Do naturally thin people actually think different?
Options
Replies
-
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one
). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Metabolism is for sure a factor - one of many.
But so-called "high metabolism", as an explanation of why some people are allegedly "naturally thin", is neither a necessary condition, nor a sufficient one.
It's not a necessary condition, because some people stay thin lifelong with slower metabolisms: They have active lives, strong satiation cues, little interest in food/eating, strong desire to stay thin and the self-discipline to white-knuckle that desire, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
It's not a sufficient condition, because some people get fat despite a faster metabolism. They're sedentary, have poor satiation cues, can't resist eating as much as larger spouses/peers, adore food and eating, have some emotional reason for overeating, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
We see posts like this:CatchMom13 wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »There is no such thing as "naturally thin".
How is there not? There absolutely is people who are naturally thin within putting any effort into it. It's scientifically proven. It's called a high metabolism. Some people are gifted.
But "high metabolism" is just not that magic. It's just one of a number of potential contributing factors, at least several other common ones of which are of similar caloric magnitude.
200 to 600 calories is huge if those are calories you can't eat. On the flip side, it's easy to eat them. 200 (the more common variant) is half a mocha latte. 600 is around 3T of peanut butter.
Posts like the one just above make it sound like high metabolism is a magic bullet. It's not. Is it a help? Absolutely.
And the thought that it's a magic bullet becomes part of some people's self justification for staying fat, just like "too old", "hypothyroid", "short", "hate exercise", and more. Any of those can contribute to how hard or easy it is to lose weight, no question. But they don't make as much difference, numerically, as some people think.
I started last year obese and at 195 pounds. (Prob had slipped from overweight to obese about 6 months earlier. ). I put on 20 pounds ish in 2015 and again in 2016. No excuses, I did that.
Why? Well 20 pounds a year is about 200 calories a day.
Anything change in that time? Yeah, menopause. Activity change? No. Eating habits change? No. Hmmm, maybe the “mythical” metabolic post menopause slowdown? (Bring on the woos).
All I know is I lost it - much slower than any calculator or MFP said I should. And I seem to be hitting maintenance at <1400 daily calories. I sure fire was less active 5 years ago and ate more than that - a lot more. And held a stable weight (just overweight by BMI) for almost a decade.
I became obese because I ate about 200 extra calories than my body used a day: basic CICO. But what frustrates me is reading post after post dismissing metabolism as a possible cause when I know for a fact in some cases (mine for example, and I really doubt I’m an outlier- just at the slow end of normal) the whole problem is a slow metabolism.
No excuses, I did the hangry making work and I lost that weight and am 3 pounds above a normal BMI weight now (Basically where I was for the decade prior to menopause). But I had to eat 1200 calories for an average loss of less than a pound a week. And maintenance seems to be settling at 1350ish (hoping and praying I’m wrong, but 2 weeks stable at that calorie intake indicates that’s the hand I’m dealt).
So, me? I naturally really have huge empathy for others who have to deal with the fact that they experience a 20 pound weight gain a year from the ‘small factor’ of 200 extra calories a day they would have if their metabolism were not on the slower side. It isn’t an excuse, but it is an unfortunate challenge and extra hurdle.
And the MFP forum standard dismissal of this slower end metabolism reality for many people as ‘woo’ or just a small factor - well frankly if you want people like that to give up, or feel that their struggles are trivial and/or trivialized, then you are taking the right approach.
I’m sorry Ann, and I won’t stalk you on this subject any further. But I respect you, and you seem reasonable so I wanted to try to communicate with someone on MFP that ... well ... that there are significant number of people in that low end of the metabolic bell curve - maybe not statistically significant but a whole lot of folks for whom 100 or 200 calories a day IS indeed likely the difference between obesity and healthy weight. And I sure do hope they don’t come to these forums much.7 -
5738_Cassiel wrote: »I must have a different perception than most here.
To me, being “thin” means being underweight. With that meaning, IMO, being “naturally thin” (ie, naturally underweight) is quite rare. Many underweight people are underweight for reasons other than through nature (eg, because of an ED or metabolic disorder, because of stress, because of not having enough food to go round etc) and when these reasons are corrected, they put on weight.
If we are talking about being “naturally at a healthy weight”, neither thin nor fat, then yes, a lot of people can manage their weight very well because of all the reasons already stated in this thread (eg, because more active, because not liking the feeling of fullness, because of conscious weight management etc).
Hmmm, when I envision naturally thin, I think of someone who is still within a healthy weight, just at the lower end, you know?
