 means that's "normal" for me. It's normal for me to have small-ish meals and small snacks.
-- I grew up in a family where we did not eat at restaurants or take-away/fast food places ... unless we were on holidays. 47 weeks out of the year, we ate as described above, but during the 5 weeks of holidays we might go out to eat every other day or so.
Therefore, going out to eat isn't part of my "normal".
-- I grew up in a very active family. We were always walking, hiking, cycling and doing other activities.
So again, it's "normal" for me to exercise every day.
And thus, yes, I suppose I have been able to remain within my normal BMI range "unconsciously" because I'm just doing what I've always done ... what I grew up doing.
However, that said, I have been an avid cyclist for almost 30 years now, and have raced and participated in many long distance cycling events. Training for those (including both the nutritional training and the exercise part of the training) involves quite a bit of "conscious" effort. A by-product of all that training is that I remain within my normal BMI range ... "consciously" ... in a way. Although my goal is to be fit enough to do the events, and hopefully do them well, without any particular or specific focus on my weight.
3 -
5738_Cassiel wrote: »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 (:
I've been within my normal BMI range almost my whole life (I edged into "overweight" 3 times for very short periods of time.) And I've been in the low end of my normal BMI range most of my life.
Much of the time I have been able to maintain that without a lot of conscious effort because ...
-- I grew up in a family where we were served small, but adequate meals. They were fairly basic, but my mother tried to follow the Canadian Food Guide, so throughout the day we had vegetables, fruit, grains, meat, and dairy. If we had dessert, it was usually something like a very small bowl of pudding, or maybe a fruit salad, or something like that. When we came home from school, we had a small glass of milk and 1 cookie. To this day, having more than 1 cookie in a sitting seems really decadent to me.
So, having that way of eating ingrained in me from Day 1 means that's "normal" for me. It's normal for me to have small-ish meals and small snacks.
-- I grew up in a family where we did not eat at restaurants or take-away/fast food places ... unless we were on holidays. 47 weeks out of the year, we ate as described above, but during the 5 weeks of holidays we might go out to eat every other day or so.
Therefore, going out to eat isn't part of my "normal".
-- I grew up in a very active family. We were always walking, hiking, cycling and doing other activities.
So again, it's "normal" for me to exercise every day.
And thus, yes, I suppose I have been able to remain within my normal BMI range "unconsciously" because I'm just doing what I've always done ... what I grew up doing.
However, that said, I have been an avid cyclist for almost 30 years now, and have raced and participated in many long distance cycling events. Training for those (including both the nutritional training and the exercise part of the training) involves quite a bit of "conscious" effort. A by-product of all that training is that I remain within my normal BMI range ... "consciously" ... in a way. Although my goal is to be fit enough to do the events, and hopefully do them well, without any particular or specific focus on my weight.
I think small portions make a difference but what about families where some are skinny, even underweight, and some are fat? That's how it is in my family. Same exact environment but I became almost obese at a young age and my sister's were low on the bmi scale or underweight. I hate how some people, not you, make it seem like people are more virtuous or better if they are thin. That isn't true. Fat people aren't really that different from thin people. They just tend to eat more and have bigger bodies. They can be normal, just like everyone else, in every other respect.8 -
WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »5738_Cassiel wrote: »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 (:
I've been within my normal BMI range almost my whole life (I edged into "overweight" 3 times for very short periods of time.) And I've been in the low end of my normal BMI range most of my life.
Much of the time I have been able to maintain that without a lot of conscious effort because ...
-- I grew up in a family where we were served small, but adequate meals. They were fairly basic, but my mother tried to follow the Canadian Food Guide, so throughout the day we had vegetables, fruit, grains, meat, and dairy. If we had dessert, it was usually something like a very small bowl of pudding, or maybe a fruit salad, or something like that. When we came home from school, we had a small glass of milk and 1 cookie. To this day, having more than 1 cookie in a sitting seems really decadent to me.
So, having that way of eating ingrained in me from Day 1 means that's "normal" for me. It's normal for me to have small-ish meals and small snacks.
-- I grew up in a family where we did not eat at restaurants or take-away/fast food places ... unless we were on holidays. 47 weeks out of the year, we ate as described above, but during the 5 weeks of holidays we might go out to eat every other day or so.
Therefore, going out to eat isn't part of my "normal".
-- I grew up in a very active family. We were always walking, hiking, cycling and doing other activities.
