Why aren’t there more 500+ pound people?

TroyWebber

I was reading a statistic that the average American consumes 3750 calories a day.

Before I got in shape, I’m certain that I was averaging numbers like that but the largest I ever got was 238# ( 6’ tall guy)

When I lost weight it was really linear. I lost a pound a week over 65 weeks by using a 500 cal a day deficit.It went exactly how it was supposed to.

I still don’t understand why I wasn’t gaining a pound every week all those years that I was eating 1000+ calorie surplus a day? Or why the average American isn’t hundreds of pounds overweight given the Average calorie consumption.

I was almost completely sedentary for 20 years.My weight did go up, but it was a couple pounds a year over many years.

laurenq1991

The fatter you get, the more calories you require to maintain that weight. If you're obese your TDEE will be higher than 2000-2500 calories, possibly much higher. Also, this is an average. I know from watching My 600-Lb Life that a lot of super-morbidly obese people can eat 8000 calories a day or more (some extreme athletes do also). That minority of people drives the average up.

kimny72

TroyWebber wrote: »

I was reading a statistic that the average American consumes 3750 calories a day.

Before I got in shape, I’m certain that I was averaging numbers like that but the largest I ever got was 238# ( 6’ tall guy)

When I lost weight it was really linear. I lost a pound a week over 65 weeks by using a 500 cal a day deficit.It went exactly how it was supposed to.

I still don’t understand why I wasn’t gaining a pound every week all those years that I was eating 1000+ calorie surplus a day? Or why the average American isn’t hundreds of pounds overweight given the Average calorie consumption.

I was almost completely sedentary for 20 years.My weight did go up, but it was a couple pounds a year over many years.

First, there's really no way for you to know how many calories you were eating on average, unless you were logging all that time. We are, in general, notoriously bad at estimating how much we eat. maybe some days you did eat 3500 calories, but other days you only ate 2000 and it averaged out to less than you think.

Also, there is no way to verify the statistic that the average American eats 3750 calories. There is literally no way to know that. Do you know where you saw it or how it was determined? Anyway, an average is only useful if you can see the distribution of the data points that went into the calculation. A handful of outliers who are really off in left field can make an "average" seem much more dramatic than it is. Which is great for clickbait, but not really useful for anything else. There is no "average American", there are men and women from 4' something to 7', gauntly skinny to morbidly obese, active to bed ridden. A 7' male athlete could probably eat 3700 cals and be fine, a 4'10 sedentary woman, not so much.

MostlyWater

Maybe it's because you were young and your metabolism was higher?

TroyWebber

Yeah that makes sense. Maybe It was a combination of being bigger and having a higher metabolism.I didn’t log food then,but I have been logging for a long time now. That is what got me thinking about this.Just remembering how I used to eat daily and knowing now what a diet like that is worth in calories, it just doesn’t seem like the math could add up to me only gaining a couple of pounds a year.But it did, so I guess the only explanation is that I burned the excess calories.

CSARdiver

I would question the source of that statistic. That seems unrealistically high and sensational. That and people are inconsistent with their eating habits and may eat at deficit, maintenance, or surplus and not be aware of this.

Metabolism is primarily driven by body mass. There really is no such thing as fast or slow metabolism, just minor adaptive changes based upon environmental variables...at least to a detectable degree.

laurenq1991

CSARdiver wrote: »

Metabolism is primarily driven by body mass. There really is no such thing as fast or slow metabolism, just minor adaptive changes based upon environmental variables...at least to a detectable degree.

I think there is but not in the way people think. My TDEE is 2000-2100 cals/day which is higher than what MFP predicts based on my weight, height, and activity level (1800 cals/day). But I am one of those nervous people who is always getting up, pacing around, stretching, having nervous twitches like tapping or leg jiggling, etc. I think that burns a low but steady rate of extra calories throughout the day and is part of why I have never been overweight.

CSARdiver

laurenq1991 wrote: »

CSARdiver wrote: »

Metabolism is primarily driven by body mass. There really is no such thing as fast or slow metabolism, just minor adaptive changes based upon environmental variables...at least to a detectable degree.

I think there is but not in the way people think. My TDEE is 2000-2100 cals/day which is higher than what MFP predicts based on my weight, height, and activity level (1800 cals/day). But I am one of those nervous people who is always getting up, pacing around, stretching, having nervous twitches like tapping or leg jiggling, etc. I think that burns a low but steady rate of extra calories throughout the day and is part of why I have never been overweight.

I should clarify - when I say metabolism I'm referring to BMR and not factoring in activity as this is a known variable.

cwolfman13

TroyWebber wrote: »

I was reading a statistic that the average American consumes 3750 calories a day.

Before I got in shape, I’m certain that I was averaging numbers like that but the largest I ever got was 238# ( 6’ tall guy)

When I lost weight it was really linear. I lost a pound a week over 65 weeks by using a 500 cal a day deficit.It went exactly how it was supposed to.

I still don’t understand why I wasn’t gaining a pound every week all those years that I was eating 1000+ calorie surplus a day? Or why the average American isn’t hundreds of pounds overweight given the Average calorie consumption.

I was almost completely sedentary for 20 years.My weight did go up, but it was a couple pounds a year over many years.

Not sure how credible the statistic is, but even if it's correct, someone is going to maintain on 3750 calories long before they hit 500 Lbs simply because of body mass and what is required to maintain that body mass.

laurenq1991

CSARdiver wrote: »

I should clarify - when I say metabolism I'm referring to BMR and not factoring in activity as this is a known variable.

I know but I'm saying that baseline tendency towards being more still or more fidgety isn't what people would necessarily think of when they think of "activity." So they think that these differences in daily calorie needs are due to metabolism.

TroyWebber

I just did a tdee calculation based on 500# 6 ‘ tall , sedentary ,40 year old guy and you are correct. It would take 3850 cal to maintain.I never would have imagined that it would be such a difference.It makes sense,though.That is a lot of extra weight to heat and move.