What do you mean by “lower end”? BMI type of lower end? So 18.5-19?
If so, I still think the lower you go, the rarer it becomes for someone to be naturally thin. I think most people at a healthy weight sit in the middle of the range (21-22 or so) unless they’re consciously trying to stay as low as possible. Those who are at the lower end would have a smaller frame size.
When it comes to those at the very bottom of the BMI scale, you also need to include people with medical conditions (does that count as natural or not?). The skinniest people I know both have GI issues.0 -
The thing with the low metabolism thing -- which REALLY seems like a separate issue for the reasons I mentioned above -- is that IF one's metabolism is slower one is using fewer calories, and IF one's metabolism is higher one is using more calories, all else equal. So neither is in a preferred position. The slower metabolism person needs fewer calories and if hungrier it's mental hunger, not a result of the fewer calories. It's the same as claiming that a big guy can't be hungry or struggle with weight loss because he gets 4000 calories or whatever -- of course that's not true.
Beyond that, "natural" metabolism is only a small factor (and hard to tease out) because other things matter. One mentioned above is natural movements (which is likely a big reason why "metabolisms" differ), like fidgeting or the like. Another is daily movement. Getting an additional 200 calories per day seems not to hard, as you can do that by adding walking. I realized when I ran the numbers that I'd been in denial about my likely TDEE before I gained weight (not that I knew the word TDEE), as I'd assumed it was like 2000 calories, and I was super active for ages before. And then, for various reasons, I stopped being active and was essentially sedentary and gained rapidly, because I didn't change what I was eating.
Anyway, when I ran the numbers over and over (since I couldn't believe MFP was telling me my calories should be 1200), I realized that at a healthy weight, if sedentary, my calories likely WOULD be 1550 or so (assuming I was average -- the one test I've had put my RMR a bit below average, but I don't know that I trust it). Anyway, that seemed unacceptable to me and I knew I probably would not be able to workout hard every day, so I looked instead at what it would be if I were just lightly active, and saw 1800 or so, and figured that would be okay for a rest day, and so just decided to arrange my life so I would at least have those extra calories. That was consistent with my weight loss plan anyway, since the very first thing I did, even before starting to work out regularly, was to decide I would walk a lot more, absolutely everywhere I could, which was a lot since I'm in a city, and I think is why I did lose faster than MFP said I would -- since I'd said sedentary (without exercise) and my job is, and yet I routinely got well over 10K steps, usually more like 15K, when I tracked.
Point being that "metabolism" as in TDEE is not just a thing and also the issue isn't how many calories one gets alone, but how many calories one gets vs. one wants/eats. Again, you can have a high metabolism and a mismatch or a low metabolism and a perfect match. Some of the "naturally thin" people I know aren't active at all and don't eat much, they may have quite low TDEEs.4 -
[quote=
Thinking of food as math and budgeting it like money was a very effective tool for me, tbh.[/quote]
I love this!
1 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Metabolism is for sure a factor - one of many.
But so-called "high metabolism", as an explanation of why some people are allegedly "naturally thin", is neither a necessary condition, nor a sufficient one.
It's not a necessary condition, because some people stay thin lifelong with slower metabolisms: They have active lives, strong satiation cues, little interest in food/eating, strong desire to stay thin and the self-discipline to white-knuckle that desire, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
It's not a sufficient condition, because some people get fat despite a faster metabolism. They're sedentary, have poor satiation cues, can't resist eating as much as larger spouses/peers, adore food and eating, have some emotional reason for overeating, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
We see posts like this:CatchMom13 wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »There is no such thing as "naturally thin".
How is there not? There absolutely is people who are naturally thin within putting any effort into it. It's scientifically proven. It's called a high metabolism. Some people are gifted.
But "high metabolism" is just not that magic. It's just one of a number of potential contributing factors, at least several other common ones of which are of similar caloric magnitude.
200 to 600 calories is huge if those are calories you can't eat. On the flip side, it's easy to eat them. 200 (the more common variant) is half a mocha latte. 600 is around 3T of peanut butter.
Posts like the one just above make it sound like high metabolism is a magic bullet. It's not. Is it a help? Absolutely.
And the thought that it's a magic bullet becomes part of some people's self justification for staying fat, just like "too old", "hypothyroid", "short", "hate exercise", and more. Any of those can contribute to how hard or easy it is to lose weight, no question. But they don't make as much difference, numerically, as some people think.
I started last year obese and at 195 pounds. (Prob had slipped from overweight to obese about 6 months earlier. ). I put on 20 pounds ish in 2015 and again in 2016. No excuses, I did that.