So again, it's "normal" for me to exercise every day.
And thus, yes, I suppose I have been able to remain within my normal BMI range "unconsciously" because I'm just doing what I've always done ... what I grew up doing.
However, that said, I have been an avid cyclist for almost 30 years now, and have raced and participated in many long distance cycling events. Training for those (including both the nutritional training and the exercise part of the training) involves quite a bit of "conscious" effort. A by-product of all that training is that I remain within my normal BMI range ... "consciously" ... in a way. Although my goal is to be fit enough to do the events, and hopefully do them well, without any particular or specific focus on my weight.
I think small portions make a difference but what about families where some are skinny, even underweight, and some are fat? That's how it is in my family. Same exact environment but I became almost obese at a young age and my sister's were low on the bmi scale or underweight. I hate how some people, not you, make it seem like people are more virtuous or better if they are thin. That isn't true. Fat people aren't really that different from thin people. They just tend to eat more and have bigger bodies. They can be normal, just like everyone else, in every other respect.
My sister was born a year after me (same birthday) so our upbringing was about as similar as you get without being twins. If you look at pictures going back to infancy, she has chubby cheeks and limbs and I’m a string bean. We did absolutely everything together in those early years, very active, not much tv, and a fairly healthy, moderate diet, but I was always close to underweight and she was close to, and then over, the line into overweight.
At a certain point, maybe around 7 or 8, she became aware of the fact that she was “fat” and I think it just spiraled after that. Dad would make her go on a diet, she’d hate it and rebel by sneaking food, and she just got heavier. She always loved sports but when exercise didn’t help her lose weight, I think she decided that she’d always be overweight and just to lean into it. In the meantime, I hit puberty and went from borderline underweight to borderline overweight, but I never gained past there, even if I spent most of my time locked in my bedroom writing fan fiction (but not eating) while she played soccer (and kept bags of treats in her room). It’s not a mystery in hindsight, but it certainly was to us at the time.
4 -
Search the video - The Truth About Slim People 2017 on youtube. It's a documentary that might answer this question.2
-
I consider myself a naturally thin person, and am on the far low end of the healthy BMI range. I look at it as being "natural" in the sense that I have always been thin this since early childhood. Unlike a lot of other naturally thin people, however, I certainly do enjoy eating and think about food probably more often than I should. Even a coworker of mine (who is overweight) was surprised by how much I can eat. The thing is though, there is plenty of low calorie foods in my diet along with more caloric dense ones. And while I do have a desk job, outside of that I do meet the physical activity guidelines. I do also think I do a good bit of fidgeting too.
I will also add that while I don't mind being somewhat full, eating to the point of getting stuffed is not something I do on a regular basis.0 -
As part of my “lifestyle change” — an expression I despise— I made a point to observe those around me at a healthy weight. As others have said, the differences between them and me are how fast (or slow) they eat and how much (or little) is left on the plate.
I always woof down my food and clean my plate. Not an easy habit to break.
That's interesting. I'm one of those thin people. And I do eat slowly and savor my food. I'm almost always the last one finished. But I pretty much clean my plate - if I'm at a restaurant I might get a to-go box if it's too much. I hate wasting food. But I don't take a ton of food to start off and often end up having seconds of the yummiest things because I had room left after the first round.1 -
Why are so many "naturally thin" people on a calorie counting website? My thought was "naturally thin" means someone who has never had to diet or really think about food. They just naturally and without conscious effort maintain a slim figure. (I have never been overweight, but I am conscious of my intake. I count calories, always have thought about food a lot and could never forget to eat like they do, so I would never call myself naturally thin.)
I always find it so interesting how two children can grow up in the same house and yet one be underweight and the other overweight. It really shows there are other factors at play that predispose someone to overeat or under eat. The naturally thin one doesn't inherently burn more calories, but they have genetic differences that affect their behavior leading them to either eat less, exercise more, or be have better unconscious regulation over their CI vs CO expenditure.2 -
Iwantahealthierme30 wrote: »Search the video - The Truth About Slim People 2017 on youtube. It's a documentary that might answer this question.
That video was linked 2-3 pages earlier in this thread, for those interested. And i think whoever "woo"-ed your post might want to watch it before "woo"-ing. I think most around here would find the video generally factual.
