Metabolism is not the culprit when it comes to weight loss

amusedmonkey

While BMR is the largest driver of calories burned, it's usually the smallest driver of difference among people of similar stats. In that sense, the difference in NEAT tends to be the highest driver of difference in calories burned in the general population. Everyone has a BMR, and variation is usually relatively small, but variation in NEAT can be large. I think that's what the article is trying to say.

amusedmonkey

Jacwhite22 wrote: »

This might be true for most people, but I have a really slow metabolism. My mom told me that when I was a little kid and it wouldn't have changed now. That's the only reason I carry extra weight.

I have proven slower metabolism than most people with my stats. My sedentary calories are lower than that of people who share my stats because a back injury makes me unable to sit for more than a few minutes, and sitting burns more calories than lying down. My movement patterns are also slower with a smaller range of motion due to said injury, which burns fewer calories. This means nearly nothing for weight loss for me. By walking a lot throughout the day I'm more than capable of losing weight at the same rate others do.

If you look at the calories needed to maintain a normal and an obese weight for the same person, you would be shocked how small of a difference it can be in some cases and how large of a difference being more active can make.

Jackie9003

kimny72 wrote: »

Gonna be honest, I did not take the post about mom seriously, figured it was probably meant to illicit a reaction

I think the whole metabolism thing is one of the most destructive weight loss myths out there. So many people think they are a lost cause because "I've always had a slow metabolism" or "Now that I'm over <enter random age here> my metabolism slowed down and I can't lose weight". They either think there's no point or it just makes them jealous of people they assume won the genetic lottery. That lack of control runs all through so may weight loss myths, but I think most of the people (especially women) I know who have given up believe their slow metabolism has forced their hand

This was me, I lost 6st in my 30's then through a stressful few years put it and more back on again, in my early 40's tried to "diet" and lost no weight at all so thought that was it, I'm too old to lose it now, and blamed my metabolism. Then last year took stock and decided to change my lifestyle and get on here properly and I've lost 41lb, I've started looking at the science behind nutrition and weight loss too and its fascinating.

stevencloser

reeeggiii wrote: »

I have a question here. If someone had "fast metabolism" wouldn't it mean that they digest food faster and their cells take up the nutrients very efficiently, then if it's not used they store the extra energy as fat ? While those who had "slow meatbolism" should have food in their stomach longer, digest it slower, so the nutrients won't be stored that easily. This theory would suggest that those who gain fat easily actually has a "fast metabolism". Yeah, well the truth is that those who say they can't lose weight because of their metabolism eat way more calories than they burn...

You're of iring that your body doesn't digest foods for fun but because of necessity to keep you alive.

fb47

Does fast or slow metabolism really exist? I always thought is what we do with our bodies (activites) determines if we have a high metabolism or slow one. I take myself as an example, at the gym, I don't do cardio, I do lift 3-4 times a week. MFP lists me as extremely active, basically the maximum setting. However, when I look at what I do all day, for one, I walk all day at work and occasionally I'll lift a box here, another box there....nothing heavy, but those little stuff adds up at the end of the day. I tend to fidget a lot, sometimes I don't even notice it...heck sometimes I eat my lunch standing up. What I am saying is that when you add all these little things up, it can make you burn a huge chunk of calories in one day...and this is without counting other small factors that can help improve metabolism like drinking coffee, cold water, spicy foods, etc.... So at the end of day, can someone simply inherit really a fast or slow metabolism through genetics ? I don't think so (except those with medical issues like thyroid), I think it's more if we tend to move around instead of sitting around will determine if you have a good or bad metabolism, but who knows, I could also be wrong. The body is already complicated enough to understand.

psychod787

reeeggiii wrote: »

I have a question here. If someone had "fast metabolism" wouldn't it mean that they digest food faster and their cells take up the nutrients very efficiently, then if it's not used they store the extra energy as fat ? While those who had "slow meatbolism" should have food in their stomach longer, digest it slower, so the nutrients won't be stored that easily. This theory would suggest that those who gain fat easily actually has a "fast metabolism". Yeah, well the truth is that those who say they can't lose weight because of their metabolism eat way more calories than they burn...

If I remember correctly, many people attribute "higher" metabolisms in variations in NEAT.

psychod787

fb47 wrote: »

Does fast or slow metabolism really exist? I always thought is what we do with our bodies (activites) determines if we have a high metabolism or slow one. I take myself as an example, at the gym, I don't do cardio, I do lift 3-4 times a week. MFP lists me as extremely active, basically the maximum setting. However, when I look at what I do all day, for one, I walk all day at work and occasionally I'll lift a box here, another box there....nothing heavy, but those little stuff adds up at the end of the day. I tend to fidget a lot, sometimes I don't even notice it...heck sometimes I eat my lunch standing up. What I am saying is that when you add all these little things up, it can make you burn a huge chunk of calories in one day...and this is without counting other small factors that can help improve metabolism like drinking coffee, cold water, spicy foods, etc.... So at the end of day, can someone simply inherit really a fast or slow metabolism through genetics ? I don't think so (except those with medical issues like thyroid), I think it's more if we tend to move around instead of sitting around will determine if you have a good or bad metabolism, but who knows, I could also be wrong. The body is already complicated enough to understand.

fb47 wrote: »

Does fast or slow metabolism really exist? I always thought is what we do with our bodies (activites) determines if we have a high metabolism or slow one. I take myself as an example, at the gym, I don't do cardio, I do lift 3-4 times a week. MFP lists me as extremely active, basically the maximum setting. However, when I look at what I do all day, for one, I walk all day at work and occasionally I'll lift a box here, another box there....nothing heavy, but those little stuff adds up at the end of the day. I tend to fidget a lot, sometimes I don't even notice it...heck sometimes I eat my lunch standing up. What I am saying is that when you add all these little things up, it can make you burn a huge chunk of calories in one day...and this is without counting other small factors that can help improve metabolism like drinking coffee, cold water, spicy foods, etc.... So at the end of day, can someone simply inherit really a fast or slow metabolism through genetics ? I don't think so (except those with medical issues like thyroid), I think it's more if we tend to move around instead of sitting around will determine if you have a good or bad metabolism, but who knows, I could also be wrong. The body is already complicated enough to understand.

My tenants for exercise exactly! Stand a lot, walk a lot, lift stuff! LOL

Azdak

Almost all of what is described as, “slow metabolism” with aging, can be accounted for by A) loss of muscle mass; decreased overall movement/activity.