Why? Well 20 pounds a year is about 200 calories a day.
Anything change in that time? Yeah, menopause. Activity change? No. Eating habits change? No. Hmmm, maybe the “mythical” metabolic post menopause slowdown? (Bring on the woos).
All I know is I lost it - much slower than any calculator or MFP said I should. And I seem to be hitting maintenance at <1400 daily calories. I sure fire was less active 5 years ago and ate more than that - a lot more. And held a stable weight (just overweight by BMI) for almost a decade.
I became obese because I ate about 200 extra calories than my body used a day: basic CICO. But what frustrates me is reading post after post dismissing metabolism as a possible cause when I know for a fact in some cases (mine for example, and I really doubt I’m an outlier- just at the slow end of normal) the whole problem is a slow metabolism.
No excuses, I did the hangry making work and I lost that weight and am 3 pounds above a normal BMI weight now (Basically where I was for the decade prior to menopause). But I had to eat 1200 calories for an average loss of less than a pound a week. And maintenance seems to be settling at 1350ish (hoping and praying I’m wrong, but 2 weeks stable at that calorie intake indicates that’s the hand I’m dealt).
So, me? I naturally really have huge empathy for others who have to deal with the fact that they experience a 20 pound weight gain a year from the ‘small factor’ of 200 extra calories a day they would have if their metabolism were not on the slower side. It isn’t an excuse, but it is an unfortunate challenge and extra hurdle.
And the MFP forum standard dismissal of this slower end metabolism reality for many people as ‘woo’ or just a small factor - well frankly if you want people like that to give up, or feel that their struggles are trivial and/or trivialized, then you are taking the right approach.
I’m sorry Ann, and I won’t stalk you on this subject any further. But I respect you, and you seem reasonable so I wanted to try to communicate with someone on MFP that ... well ... that there are significant number of people in that low end of the metabolic bell curve - maybe not statistically significant but a whole lot of folks for whom 100 or 200 calories a day IS indeed likely the difference between obesity and healthy weight. And I sure do hope they don’t come to these forums much.
I don't think that people mean to woo the idea that the slow end of the metabolism scale exists, but it's more that there's a tendency to assume that most people who think that they are on the slow end likely aren't, because it's just such a common excuse for not losing weight among people who don't really understand CICO.* You don't really see the reverse much probably because it's just a lot more common for people to underestimate calories in and overestimate calories out, and because people rarely post to complain about losing too fast (although it does happen). If I recall correctly, you're also somewhat older and shorter, right? It makes sense that those few hundred calories make a lot more difference on that end of things. I get why it makes sense to start with the most common answers when the question is "why aren't I losing," but it's good to be reminded that some people really do struggle more than others for reasons outside their control.
*ETA: I was one of those people who thought they had a slow metabolism because that's what I'd always heard from my mom about why she couldn't lose weight, even though I actually stayed a pretty stable weight for most of my teens and twenties (usually just above the normal BMI). I clearly had no idea what I was talking about.3 -
My parents were both thin and food for them was just a necessity to stay alive. They didn't plan events focused on food, instead they'd plan fishing or camping trips. They'd go to the park for walks or to a nearby festival to look at the crafts and just enjoy themselves. They even noticed the difference in how they thought about food compared to others. They said some people live to eat while they simply ate to live. My dad eats hot dogs and sweets almost daily but his meals are small and he's very active, even in his mid 70s. For me, I was introduced to good food when I met my husband's family. All of their events centered on big meals. I liked that! Ha but I gained 50 pounds over the years and have struggled since to have a better relationship with food and not center every weekend adventure or family gathering around eating too much.
See that's what's different about some people and families. Some think of going out to eat as the major treat in their lives or going to the movies. They dont really do active activities except maybe shopping.1 -
gebeziseva wrote: »I was naturally thin up until several years. And then I quit smoking. Now I'm no longer naturally thin. I lost the gained weight but can no longer maintain without depriving myself.
Where my brain was craving a cigarette is now craving food. Even after almost 3 years not smoking. I have no desire to light up now. But I think of food every couple of minutes. I don't think I will be naturally thin ever again.
I used to smoke around 40 cigs a day for 20 years. My brain is sadly ruined by that.
The fact that due to health issues I'm completely sedentiary and maintain at 1500cals doesn't help at all. I used to be able to exercise a bit but now I can't.
I'm really strugling.
I think i read that nicotine lowers your set point so you tend to weigh less.
