Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Metabolism privilege
shaumom
Posts: 1,003 Member
This is an entirely theoretical question. :-)
Everyone's heard of high metabolism vs. low metabolism, but how much it impacts one's ability to gain or lose weight is debated, from what I've seen.
For the purposes of this question, let's pretend it exists. Not only exists, but has a huge impact. So a person could have, essentially, 'metabolism privilege.' It's like people with a low metabolism are playing the game of 'losing weight' at the high difficulty setting, and people with a high metabolism are playing the game on the 'easy' setting.
So pretending that is true - I'm not saying it is, just for the purposes of this discussion - would knowing this alter how you think about losing weight with other people? And if so, how?
Like, would you trust people's dieting advice more if you knew they had the same metabolism as you did? Would you have more compassion for people with low metabolism or less sympathy for those with high metabolism, when they are struggling? And so on.
Everyone's heard of high metabolism vs. low metabolism, but how much it impacts one's ability to gain or lose weight is debated, from what I've seen.
For the purposes of this question, let's pretend it exists. Not only exists, but has a huge impact. So a person could have, essentially, 'metabolism privilege.' It's like people with a low metabolism are playing the game of 'losing weight' at the high difficulty setting, and people with a high metabolism are playing the game on the 'easy' setting.
So pretending that is true - I'm not saying it is, just for the purposes of this discussion - would knowing this alter how you think about losing weight with other people? And if so, how?
Like, would you trust people's dieting advice more if you knew they had the same metabolism as you did? Would you have more compassion for people with low metabolism or less sympathy for those with high metabolism, when they are struggling? And so on.
5
Replies
-
I don't think it's even possible to answer that.
Because I'm always in my own body.
I am always coming at everything from my own perspective.
Compassion? Absolutely, but it's not my job to figure out other peoples' Rubiks Cubes. That's their job. All any of us can really do is share what has worked for us.
Eat less. Move more. Ta da.15 -
Not really. At the end of the day, no matter how many calories we're using, we all need the same thing to maintain our weight -- the right number of calories of our activity level. So if I somehow found out that someone I was getting advice from was somehow burning 200 calories more than I would at the same weight/activity level, it wouldn't really make a difference to me. Both of us need to understand approximately how much energy we're using, both of us need to understand approximately how much we're eating.
For someone whose body somehow uses more calories per day, reaching a deficit may be as challenging for them as it would be for me. Hunger, cravings, tempting foods, the desire to sit on the couch instead of going for a walk, these are equal opportunity challenges. Someone who needs to eat 2,000 calories a day to lose a pound per week may find that to be as challenging -- or even more challenging -- as someone who needs to eat 1,500 calories a day to lose a pound per week.13 -
Seems a pointless debate, given what we know about the actual distribution of resting metabolic rates.Everyone's heard of high metabolism vs. low metabolism, but how much it impacts one's ability to gain or lose weight is debated, from what I've seen.
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/One study[1] noted that one standard deviation of variance for resting metabolic rate (how many calories are burnt by living) was 5-8%; meaning 1 standard deviation of the population (68%) was within 6-8% of the average metabolic rate. Extending this, 2 standard deviations of the population (96%) was within 10-16% of the population average.[1]
Extending this into practical terms and assuming an average expenditure of 2000kcal a day, 68% of the population falls into the range of 1840-2160kcal daily while 96% of the population is in the range of 1680-2320kcal daily. Comparing somebody at or below the 5th percentile with somebody at or above the 95th percentile would yield a difference of possibly 600kcal daily, and the chance of this occurring (comparing the self to a friend) is 0.50%, assuming two completely random persons.
What does vary much more between people is appetite, level of activity, and responses to certain conditions, e.g., some people eat more when stressed while others increase activity, and there is even evidence that some people become more active as they eat less.