Short summary: They pick 2 people whom others (colleagues, family) view as being "naturally thin", in the sense of this thread, follow them around to see what they eat and how much they move, have the video evidence evaluated by a dietician and academic expert on movement/exercise, test their gut microbiome, and more. It's a little "gee whiz" in spots, but generally interesting and level-headed.3 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Why are so many "naturally thin" people on a calorie counting website? My thought was "naturally thin" means someone who has never had to diet or really think about food. They just naturally and without conscious effort maintain a slim figure. (I have never been overweight, but I am conscious of my intake. I count calories, always have thought about food a lot and could never forget to eat like they do, so I would never call myself naturally thin.)
I always find it so interesting how two children can grow up in the same house and yet one be underweight and the other overweight. It really shows there are other factors at play that predispose someone to overeat or under eat. The naturally thin one doesn't inherently burn more calories, but they have genetic differences that affect their behavior leading them to either eat less, exercise more, or be have better unconscious regulation over their CI vs CO expenditure.
I never had to think about food and was always lean...I was also always pretty active in that I played sports growing up and later in my 20s I always had active jobs and didn't own a car so I walked and biked everywhere.
That changed when I hit 30 and took a desk job...my issue wasn't really food in as much as it was a lack of movement. I never dwelled on food...I just ate my breakfast, lunch, and dinner and sometimes a snack like I always did and still do.
Over 8 years sitting behind a desk I put on 40 Lbs...about 5 Lbs per year...a little less the .5 Lbs per month. I'm a bean counter (accountant), so this site appealed to me and seemed logical...and I was also becoming more interested in nutrition and was curious as to what my diet looked like overall.
I've been in maintenance going on 5 years in April and haven't counted calories or logged in that time. I'm here mostly for the entertainment and to help here and there where I can...
I think a lot of naturally lean people are naturally lean until they're not due to some life event. In my case it was a substantial decrease in activity.3 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Why are so many "naturally thin" people on a calorie counting website? My thought was "naturally thin" means someone who has never had to diet or really think about food. They just naturally and without conscious effort maintain a slim figure. (I have never been overweight, but I am conscious of my intake. I count calories, always have thought about food a lot and could never forget to eat like they do, so I would never call myself naturally thin.)
I always find it so interesting how two children can grow up in the same house and yet one be underweight and the other overweight. It really shows there are other factors at play that predispose someone to overeat or under eat. The naturally thin one doesn't inherently burn more calories, but they have genetic differences that affect their behavior leading them to either eat less, exercise more, or be have better unconscious regulation over their CI vs CO expenditure.
Maybe because some people don't want to be "skinny".... especially guys. There are people here who are trying to gain weight for one reason or another.
Personally, I use this app for bulking and cutting. Counting calories is extremely important for both.
1 -
When I was younger I could have put away an entire large pizza away for dinner and not gain a lb. I wore small waist sizes, and didn't excercise at all. I was in college so I was active enough, walking to class or waiting tables, but the AMT of burgers and beers and pizza and whatnot I ate and drank was very highly caloric. That came to a stop years after when I was working, and now if I eat out a few nights I put on weight easily. So I've noticed a huge difference in how my own body reacts to food. I know my activity is less than it was, but even when I am super active like in the summer, my metabolism is nothing like it used to be.
So to those saying it's only calories in vs calories out and no difference in metabolism, my body disagrees.
6 -
It is true that past the early 20s, anabolic hormones like HGH decline unless one maintains an active lifestyle. So lower HGH levels can partly explain that situation.jbrown2339 wrote: »When I was younger I could have put away an entire large pizza away for dinner and not gain a lb. I wore small waist sizes, and didn't excercise at all. I was in college so I was active enough, walking to class or waiting tables, but the AMT of burgers and beers and pizza and whatnot I ate and drank was very highly caloric. That came to a stop years after when I was working, and now if I eat out a few nights I put on weight easily. So I've noticed a huge difference in how my own body reacts to food. I know my activity is less than it was, but even when I am super active like in the summer, my metabolism is nothing like it used to be.
So to those saying it's only calories in vs calories out and no difference in metabolism, my body disagrees.
1 -
jbrown2339 wrote: »When I was younger I could have put away an entire large pizza away for dinner and not gain a lb. I wore small waist sizes, and didn't excercise at all. I was in college so I was active enough, walking to class or waiting tables, but the AMT of burgers and beers and pizza and whatnot I ate and drank was very highly caloric. That came to a stop years after when I was working, and now if I eat out a few nights I put on weight easily. So I've noticed a huge difference in how my own body reacts to food. I know my activity is less than it was, but even when I am super active like in the summer, my metabolism is nothing like it used to be.