7 -
WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »I was naturally thin up until several years. And then I quit smoking. Now I'm no longer naturally thin. I lost the gained weight but can no longer maintain without depriving myself.
Where my brain was craving a cigarette is now craving food. Even after almost 3 years not smoking. I have no desire to light up now. But I think of food every couple of minutes. I don't think I will be naturally thin ever again.
I used to smoke around 40 cigs a day for 20 years. My brain is sadly ruined by that.
The fact that due to health issues I'm completely sedentiary and maintain at 1500cals doesn't help at all. I used to be able to exercise a bit but now I can't.
I'm really strugling.
I think i read that nicotine lowers your set point so you tend to weigh less.
I think it's more a matter of, if you are sticking a cigarette in your piehole, it makes it a little more difficult to stick in pie. YMMV.6 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
2 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Metabolism is for sure a factor - one of many.
But so-called "high metabolism", as an explanation of why some people are allegedly "naturally thin", is neither a necessary condition, nor a sufficient one.
It's not a necessary condition, because some people stay thin lifelong with slower metabolisms: They have active lives, strong satiation cues, little interest in food/eating, strong desire to stay thin and the self-discipline to white-knuckle that desire, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
It's not a sufficient condition, because some people get fat despite a faster metabolism. They're sedentary, have poor satiation cues, can't resist eating as much as larger spouses/peers, adore food and eating, have some emotional reason for overeating, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
We see posts like this:CatchMom13 wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »There is no such thing as "naturally thin".
How is there not? There absolutely is people who are naturally thin within putting any effort into it. It's scientifically proven. It's called a high metabolism. Some people are gifted.
But "high metabolism" is just not that magic. It's just one of a number of potential contributing factors, at least several other common ones of which are of similar caloric magnitude.
200 to 600 calories is huge if those are calories you can't eat. On the flip side, it's easy to eat them. 200 (the more common variant) is half a mocha latte. 600 is around 3T of peanut butter.
Posts like the one just above make it sound like high metabolism is a magic bullet. It's not. Is it a help? Absolutely.
And the thought that it's a magic bullet becomes part of some people's self justification for staying fat, just like "too old", "hypothyroid", "short", "hate exercise", and more. Any of those can contribute to how hard or easy it is to lose weight, no question. But they don't make as much difference, numerically, as some people think.
I started last year obese and at 195 pounds. (Prob had slipped from overweight to obese about 6 months earlier. ). I put on 20 pounds ish in 2015 and again in 2016. No excuses, I did that.
Why? Well 20 pounds a year is about 200 calories a day.
Anything change in that time? Yeah, menopause. Activity change? No. Eating habits change? No. Hmmm, maybe the “mythical” metabolic post menopause slowdown? (Bring on the woos).
All I know is I lost it - much slower than any calculator or MFP said I should. And I seem to be hitting maintenance at <1400 daily calories. I sure fire was less active 5 years ago and ate more than that - a lot more. And held a stable weight (just overweight by BMI) for almost a decade.
I became obese because I ate about 200 extra calories than my body used a day: basic CICO. But what frustrates me is reading post after post dismissing metabolism as a possible cause when I know for a fact in some cases (mine for example, and I really doubt I’m an outlier- just at the slow end of normal) the whole problem is a slow metabolism.
No excuses, I did the hangry making work and I lost that weight and am 3 pounds above a normal BMI weight now (Basically where I was for the decade prior to menopause). But I had to eat 1200 calories for an average loss of less than a pound a week. And maintenance seems to be settling at 1350ish (hoping and praying I’m wrong, but 2 weeks stable at that calorie intake indicates that’s the hand I’m dealt).
So, me? I naturally really have huge empathy for others who have to deal with the fact that they experience a 20 pound weight gain a year from the ‘small factor’ of 200 extra calories a day they would have if their metabolism were not on the slower side. It isn’t an excuse, but it is an unfortunate challenge and extra hurdle.
And the MFP forum standard dismissal of this slower end metabolism reality for many people as ‘woo’ or just a small factor - well frankly if you want people like that to give up, or feel that their struggles are trivial and/or trivialized, then you are taking the right approach.
I’m sorry Ann, and I won’t stalk you on this subject any further. But I respect you, and you seem reasonable so I wanted to try to communicate with someone on MFP that ... well ... that there are significant number of people in that low end of the metabolic bell curve - maybe not statistically significant but a whole lot of folks for whom 100 or 200 calories a day IS indeed likely the difference between obesity and healthy weight. And I sure do hope they don’t come to these forums much.