No, I wouldn't take advice based on someone's metabolism being like mine. I'd still base it on empirical evidence.Like, would you trust people's dieting advice more if you knew they had the same metabolism as you did? Would you have more compassion for people with low metabolism or less sympathy for those with high metabolism, when they are struggling? And so on.
I don't know if I would have any different sympathy for anyone. I'm already sympathetic that weight loss is hard.13 -
It's not privilege in the sense of intersectional theory. The concept doesn't fit.
However, there are definitely people who are 'hard gainers', who can accurately and persistently eat 3000 calories a day and maintain large calorie surpluses yet still not gain substantial weight.
Others have noted that comparison is the thief of joy.7 -
and if I had a slow metabolism would I get a handicap?0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Not really. At the end of the day, no matter how many calories we're using, we all need the same thing to maintain our weight -- the right number of calories of our activity level. So if I somehow found out that someone I was getting advice from was somehow burning 200 calories more than I would at the same weight/activity level, it wouldn't really make a difference to me. Both of us need to understand approximately how much energy we're using, both of us need to understand approximately how much we're eating.
For someone whose body somehow uses more calories per day, reaching a deficit may be as challenging for them as it would be for me. Hunger, cravings, tempting foods, the desire to sit on the couch instead of going for a walk, these are equal opportunity challenges. Someone who needs to eat 2,000 calories a day to lose a pound per week may find that to be as challenging -- or even more challenging -- as someone who needs to eat 1,500 calories a day to lose a pound per week.
This.
3 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »
However, there are definitely people who are 'hard gainers', who can accurately and persistently eat 3000 calories a day and maintain large calorie surpluses yet still not gain substantial weight.
Then it's not really a calorie surplus for them, is it?
As I've gotten older I feel like I am eating more and not gaining, but it could be absorption problems or better nutrition or it could be my imagination.
How do you know this 3000 calorie per day calorie surplus person always eats like that? What about his/her activity level?
5 -
and if I had a slow metabolism would I get a handicap?
I believe OP is arguing that a slower-than-usual metabolism (assuming such a thing exists) would be, in and of itself, a handicap when it comes to weight management.
So the question "would I get a handicap?" doesn't really make sense in this context. A handicap isn't something that is bestowed upon one like a prize, at least not to my understanding.4 -
Well, the logic of the OP's premise is somewhat skewed. Assuming someone is "privileged" with high metabolism, they wouldn't be struggling at all, so they wouldn't even need compassion. They would be one of those naturally skinny people that supposedly exist, that can eat anything they want and never gain weight. And in that made-up world, people with low metabolisms would be like the visually or hearing impaired, and would of course deserve sympathy for not being able to lose weight. In the real world, I get a lot of advice here and from others even though they are not overweight. To reject that advice would be like throwing a rope out to someone who has fallen out of a boat, only to have them say "No fair, you have the advantage of not being in the water with me."1
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Seems a pointless debate, given what we know about the actual distribution of resting metabolic rates.Everyone's heard of high metabolism vs. low metabolism, but how much it impacts one's ability to gain or lose weight is debated, from what I've seen.
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/One study[1] noted that one standard deviation of variance for resting metabolic rate (how many calories are burnt by living) was 5-8%; meaning 1 standard deviation of the population (68%) was within 6-8% of the average metabolic rate. Extending this, 2 standard deviations of the population (96%) was within 10-16% of the population average.[1]
Extending this into practical terms and assuming an average expenditure of 2000kcal a day, 68% of the population falls into the range of 1840-2160kcal daily while 96% of the population is in the range of 1680-2320kcal daily. Comparing somebody at or below the 5th percentile with somebody at or above the 95th percentile would yield a difference of possibly 600kcal daily, and the chance of this occurring (comparing the self to a friend) is 0.50%, assuming two completely random persons.
What does vary much more between people is appetite, level of activity, and responses to certain conditions, e.g., some people eat more when stressed while others increase activity, and there is even evidence that some people become more active as they eat less.