So to those saying it's only calories in vs calories out and no difference in metabolism, my body disagrees.
...but you have no data to back this up, so this is an opinion based upon no evidence and highly biased.
What was your BMR when you were younger?
What is your BMR today?
How many calories did you intake/daily when you were younger?
How many calories do you intake/daily today?
How many calories did you burn/daily when you were younger?
How many calories do you burn/daily today?
6 -
I think that they are able to listen to their body ques better hungry eat full stop . My friend is this way she is very in tune to it. Unlike me whos body says full but my mind says eat more it tastes great.0
-
jbrown2339 wrote: »When I was younger I could have put away an entire large pizza away for dinner and not gain a lb. I wore small waist sizes, and didn't excercise at all. I was in college so I was active enough, walking to class or waiting tables, but the AMT of burgers and beers and pizza and whatnot I ate and drank was very highly caloric. That came to a stop years after when I was working, and now if I eat out a few nights I put on weight easily. So I've noticed a huge difference in how my own body reacts to food. I know my activity is less than it was, but even when I am super active like in the summer, my metabolism is nothing like it used to be.
So to those saying it's only calories in vs calories out and no difference in metabolism, my body disagrees.
...but you have no data to back this up, so this is an opinion based upon no evidence and highly biased.
What was your BMR when you were younger?
What is your BMR today?
How many calories did you intake/daily when you were younger?
How many calories do you intake/daily today?
How many calories did you burn/daily when you were younger?
How many calories do you burn/daily today?
That was over twenty years ago and I didnt have my fitness pal back then, so I obviously can't answer that. But back then breakfast was an omelette with bacon, for lunch chicken fried steak and mashed potatoes or a Philly cheese steak, and often could scarf a dominos pizza by myself. I had a 30 inch waist and didn't work out at all. I also drank alot of margaritas and white russians. Not a healthy diet. I did of course walk around campus, but was hardly active. That kind of eating was through college, first job out of school which was a dsk job, grad school, and it wasn't till early thirties I started to put on lbs. Gained sixty pounds.
Now I aim for 1700 calories a day, and eat very healthy. When weather I is nice walk three miles a day with dogs and jog for 3 miles around the lake. If I ate like I used to, I woud be alot heavier for sure!!1 -
I think food is connected with a lot of psych defects4
-
IMO it's all about
- whether you stop eating when you're not hungry, or keep eating anyway
- how active you are (that accounts for fidgeting)
- metabolism - sure, it's maybe 50-100 calories, which isn't much, but 100 extra calories is still 1 lb a month...
The only reason I'm not obese anymore is because I'm active, for example... those 400-500 extra calories a day go a LONG way (that's why I don't believe the 'losing weight is only about food' saying). I don't have the off switch when I'm full - if it's delicious, and something I don't eat often, I will have a VERY hard time putting down the fork.
I'm not really going to argue the 'naturally thin' part because for me, if it's second nature to eat less and move more, that's pretty 'natural'. I mean, my naturally thin friend loves cookies but I've seen him turn down dessert because he was too full, and he'll often skip lunch to eat cookies (which arguably I can't do either because hormones will make me hungrier the rest of the day, so I suppose you can add hormones to my list).1 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Why are so many "naturally thin" people on a calorie counting website? My thought was "naturally thin" means someone who has never had to diet or really think about food. They just naturally and without conscious effort maintain a slim figure. (I have never been overweight, but I am conscious of my intake. I count calories, always have thought about food a lot and could never forget to eat like they do, so I would never call myself naturally thin.)
I always find it so interesting how two children can grow up in the same house and yet one be underweight and the other overweight. It really shows there are other factors at play that predispose someone to overeat or under eat. The naturally thin one doesn't inherently burn more calories, but they have genetic differences that affect their behavior leading them to either eat less, exercise more, or be have better unconscious regulation over their CI vs CO expenditure.
I didn't come here necessarily to lose weight, but to change my body composition. Then I used it to track during my first bulk and cut. Just because someone is "thin" doesn't mean they can't use it to track macros, maintain, gain, get leaner etc. Or some people like to hang out and interact! Lots of fun on here 3
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