I don't think that people mean to woo the idea that the slow end of the metabolism scale exists, but it's more that there's a tendency to assume that most people who think that they are on the slow end likely aren't, because it's just such a common excuse for not losing weight among people who don't really understand CICO.* You don't really see the reverse much probably because it's just a lot more common for people to underestimate calories in and overestimate calories out, and because people rarely post to complain about losing too fast (although it does happen). If I recall correctly, you're also somewhat older and shorter, right? It makes sense that those few hundred calories make a lot more difference on that end of things. I get why it makes sense to start with the most common answers when the question is "why aren't I losing," but it's good to be reminded that some people really do struggle more than others for reasons outside their control.
*ETA: I was one of those people who thought they had a slow metabolism because that's what I'd always heard from my mom about why she couldn't lose weight, even though I actually stayed a pretty stable weight for most of my teens and twenties (usually just above the normal BMI). I clearly had no idea what I was talking about.
I think this is valid - my mom is a good example of someone who claims to have a low metabolism, but has no way of knowing because she won't face the reality of CICO. After seeing my successful weight loss she asked me to help her set up a MFP account, and I said she should start off slowly at half a pound a week. It gave her 1600 calories or thereabouts, and she said, "Oh, if I ate that much food I would gain a pound a day!" And never bothered going back to the program.
Well... she eats a ton of food a day. I challenged her to just log what she ate for a week without changes, and she said she would but then didn't. But I have lived with her. I know my normal weight husband from a normal weight family used to secretly take his plate outside and scrape two thirds of it off into the trash when he ate at our house because the volume of food we ate at a meal quite literally sickened him. He would tell my mother he wasn't hungry and to give him a small amount, and she would give him enough for four people - unlike the rest of us who were eating enough for six people. I don't live at home anymore, but considering my mom has mentioned she eats a large Wendy's fry every day on the way home from dance class, and regularly picks up and eats an entire box of chocolate when she is "trying to lose weight," but "just needed a little something" to make her feel better about stress of some sort, my mom probably has a great metabolism. I know my metabolism is fine, considering - when I log properly I lose at more than the expected rate.
I think it's been demonstrated by many, many studies that there are definitely physical differences between different people which make it easier for some to maintain a normal weight. Everything from gut biome to hunger hormones. But I also think that it's very tempting for people to self diagnose themselves as being in some special group instead of just doing the work of logging.3 -
French_Peasant wrote: »WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »I was naturally thin up until several years. And then I quit smoking. Now I'm no longer naturally thin. I lost the gained weight but can no longer maintain without depriving myself.
Where my brain was craving a cigarette is now craving food. Even after almost 3 years not smoking. I have no desire to light up now. But I think of food every couple of minutes. I don't think I will be naturally thin ever again.
I used to smoke around 40 cigs a day for 20 years. My brain is sadly ruined by that.
The fact that due to health issues I'm completely sedentiary and maintain at 1500cals doesn't help at all. I used to be able to exercise a bit but now I can't.
I'm really strugling.
I think i read that nicotine lowers your set point so you tend to weigh less.
I think it's more a matter of, if you are sticking a cigarette in your piehole, it makes it a little more difficult to stick in pie. YMMV.
Nicotine is also known to be an appetite suppressant. I know it functioned that way for me when I used to smoke.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »I was naturally thin up until several years. And then I quit smoking. Now I'm no longer naturally thin. I lost the gained weight but can no longer maintain without depriving myself.
Where my brain was craving a cigarette is now craving food. Even after almost 3 years not smoking. I have no desire to light up now. But I think of food every couple of minutes. I don't think I will be naturally thin ever again.
I used to smoke around 40 cigs a day for 20 years. My brain is sadly ruined by that.
The fact that due to health issues I'm completely sedentiary and maintain at 1500cals doesn't help at all. I used to be able to exercise a bit but now I can't.
I'm really strugling.
I think i read that nicotine lowers your set point so you tend to weigh less.
I think it's more a matter of, if you are sticking a cigarette in your piehole, it makes it a little more difficult to stick in pie. YMMV.
Nicotine is also known to be an appetite suppressant. I know it functioned that way for me when I used to smoke.
Oh, definitely, and I think that is well supported in the peer reviewed literature.
I was just raising an eyebrow at the "lowering set point" concept, which does not appear to be well supported in the lit. I don't have a chance to dig too deep, but I found a rat study that looks like it functioned more as an appetite suppressant, and a study from 2002 based on 7 smokers who were doing some kind of self-reporting and then it was claimed it lowered their set-point weight-wise. Looks a little shady to me. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12126990
3 -
French_Peasant wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »WillingtoLose1001984 wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »I was naturally thin up until several years. And then I quit smoking. Now I'm no longer naturally thin. I lost the gained weight but can no longer maintain without depriving myself.
Where my brain was craving a cigarette is now craving food. Even after almost 3 years not smoking. I have no desire to light up now. But I think of food every couple of minutes. I don't think I will be naturally thin ever again.
I used to smoke around 40 cigs a day for 20 years. My brain is sadly ruined by that.
The fact that due to health issues I'm completely sedentiary and maintain at 1500cals doesn't help at all. I used to be able to exercise a bit but now I can't.
I'm really strugling.
I think i read that nicotine lowers your set point so you tend to weigh less.
I think it's more a matter of, if you are sticking a cigarette in your piehole, it makes it a little more difficult to stick in pie. YMMV.
Nicotine is also known to be an appetite suppressant. I know it functioned that way for me when I used to smoke.
Oh, definitely, and I think that is well supported in the peer reviewed literature.
I was just raising an eyebrow at the "lowering set point" concept, which does not appear to be well supported in the lit. I don't have a chance to dig too deep, but I found a rat study that looks like it functioned more as an appetite suppressant, and a study from 2002 based on 7 smokers who were doing some kind of self-reporting and then it was claimed it lowered their set-point weight-wise. Looks a little shady to me. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12126990
Well the appetite supressant angle makes a lot of sense!0 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Metabolism is for sure a factor - one of many.
But so-called "high metabolism", as an explanation of why some people are allegedly "naturally thin", is neither a necessary condition, nor a sufficient one.
It's not a necessary condition, because some people stay thin lifelong with slower metabolisms: They have active lives, strong satiation cues, little interest in food/eating, strong desire to stay thin and the self-discipline to white-knuckle that desire, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
It's not a sufficient condition, because some people get fat despite a faster metabolism. They're sedentary, have poor satiation cues, can't resist eating as much as larger spouses/peers, adore food and eating, have some emotional reason for overeating, or any one or more of a number of possible contributing factors.
We see posts like this:CatchMom13 wrote: »kristen8000 wrote: »There is no such thing as "naturally thin".
How is there not? There absolutely is people who are naturally thin within putting any effort into it. It's scientifically proven. It's called a high metabolism. Some people are gifted.
But "high metabolism" is just not that magic. It's just one of a number of potential contributing factors, at least several other common ones of which are of similar caloric magnitude.
200 to 600 calories is huge if those are calories you can't eat. On the flip side, it's easy to eat them. 200 (the more common variant) is half a mocha latte. 600 is around 3T of peanut butter.
Posts like the one just above make it sound like high metabolism is a magic bullet. It's not. Is it a help? Absolutely.
And the thought that it's a magic bullet becomes part of some people's self justification for staying fat, just like "too old", "hypothyroid", "short", "hate exercise", and more. Any of those can contribute to how hard or easy it is to lose weight, no question. But they don't make as much difference, numerically, as some people think.
I started last year obese and at 195 pounds. (Prob had slipped from overweight to obese about 6 months earlier. ). I put on 20 pounds ish in 2015 and again in 2016. No excuses, I did that.
Why? Well 20 pounds a year is about 200 calories a day.
Anything change in that time? Yeah, menopause. Activity change? No. Eating habits change? No. Hmmm, maybe the “mythical” metabolic post menopause slowdown? (Bring on the woos).
All I know is I lost it - much slower than any calculator or MFP said I should. And I seem to be hitting maintenance at <1400 daily calories. I sure fire was less active 5 years ago and ate more than that - a lot more. And held a stable weight (just overweight by BMI) for almost a decade.
I became obese because I ate about 200 extra calories than my body used a day: basic CICO. But what frustrates me is reading post after post dismissing metabolism as a possible cause when I know for a fact in some cases (mine for example, and I really doubt I’m an outlier- just at the slow end of normal) the whole problem is a slow metabolism.
No excuses, I did the hangry making work and I lost that weight and am 3 pounds above a normal BMI weight now (Basically where I was for the decade prior to menopause). But I had to eat 1200 calories for an average loss of less than a pound a week. And maintenance seems to be settling at 1350ish (hoping and praying I’m wrong, but 2 weeks stable at that calorie intake indicates that’s the hand I’m dealt).
So, me? I naturally really have huge empathy for others who have to deal with the fact that they experience a 20 pound weight gain a year from the ‘small factor’ of 200 extra calories a day they would have if their metabolism were not on the slower side. It isn’t an excuse, but it is an unfortunate challenge and extra hurdle.
And the MFP forum standard dismissal of this slower end metabolism reality for many people as ‘woo’ or just a small factor - well frankly if you want people like that to give up, or feel that their struggles are trivial and/or trivialized, then you are taking the right approach.
I’m sorry Ann, and I won’t stalk you on this subject any further. But I respect you, and you seem reasonable so I wanted to try to communicate with someone on MFP that ... well ... that there are significant number of people in that low end of the metabolic bell curve - maybe not statistically significant but a whole lot of folks for whom 100 or 200 calories a day IS indeed likely the difference between obesity and healthy weight. And I sure do hope they don’t come to these forums much.
I don't mean to dismiss or discourage anyone. I'm sorry I'm discouraging you or others like you. It's just that I don't know how to accomplish that, given what you've said, unless I stop telling my truth.
I am routinely saying that those calories are a big deal for people on the unlucky side of the bell curve. People like you need to target the same macros at the same body size, but have less wiggle room to get them all in. You need to eat that much less (a bigger gap) compared to others around you who may be bigger or more active. Moreover, you have to eat less than people of the same size in order to maintain the same weight. That s**ks.
I think you may've seen me come into threads where I feel someone is being criticized or diminished as logging inaccurately or even lying, to say that they may instead be on the unlucky side of the bell curve and deserve consideration of that possibility. Certainly, I've done this multiple times.
I don't know, from the standpoint of hunger and satiety, that we can draw any conclusions, for reasons @lemurcat12 outlined very well above. Simplistically, a person who requires 400 more calories may get hungry 400 calories sooner, and struggle just as hard in that way to stay in calorie goal - there's no way to know.
What I feel like is getting lost in how you're presenting it is that we all have feelings and experiences, and I think the right to speak about them honestly.
I long assumed I had a "slow metabolism". I was obese (183 when I started losing, but up into the 190s at other times). I was much more active workout-wise in recent years than many similar-height but thinner people around me who seemed to eat as much as I did. I was "older" (59 when I started weight loss for serious). I was then almost 15 years past chemotherapy-induced menopause (age 45), and had been on anti-estrogen drugs for 7.5 years of that, which makes a person sort of hyper-menopausal - weight gain is one common side effect of those drugs. I was hypothyroid. I won't call myself short, at 5'5", but I'm not tall. From a brief period of non-obesity in college, I knew I had a small frame.
Only when I started losing weight did I discover that I was on the lucky side of the bell curve, though I have no idea why. I can eat several hundred more calories daily than I "should" be able to. I'm grateful. I routinely say that I feel very lucky, and I don't indulge here in "I can eat X therefore so can you" (the opposite, in fact).
But when people (like one I quoted above) essentially say a high metabolism makes it possible to stay thin without putting in any effort, I think I'm entitled to tell my truth.
I became obese despite a "high metabolism". It was easy to do so. When people say it should've been no effort for people like me to stay thin, they are dismissing and trivializing people like me. Are they implying that we're lazy gluttons, that's why we got fat? Do I need to keep quiet?
Beyond that, because of the circumstances outlined above, I truly believed I had a slow metabolism. In retrospect, that was incorrect, but - given my circumstances - I don't think it was irrational. I think it's a true and accurate representation of my truth to say that metabolism is not the magic bullet that some people seem to believe. A big factor, certainly, but one of at least several.
I don't think I should feel obligated to suppress my feelings or experiences, presented as sensitively, carefully and sympathetically as I can manage.12 -
.Most of the people I know who have always been at a healthy weight work at it. They talk about health and healthy foods a lot. They make an effort to exercise regularly, not for weight loss but because it's good for them, helps them manage stress. They try to eat healthy because they feel better that way. They frequently talk about wanting to lose those pesky 5 pounds.
It's perhaps a mindset, but it isn't one that is far off from what MFP is all about: eat right and be active.
I’ve been “accused” of being naturally thin with “good genes”. I laughed. I maintained in about a ten pound range for 30 years. Then the 50’s came and I maintained in a 15 pound range. By 60 I was up 20 pounds. To me, that was really really high. Now I’ve lost 15 and am back in my normal range, with more work than in the past. And have 5# of, to me, “non-vanity” weight to be fit.
I also need to exercise and love it. I’ve worked out my whole life, from jogging for decades, to now biking inside every morning and rowing, with a twice a week strength and endurance class after work.
Exercise and fitting into my jeans have been my tools. But at 10-20# up a switch gets flipped and my weight is “unacceptable” and I lose some. It isn’t easy, however.
1 -
fiddletime wrote: »
.Most of the people I know who have always been at a healthy weight work at it. They talk about health and healthy foods a lot. They make an effort to exercise regularly, not for weight loss but because it's good for them, helps them manage stress. They try to eat healthy because they feel better that way. They frequently talk about wanting to lose those pesky 5 pounds.
It's perhaps a mindset, but it isn't one that is far off from what MFP is all about: eat right and be active.
I’ve been “accused” of being naturally thin with “good genes”. I laughed. I maintained in about a ten pound range for 30 years. Then the 50’s came and I maintained in a 15 pound range. By 60 I was up 20 pounds. To me, that was really really high. Now I’ve lost 15 and am back in my normal range, with more work than in the past. And have 5# of, to me, “non-vanity” weight to be fit.
I also need to exercise and love it. I’ve worked out my whole life, from jogging for decades, to now biking inside every morning and rowing, with a twice a week strength and endurance class after work.
Exercise and fitting into my jeans have been my tools. But at 10-20# up a switch gets flipped and my weight is “unacceptable” and I lose some. It isn’t easy, however.
Looking at your profile pic I would not have guessed you were over 60, so you're doing something right!2 -
In my mind- it’s more normal to eat more than you need to. It seems like it would be a survival instinct to eat as much as possible because who knows when we might get another meal. “ Cave man times” and all that. Maybe I’m wrong.CattOfTheGarage wrote: »All the "naturally thin" people I know (my husband and all my in-laws) genuinely don't want food if they're not hungry. That's the main difference I notice.
They also get antsy when they have eaten a lot, and want to get up and go for a long walk or something. It's not necessarily the same day, might be the following day, but it happens. They also eat less on following days.
It's not a difference in how they and I *think*. They barely think about it at all. It's a difference in feelings and reactions.
Intuitive eating like that just blows my mind. I know a lot of people like this. The concept of body and mind being so in tune and autoregulating the calorie intake and expendurw without much concious awareness of the process! That's how our bodies are supposed to.work idea. But I don't think i'll ever be alble to learn this. I've had disordered eating since I was 10 and later a full blown ED. My hunger cues are forever messed up. Still I often dream that some day I'll ve able to mentain not trough logging, not even through habit but intuitively.3 -
We're all from the same tribe when you put a pizza in front of us.4
-
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
OK, my knowledge of stats sucks (and I have proof that confirms that!)
However.... using the abstract sited:
8% co-efficient of variation (defined according to wikepedia as standard deviation divided by mean) for resting metabolic rate.
Let's assume a 1500 RMR (slightly lower than my MFP BMR of 1518, just for ease of number crunching).
Using 8% co-efficient of variation, this means a standard deviation of 120 Cal.
Which means that a person who is TWO standard deviations from the mean would be 240 Cal away
So 2.5% of the population would be at 1260BMR instead of 1500. and 2.5% of the population at 1740 instead of 1500. And 95% in-between assuming a normal distribution.
I am a very active person on MFP (actually exceed that most of the time). That is an activity factor of 1.8 on MFP.
1260 x 1.8 = 2268
1500 x 1.8 = 2700 and
1740 x 1.8 = 3131 (for the lucky people on the other end of the spectrum)
So same activity, same "expected BMR", and at the margins of what the quoted abstract lists we have one PAV8888 eating 2268 Cal to maintain and at the other end a different but identically active PAV8888 eating 3131 to maintain!
I don't call that a SMALL difference.
You then ADD to that a 1-2% exercise energy expenditure coefficient of variation. And even better, according to that paper, the one that so many people around here seem to believe is minor, a 20% coefficient of variation for diet-induced thermogenesis.
Now, according to that paper's summary, regardless of all that, the people they stuck in a metabolic chamber all pretty much ended up within a 5% to 10% coefficient of variation for the whole day (so all the PAV8888s in the metabolic chamber ranged, using the 10% figure, from a TDEE of 2430 to 2970 due to their non-exercise activity habits... which is less than I demonstrate above, but which is still an extra meal!)
So... what am I mis-reading? *I am on phone and have only accessed the abstract*
(And no, when I was gaining weight it wasn't because my metabolism was slow. It was because I was both inactive and eating more calories on average than I do now that I am multiple times more active. My actual base metabolism IS actually slower now.)5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions