Am I just naturally big?

GigiJabo

Im wondering if Im just genetically predisposed to being fat. I will continue to eat healthy and exercise but want to make sure my goal is attainable for me and something I can maintain long term. I would ideally like to be thin and toned but don't want to set myself up for failure. So I started to get chubby at 4 years old and have struggled gone up and down since. My family did not have junk and my mom made home cooked meals that did not have processed short cuts like box macaroni and cheese. We rarely went out to eat or got take out. That being said I did eat a lot of rice, bread and pasta and didn’t exercise. I have lost weight and gained it back. Right now I am losing but my calorie intake is kinda low, 1,200. Im 175 lbs. So based on what I shared about my history is it possible to get and maintain the figure Id like or am I just the type of person that naturally has some fluff?

cmriverside

I think it's always wise to check in with a doctor before starting weight loss. If you've been over-weight since age four, there could be some pathology.

With that said - nutrition influences weight. You've heard the tome, "Man does not live on bread alone." Those words are true, and not true. You can live on pasta, rice, bread etc. for a while but you will definitely eat a lot less if you make it your priority to get the right mix of protein, fat, and carbs. A plan that is too heavy on carbs can (and does) lead to over-eating for most people.

Try logging food and hitting your Macros (protein, fat, carb) on a consistent basis. Get 4-8 servings of whole fruit and/or vegetables daily. See how you do.

HollyPFlax

Nope! No one is destined to be overweight. Your weight is strictly determined by the amount of calories you eat vs the amount of calories you burn. So keep at it and you can expect to see results. Over time, you will learn how to count calories more accurately and you'll be in even better control of your weight. Good luck, and if you ever have any questions, please post them in the forums here. You'll get great answers and it will help others who are learning. 🙂

AnnPT77

No, you're not doomed to fluff. You'll need to examine and change your habits, because weight is about what habits we find comfortable and automatic, not so much about genetics. Habits can change, and many people find new habits that are still comfortable and pretty automatic, but different from before. I did, so did lots of others here.

I won't promise you'll get the figure you really, really want, because sometimes people come here wanting something that realistically isn't their body type. For example, if I profoundly wished for a tiny waist, I'd be forever disappointed, because I have a more linear "sporty" build when I'm slim, not an hourglass shape. That's part of my genetics.

However, you can achieve a really nice, fit, attractive look that optimizes your body, I'm sure.

It's 100% possible to eat healthy foods . . . but too much of them. That was a major factor in around 3 decades of being overweight/obese, for me. (For example, I've been vegetarian for 47 years, thin to fat and back.) But I've been at a healthy body weight for 6+ years now, after starting to lose weight and joining MFP back in 2015.

Coincidentally, I started out a bit heavier than you, 183 pounds at 5'5", just over the line into class 1 obese for my height. I was already athletically active (even competing, not always unsuccessfully) when overweight/obese, had been for well over a decade while staying fat. I thought I had a slow metabolism. After all, I was old, menopausal, and even severely hypothyroid (but medicated for it).

Once I started calorie counting, I saw how I was eating quite a few calories in foods that weren't that important to me personally for tastiness, nutrition, satiation, or other reasons. Those were easy to reduce or cut out. I lost weight, formed new habits. I've been up and down a bit within the healthy range since losing 50+ pounds, but not enough to outgrow my skinny jeans. (I weighed 125 even this morning.)

And guess what? Along the way, I was lucky enough to learn that not only do I not have a "slow metabolism" (very few people do, BTW), but I need hundreds of calories more daily to maintain a healthy weight than MFP would predict for my demographic. Who'd a thunk? I didn't. (I'm sure some of that was due to my athletic history that started in my 40s: I'm no bodybuilder, but I have more muscle mass, and am more active, than the average 66-year-old woman I know.)

You can do this. Commit to finding new habits, sustainable habits that lead to and keep you at a healthy weight, and fit. Calorie counting can help. You don't have to do everything perfectly right away. Chip away at making changes, experiment (fail and learn, sometimes!) . . . just keep at it. You'll get there.

Best wishes!

psuLemon

While genetics may effect metabolism a little it isn't a lot. Most people fall within their expectated metabolic rate.

Often what you see, and I already see it, is most people will aggressively cut calories from the beginning. This often then leads to people not being compliant and coming off the diet for cheat meals or cheat days.

Other factors such as low daily movements (i.e., sedentary lifestyles) can make it difficult to lose weight from low total daily energy (calories burnt in a day).

JBanx256

In another thread, did you not state you have previously dropped down to 135, which you said was the lowest acceptable weight for your height? And did you not use the word "thin" to describe your condition at that time?

Yet here you're saying you think you're doomed to be fat and how you want to be thin etc...obviously you CAN lose the fluff (and have done so previously!). So you KNOW it's entirely within the realm of possibility.

Rice, bread, and pasta are perfectly reasonable to keep in your diet (assuming no medical contraindications, of course). It's just consuming them in quantities that will allow you to be in a deficit, if/when weight loss is your goal.

dontlikepeople

You might be genetically wired to be a bit more hungry than the average person, and that's fine. You just have to have a bit more will power than the average person to make up for it. People behave as if a genetic predisposition is limited strictly to your metabolism. It's not. Some people eat a little more. Some people naturally move a little more. Some people like chocolate, some people like vanilla. Some people are more susceptible to addictions. Some people have bushy eyebrows and some grow slightly bushier eyebrows. There are a million little variations between each individual.

But because we are sentient creatures, we can make decisions that over ride those impulses.

MsCzar

There is the number on the scale, there is healthy and then there is appearance. At uni, my roommate and I were both roughly the same height and weight: 10.5 stone (around 147 lb). I had a 66cm/26" waist. She had an 86cm/34" waist; but her thighs and bottom were far smaller than mine.
I am of the opinion that apple-shaped women have to fight harder than long-torso-ed types to have a slim appearance. I know several apple shaped women in the public spotlight that are healthy and fit - but actually maintain at underweight to not appear a little pudgy in the middle. Sometimes a little fluffy is just the way it is.

angelexperiment

I think you have to find what’s right for you. If I eat a bunch of breads pastas rice I gain like crazy. It’s about portions as well if you grow up not knowing your portions and your portions are like 3 servings per item on your plate you might not realize this is why you struggle to lose. Even if you think you are eating healthy you may be surprised to learn it’s not. Calories counting is a tool to use, finding your magic weight loss number that you lose at is important eat over it you gain eat under it you don’t lose, mine was higher and more excercise done more I had to eat if it was an intense hike or something. I could not lose on traditional diets, I have pros so weight loss was hard. I have to eat low carb or moderate to lose. Either keto or carb cycle was only thing that helped me and I still had to watch calories. Even when I moved on to other things like intermittent fasting, omad and 2mad I still have to watch calories bc I’ll gain very quickly.

russellholtslander1

I think the problem we have is we " eat healthy & exercise ", and never ask if that is not the answer, since it is NOT working.

Exercise won't make you lose much weight. You can speed up your metabolism some, and more muscle does it, but as a chubby kid who read about Arnold Schwarzenegger, and was determined to build muscle finds out quickly... you CAN build some muscle but most of us won't add enough to help with weight loss. Exercise has cardiovascular benefits, as well as building muscle, and strengthening tendons, and ligaments, but it should be looked to for weight loss.

Diet is 90% of weight loss, and we diligently follow the recommendations. I'm not saying we EAT what we plan, because that is almost impossible.. we eat our 2000 calorie diet, with fruit, grains, veggies, low fat, and low protein. 30% fat, 50% carbs, and 20% protein is what we learn, or a set amount of servings of each food group.

Since we are not idiots, ANY of us can plan a diet which does what is needed. Some of us even get a diet made by a dietitian/nutritionist, and all we have to do, is eat that.. so WHY do we fail?

The answer is because we feel hungry.. cravings, hunger.. whatever it is.. we eat because we feel we should. We can resist some, but in the end, we all succumb, and those who succeed, often do so, while feeling hungry and miserable all the time. Those who give in are looked upon as failures.

What you should do, is ask why a diet which gives you the right mix of macros, and the right amount of calories.. leaves you feeling hungry 3 hours after a meal.

I say the answer is that you are not eating the proper macros. We fail, because what is suggested doesn't work for most people.

Losing weight is simple.. eat a diet which eliminates any hunger on the recommended calories.

For me, that is 75-80% fat, 1-3% carbs, and 19-24% protein. Yes, calories matter. I eat 1600-1800 calories a day. I am 240 lbs. @ 5'6".. down 120 lbs.

Most people aren't diabetic, and can have more carbs, less fat.. we all need to find out what works for us.. but imagine if we started with a 60% fat, 20% protein, and carbs, with carbs coming from almost all non-starchy vegetables, a small amount of fruit throughout the year, and limited dairy, nuts, legumes, if you can handle them.

High fat, low carb, is an extreme corrective diet, I am doing AFTER becoming diabetic, from eating such high carbs for decades.. and bad carbs as well, but if we ate a high fat, moderate protein and carb diet from birth, we wouldn't be damaging our body until it breaks down, and we start to think hunger is NORMAL.. because it isn't. You should be able to go 2-3 days before you feel the need to eat. I eat every 5 hours, then fast 14 hours overnight, BUT, if I didn't eat for 48 hours, I would be fine.. THAT is normal.

We struggle, because we have been lied to, and think our diet is normal, so everything that occurs to us.. hunger, overeating, weight gain, aching joints, lethargy, and eventually diseases like heart disease, cancer & diabetes are ALSO normal. They are normal patterns in a life. They ARE NOT!

Doctors, nutritionists, and anyone dispensing dietary advice, which requires a license, has to repeat the common beliefs, even if it has made the majority of America sick, hungry, and miserable.

If following the advice ( if you can ) works for you, then you are lucky, and should stick to it. I feel the same about ANY plan which makes us healthy, since THAT is the goal.. to never be hungry, unless we fast for days, not hurt, have lots of energy, and not be low in nutrition, when we get tested.. and a healthy weight as well.

BUT, if it is NOT working, why are you trying it, failing, cheating until the memory of the last attempt fades, and trying the same thing over again... and again. It won't work the second time, or the 50th time. It won't work for you.

So try something else. I recommend what has worked for me, but if being a vegetarian works.. do THAT.. just stop doing what does not work.. makes sure you have given it a fair shot.. you ate as intended, so you know the diet failed, not that you failed to do it properly.. but I think all of us have done the recommended diet correctly in the end, at some point, and were still hungry, overate, and remained overweight, because we can't control our appetite.

Which is why I recommend cutting carbs.. because they tend to be what causes cravings. Think about steak, or mayo.. you don't overeat THOSE. If you eat a huge steak by itself, you are stuffed for 10 hours, but if you add potatoes, you find yourself wanting to eat in 5-6 hours, as soon as you digest it enough to have a little room in the stomach. Not all carbs do this.. greens with olive oil & vinegar dressing ( nothing else ), and green beans.. do you ever overeat these? Do you wake in the middle of the night craving green beans? No.. of course not. It is important to note that while ice cream & pretzels are obvious bad carbs, so are corm & potatoes for most people. They cause cravings.

A vegan diet, has more carbs than a LCHF diet, but usually, they are better carbs, so it is better than the recommended diet, and FAR better than what we end up eating.

If you decide that lower carb is the way to go.. or to try ANY other way of eating, see your doctor first, explain what you want to do, possibly see a dietitian who is willing to work with you. I don't think everyone needs to eat as strict as me, but if you eat better carbs.. non-starchy veggies mostly, maybe some cheese, nuts, and berries on occasion, and cut the amount until you stop having cravings, then you can eat the proper number of calories CONSISTENTLY, and lost weight.

We may not be " thin ", but you should be able to reach a healthy weight, and at the very least , should not think of yourself as big in the way you currently do.. you may be tall, or have big bones, and be 5-10 lbs. heavier than others your height, but no one is supposed to be obese.. 20% above your ideal weight.

My overall goal is 200 lbs. lost.. 120 gone now, and 80 to go, and it's just a matter of time.. of course, if I bottom out at 165-175, I won't cry about it.. but it's where I am supposed to be according to charts.. a 360 lb. guy has no idea what he should be at the end. I just picked 200, because it sounds great.

In the end, I want the same thing as my doctor.. to be healthy, and able to maintain it for the rest of my life. We just disagree on how I do that, and 2 decades of failure, and my success since switching, argue in MY favor.

Be careful, but don't continue doing what isn't working for you. Make a plan with your medical team, and try something different.

jerger1

I found 2 books by Gary Taubes really helpful. "Why We Get Fat" and "The Case For Keto". I started planning my whole Keto day ahead of time and then printing it so I can have it as my guide all day. Also, I set my food diary goals to Keto. It's early days but so far it is working.

elisa123gal

You can be overweight and be healthy. It all depends on what your doctor tells you about your bloodwork. You won't get the answer here,, ask him or her. But most people think being skinny is overall healthy. A lot of skinny people have heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure too. Being overweight is a common trait...but not exclusively.

autobahn66

elisa123gal wrote: »

You can be overweight and be healthy. It all depends on what your doctor tells you about your bloodwork. You won't get the answer here,, ask him or her. But most people think being skinny is overall healthy. A lot of skinny people have heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure too. Being overweight is a common trait...but not exclusively.

I disagree with the point that you should look to bloodwork to tell you if you are 'healthy' or not.
Bloods can be abnormal for lots of reasons, and often are not reliable indicators of a disease state. Are the LFTs abnormal randomly - as 5% of tests will be? (N.B. the normal ranges are just standard deviations in a healthy population, they don't mean more than that on their own)

And when they are abnormal for a specific reason, bloods tell us that there is ongoing pathology: high sugars/HbA1c mean insulin resistance or diabetes are already occurring, abnormal liver function tests are a potential sign of NAFLD. By the time bloods are abnormal it is quite late to act. It is better to never have insulin resistance, or liver injury.

Further: there is no blood test that tells you about your risk of cardiovascular disease. Cholesterol, hypertension etc are useful, modifiable factors but the best predictors of cardiovascular mortality are age and smoking status.

As for whether one can be overweight and be healthy? I don't think 'healthy' is in any way a useful word. One can be overweight and reduce their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease by improving their cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes control, stopping smoking, exercising more without necessarily losing weight. But it is likely that a) losing weight will help with cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, exercise ability and b) losing weight independently of those factors would also reduce their cardiovascular risk.

As for whether skinny people get cardiovascular disease: of course they do. But that's like saying some sober drivers get in car accidents so I should drive drunk. The reality that some people can die from cardiovascular diseases without the additional risk factors that come with obesity should be an even stronger indicator to manage the risk effectively.

The issue I have is that there is some sense in which I agree with your post - health and weight are frequently confounded in this forum in a way that is useful for some, but not for others. As I have lost weight I am thinking more about fitness and exercise tolerance as metrics of progress rather than my absolute weight, as I would be disheartened by the slowing rate of my weight loss (turns out the second 20kg is harder to lose than the first - but it's all progress, no matter how slow).

Theoldguy1

elisa123gal wrote: »

You can be overweight and be healthy. It all depends on what your doctor tells you about your bloodwork. You won't get the answer here,, ask him or her. But most people think being skinny is overall healthy. A lot of skinny people have heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure too. Being overweight is a common trait...but not exclusively.

Unless you're in the overweight BMI category due to muscle mass (which means you have spent a lot of time doing resistance work or a physically demanding job) fairly likely you won't be healthy long term. If in the obese range it is pretty much certain one won't be.

autobahn66

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

elisa123gal wrote: »

You can be overweight and be healthy. It all depends on what your doctor tells you about your bloodwork. You won't get the answer here,, ask him or her. But most people think being skinny is overall healthy. A lot of skinny people have heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure too. Being overweight is a common trait...but not exclusively.

Unless you're in the overweight BMI category due to muscle mass (which means you have spent a lot of time doing resistance work or a physically demanding job) fairly likely you won't be healthy long term. If in the obese range it is pretty much certain one won't be.

This paper examines extensively the association between BMI and mortality by a variety of causes (which I would contend is a decent, but limited, measure of health). It shows clearly a J shaped curve, with the nadir of mortality around a BMI of 21-25 (see table 2 for the 'change point' for each condition: these are generally between 24 and 26.

Interestingly the nadir of death from communicable diseases was at a higher BMI than non-communicable: I guess indicating that nutritional status going in was a determinant of outcome.

Mortality increases dramatically above a BMI of 30, but being overweight was only very marginally associated with increased mortality (best shown in supplementary table 4) for most causes and for overall mortality. In fact, being underweight was associated with much higher mortality than being overweight (although, of course that is a false equivalence as there is much less range for weight to be lower than a BMI of 18.5).

All of this is to say that using definition of overweight as per BMI is not a really very useful measurement of health, given the minor association with mortality.