No, I wouldn't take advice based on someone's metabolism being like mine. I'd still base it on empirical evidence.Like, would you trust people's dieting advice more if you knew they had the same metabolism as you did? Would you have more compassion for people with low metabolism or less sympathy for those with high metabolism, when they are struggling? And so on.
I don't know if I would have any different sympathy for anyone. I'm already sympathetic that weight loss is hard.
Exactly! I'm all for playing with the factors you can play with to find individual tastes and preferences, but that's an individual end goal. At the end of the day, doing things because someone else did them with no evidence of efficacy other than "I feel like it helped" is part of why so many people are frustrated and confused about weigh loss. Control the major factors, play with the minor ones, and stop drawing conclusions based on a day or two of experimentation.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For someone whose body somehow uses more calories per day, reaching a deficit may be as challenging for them as it would be for me. Hunger, cravings, tempting foods, the desire to sit on the couch instead of going for a walk, these are equal opportunity challenges. Someone who needs to eat 2,000 calories a day to lose a pound per week may find that to be as challenging -- or even more challenging -- as someone who needs to eat 1,500 calories a day to lose a pound per week.
I think this really needs to be stressed. We often assume that someone who burns more calories has an easier time with their deficit, because it's still more food. But if someone's body burns 2500 cals per day, it NEEDS 2500 cals per day, and that 500 calorie deficit is still a 500 calorie deficit and will be felt.
I think for small sedentary women, the extra problem with a reasonable deficit might be twofold: 1. It requires more effort and allows for less wiggle room to cover your nutritional bases on such a small amount of food and 2. A psychological issue of seeing those small calorie numbers and feeling deprived by comparison.
Regardless, I don't withhold my sympathy from someone who is struggling, regardless of the calories they have to work with. Weight management is hard, and can tap into some powerful emotions. But whether you have 1200 cals or 2000 cals to work with, you need a calorie deficit to lose weight. For more specific tips or advice, I don't think it depends on a person's calorie goal what will work for them. Avoiding treats or limiting your eating window depends on your personality, your lifestyle, your problem solving skills, and your patience. Low carbing depends on what foods satiate you. Calorie counting depends on your comfort with numbers and if you have an obsessive personality. There are people with 1300 cal goals who are fitting in treats while others say abstaining is the only way that worked for them. Same for folks eating 1800 cals.
Regardless, I've taken career advice from people in different industries, I've taken money advice from people who have never been in my economic class, and I would take diet advice from someone with a fast metabolism. Knowledge doesn't have to be acquired through direct personal experience to be useful :drinker:5 -
cmriverside wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »
However, there are definitely people who are 'hard gainers', who can accurately and persistently eat 3000 calories a day and maintain large calorie surpluses yet still not gain substantial weight.
Then it's not really a calorie surplus for them, is it?
As I've gotten older I feel like I am eating more and not gaining, but it could be absorption problems or better nutrition or it could be my imagination.
How do you know this 3000 calorie per day calorie surplus person always eats like that? What about his/her activity level?
... or even relative size and body composition. I'm a pretty big guy and fairly muscular. I maintain on about 3500 calories a day. I wouldn't expect someone half my size to require the same amount. I have a friend that is much smaller than me but like you mentioned, his activity levels are off the charts. He trains for marathons/triathlons and he would probably die on 3500.
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »and if I had a slow metabolism would I get a handicap?
I believe OP is arguing that a slower-than-usual metabolism (assuming such a thing exists) would be, in and of itself, a handicap when it comes to weight management.
So the question "would I get a handicap?" doesn't really make sense in this context. A handicap isn't something that is bestowed upon one like a prize, at least not to my understanding.
it makes perfect sense. NUTRISYSTEMS lose weight in 6 weeks accept those w slow metabolism it will take 9 for you BUT we only charge you for 6 weeks 5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »and if I had a slow metabolism would I get a handicap?
I believe OP is arguing that a slower-than-usual metabolism (assuming such a thing exists) would be, in and of itself, a handicap when it comes to weight management.
So the question "would I get a handicap?" doesn't really make sense in this context. A handicap isn't something that is bestowed upon one like a prize, at least not to my understanding.
it makes perfect sense. NUTRISYSTEMS lose weight in 6 weeks accept those w slow metabolism it will take 9 for you BUT we only charge you for 6 weeks
You're talking about a discount, promotional pricing.2 -
Psychological aspects aside, someone with the "advantage" of a faster/stronger metabolism will experience hunger sooner and more intensely given the same food intake. My wife would always tell me that I'm "so lucky" that I'm a super tall dude who can eat a bunch, but I probably get just as much hunger eating 2500 calories as she does eating 1200.9
-
So here's your belief, then, @shaumom?How do some people stay skinny?
Is it really genetics or a metabolism? ...
...I get the calories in vs out but how is it someone can eat junk/ pizza take out soda chips candy daily and still be a string bean
Honestly, after researching the topic, I find it very hard to believe that weight loss is as simple as CICO for everyone. In large part because it's rare that the body is EVER that simple, especially for ALL people. Heck, we don't even have the same responses to freezing weather, or healing, or breathing - I can't imagine weight gain and loss is somehow more simplistic than everything else, you know?
And there are also studies here and there that indicate the potential for things we don't know about yet. For example, eating a pint of ice cream all at once, vs. over a course of the day, in small amounts, may cause more fat gain due to how the liver deals with excess sugars in the blood 'at one time.' Basically, having higher blood sugar levels than the body can deal with easily, all at once, can be more problematic to our weight than the same amount of sugars but in doses the body can process more easily.
An Israel based study of blood glucose levels found that people who eat the exact same foods, in the exact same amounts (even the exact same size), can have wildly different responses in terms of how much their blood glucose levels went up. And not just person A's blood glucose went up X amount, and person B's glucose went up a little less. They actually had some people's glucose levels go DOWN when they ate the same foods that made glucose levels spike in other people. The researcher's conclusions was that we know a lot less about digestion, etc... than we think we do, and our bodies might react a lot more individually than we think they do.
Studies on the renin-angiotensin system and angiotensin converting enzymes in the body have shown that it has an impact on one's rate of resting energy metabolism, which is obviously going to impact weight gain and loss. Drugs that impact this system can cause changes in weight without any change in calorie intake or exercise levels - it's all metabolism. And it's not a small change - in mice, if they are low in the enzyme, they had 50-60% less body fat than mice who had more of the enzyme.
Or in other words, metabolism may have a larger role than some would speculate. Or want to think about, because let's face it, it's nicer to think that we are a good shape because of things WE did. It's less nice if there was such a thing as, I dunno, 'metabolism privilege.' ^_^ Where, in the game of losing weight, some people are losing weight at a lower difficulty setting than everyone else.
It's also not fun to think, if that were the case, that some of us are stuck playing the game at the highest difficulty setting, whether we wanted to sign up for that or not.
I suspect eventually we'll find various mechanisms and processes in the body impact CICO and tweak it here and there (from fidgeting added calorie usage to bodily processes). Still, we don't KNOW any of those things right now. We don't really have an easy way to measure metabolism as a regular layperson, so CICO is a good general guideline for most of us, I imagine.
And if we see someone who is super, super skinny but seems to eat whatever they want, maybe we can imagine that their weight loss game is at an easier setting, and then ignore it and go on to win our own game. :-)
Because that sort of puts a different spin on this topic.
CICO is a math equation regarding energy balance, nothing more.
Do things affect that number? Yes.
That's all I have to say about that.
7 -
Weight loss is not a competition with a winner and a loser. People who believe in that intersectional BS see life as a competition where winners win because of privilege and losers lose because of... oh I don't know... institutional oppression. It's a poisonous enough concept to introduce into politics, much less trying to apply it to personal internal struggles, like weight loss.9
-
I would accept their advice if they were trying to guide me in finding my own personal numbers in order to maintain a healthy deficit sure. I wouldn't want to display a lack of compassion to anyone really either. A struggling person is a struggling person. maybe I'm just old fashioned though lol.1
-
InsertFunnyUsernameHere wrote: »Weight loss is not a competition with a winner and a loser. People who believe in that intersectional BS see life as a competition where winners win because of privilege and losers lose because of... oh I don't know... institutional oppression. It's a poisonous enough concept to introduce into politics, much less trying to apply it to personal internal struggles, like weight loss.
This is something that was floating around in the back of my mind and I couldn't find the right words for. What does the level of "compassion" I have for some one's weight loss journey (to use a phrase I dislike) have to do with anything? What would it change? If I lost weight at 1500 cals, and another woman with my exact same stats and lifestyle has to eat 1300 to lose weight, what difference would me having sympathy for her struggle make? It doesn't change what she has to do, and it doesn't change that it's her responsibility to do it or decide to stay where she is. It wouldn't change the advice I'd give her either.6 -
I'm guessing this topic came from this thread: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10725138/it-can-t-all-be-calories-in-out/p1 about how it can't just be calories in/calories out, because the person who started the conversation has a roommate who eats junk all the time and doesn't gain weight.
In the context of what we're doing here at MFP, I'm not sure I understand the relevance of slower/faster metabolism. We are all unique humans of various ages, weights, heights, etc. MFP calculations for how much a person should eat to be in a particular deficit rely on averages. Are there outliers? Of course, but what's the point of focusing on them?
For example, if I choose a deficit of 750 calories/day, giving me 1800 calories to eat, I'll use this as a guide and track this way for 4-6 weeks. At the end of that time, I can evaluate if I'm losing as expected or not, then adjust accordingly, just as anyone else would.4 -
InsertFunnyUsernameHere wrote: »Weight loss is not a competition with a winner and a loser. People who believe in that intersectional BS see life as a competition where winners win because of privilege and losers lose because of... oh I don't know... institutional oppression. It's a poisonous enough concept to introduce into politics, much less trying to apply it to personal internal struggles, like weight loss.
This is not an accurate description of intersectionality, btw.10 -
Well it isn't true and purely hypothetical - metabolism is simply based on mass and there is little variation in this process. This question only has the slightest bit of merit in a society cursed with abundance.
I have compassion, but there's a matter of prioritization at play here. On par with the compassion I felt when Metallica was railing against Napster.3 -
So pretending that is true - I'm not saying it is, just for the purposes of this discussion - would knowing this alter how you think about losing weight with other people? And if so, how?
Like, would you trust people's dieting advice more if you knew they had the same metabolism as you did? Would you have more compassion for people with low metabolism or less sympathy for those with high metabolism, when they are struggling? And so on.
Pretending it's true, no, it wouldn't, because I don't really rely on advice for others, but base what I try on my own research and what works for me, and I don't judge others based on their weight or weight loss. There are many, many reasons some people may find it harder than others. I imagine for most of us it's been harder or easier based on other things in our lives.
Beyond that, I don't see why metabolism wouldn't affect hunger, so that a 500 cal deficit would be equally hard, all else equal (which it never is).
Also, I now am positive the whole "privilege" thing has gotten way out of hand. A pretty good book on it is The Perils of Privilege by Phoebe Maltz Bovy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/03/23/the-last-thing-on-privilege-youll-ever-need-to-read/?utm_term=.df627ef762a84 -
...For the purposes of this question, let's pretend it exists. Not only exists, but has a huge impact. So a person could have, essentially, 'metabolism privilege.' It's like people with a low metabolism are playing the game of 'losing weight' at the high difficulty setting, and people with a high metabolism are playing the game on the 'easy' setting.
So pretending that is true - I'm not saying it is, just for the purposes of this discussion - would knowing this alter how you think about losing weight with other people? And if so, how?
Like, would you trust people's dieting advice more if you knew they had the same metabolism as you did? Would you have more compassion for people with low metabolism or less sympathy for those with high metabolism, when they are struggling? And so on.
No, not at all. In your hypothetical example if someone has a crappier metabolism that just means their CO is a lower. Yes, it means they don't get to eat as much as someone with a higher CO, but it also means they don't need as much food. In other words, they should be less hungry.
You don't really even need this hypothetical. A 5' person has a much lower CO than someone who is 7'. The short person needs to eat much less, but they will also have less hunger. If that wasn't the case obesity would be inversely proportional to things like height... the percentage of short people who are obese would be higher than the percentage of tall people who are obese.
8 -
cmriverside wrote: »So here's your belief, then, @shaumom?...
...Because that sort of puts a different spin on this topic.
No, actually. The spin you have assumed is no in way what's going on here.
This topic is not based in reality. There is no reality currently where we have proven that metabolism has a huge impact on weight gain, or any sort of standardized understanding of it. Sure, maybe there could be in the future, sorta-kinda, because I don't think we have it fully understood yet, but who cares? That literally doesn't matter here.
That other conversation DID trigger the trip down the rabbit hole, though, to think about what would it be like in a world where metabolism was an actual thing, that made a big difference. I'm a fan of old sci fi; I think about crap like 'if the world was X way, what would happen?' So it's related that way, sure. But right now, I was honestly just curious about the intellectual exercise of trying to think about 'what if.'
So reality doesn't matter - doesn't matter if metabolism doesn't work this way, or if CICO is a thing or not, or that people wouldn't be exactly the same, etc... Literally irrelevant.
It's looking at the ethical and social implications of a physical hypothetical. No different than speculating 'hey, what if half the world only had one leg,' or 'what if everyone you know was suddenly homeless.'
Honestly, I was kind of surprised by some of the answers, because they definitely went down a different rabbit hole than my own.
For me, I started thinking about things like, say, if there would be a financial issue for folks of one persuasion or another. More time available to work because you need less time to exercise if you're hi metabolism(HM)? Or there is more financial difficulty because LM folks find it harder to lose weight without professional help they'd have to pay for? Or maybe the opposite, because HM folks have to pay for more food to keep healthy.
And compassion - I personally tend to feel for anyone struggling, but I've noticed that sometimes, people can have an attitude that boils down to: I did it this way, and it worked, so if it's not working for you then you are just not trying hard enough. But if a world existed where it had been literally proven that the same thing won't work for both groups of people...would that change? Would we be more understanding when people are trying what we try and it's harder for them, or easier for them? Would we be more understanding when people who are struggling more have more failures?
Personally, I think it can be easier sometimes to understand and empathize with someone else if we know some of the struggles that they are going through, so I'd like to think that people might be more understanding of others, or more tolerant of people struggling without being as judgmental, if there was a specific, known, physical thing that people knew about each other. More compassionate about people who can't gain weight, or can't lose it, without enough effort that they are unable to keep it up, when they have other stressors in their lives, that sort of thing.
0 -
Okay. So what would "more compassionate" look like to you?
Because I'm wondering how you surmise whether someone is compassionate "enough"?
It waxes and wanes, honestly.
Sometimes I really care, but then stop caring after I hear the same person complain about the same thing eleventy times and do nothing to address the actual problem.10 -
cmriverside wrote: »So here's your belief, then, @shaumom?...
...Because that sort of puts a different spin on this topic.
No, actually. The spin you have assumed is no in way what's going on here.
This topic is not based in reality. There is no reality currently where we have proven that metabolism has a huge impact on weight gain, or any sort of standardized understanding of it. Sure, maybe there could be in the future, sorta-kinda, because I don't think we have it fully understood yet, but who cares? That literally doesn't matter here.
That other conversation DID trigger the trip down the rabbit hole, though, to think about what would it be like in a world where metabolism was an actual thing, that made a big difference. I'm a fan of old sci fi; I think about crap like 'if the world was X way, what would happen?' So it's related that way, sure. But right now, I was honestly just curious about the intellectual exercise of trying to think about 'what if.'
So reality doesn't matter - doesn't matter if metabolism doesn't work this way, or if CICO is a thing or not, or that people wouldn't be exactly the same, etc... Literally irrelevant.
It's looking at the ethical and social implications of a physical hypothetical. No different than speculating 'hey, what if half the world only had one leg,' or 'what if everyone you know was suddenly homeless.'
Honestly, I was kind of surprised by some of the answers, because they definitely went down a different rabbit hole than my own.
For me, I started thinking about things like, say, if there would be a financial issue for folks of one persuasion or another. More time available to work because you need less time to exercise if you're hi metabolism(HM)? Or there is more financial difficulty because LM folks find it harder to lose weight without professional help they'd have to pay for? Or maybe the opposite, because HM folks have to pay for more food to keep healthy.
And compassion - I personally tend to feel for anyone struggling, but I've noticed that sometimes, people can have an attitude that boils down to: I did it this way, and it worked, so if it's not working for you then you are just not trying hard enough. But if a world existed where it had been literally proven that the same thing won't work for both groups of people...would that change? Would we be more understanding when people are trying what we try and it's harder for them, or easier for them? Would we be more understanding when people who are struggling more have more failures?
Personally, I think it can be easier sometimes to understand and empathize with someone else if we know some of the struggles that they are going through, so I'd like to think that people might be more understanding of others, or more tolerant of people struggling without being as judgmental, if there was a specific, known, physical thing that people knew about each other. More compassionate about people who can't gain weight, or can't lose it, without enough effort that they are unable to keep it up, when they have other stressors in their lives, that sort of thing.
But I feel like most of these hypothetical consequences are already in play when it comes to weight loss, just due to different causes.
For example . . .
Someone without kids may be "advantaged" when it comes to burning calories because they have more time to exercise before and after work.
Someone who naturally loves vegetables may find it easier to create high volume, nutrient-rich, lower calorie meals than someone who struggles to enjoy vegetables.
Someone who loves cardio may wind up burning more calories per week because they're more aggressive about making time for exercise.
Someone who is only cooking and shopping for themselves is likely to find it easier to stick to their calorie goal because they're less tempted by snack foods of other household members.
Someone with extra money may find multiple components of weight loss easier (more flexibility with foods to buy, activities to try, etc).
I could go on and on. None of us are probably in the "ideal" situation for weight management, some of us are lucky enough to have several advantages, some of us may be working in the context of having few or even no advantages. Metabolism, if it turns out to be a factor, may not even be the biggest advantage.
Like for me -- I'm a childless woman who loves to cook, has enough money to indulge when it comes to food, really enjoys running, and have a job where it's pretty easy to make time for exercise. Even if I had the choice, I would probably choose to keep these advantages instead of having a metabolism boost of 100-200 calories a day.7 -
..and yeah, all we can do is say, "Here's what worked for me. Try it."
If 20 people say the same thing, maybe there's something to it.4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Seems a pointless debate, given what we know about the actual distribution of resting metabolic rates.
Pointless maybe if this were a reality-based debate looking at what should we do IF this is ever found to be true.
But I guess I don't view it as pointless if we're looking at a discussion about attitudes and ethics that involve people and losing weight, more. Such as, our own beliefs about other people, especially from the perspective of how we think about/treat them if we have known differences. Especially known differences that mean their experience of weight loss may not be the same as our own.
That's more what I was interested in discussing, not 'whether this could ever happen,' if that makes sense?
0 -
Some people like to "exercise" and "work out" and "eat vegetables."
That does not sound fair to me.
5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions