Is my metabolism screwed or is that a myth?
Options
Replies
-
neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.
True, but I think Anne was referring to basal metabolic rate, which is what most posters on here think of when they think "metabolism"1 -
Fantastic responses here so I will just wish you luck on your journey0
-
neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.
OK, so you're disagreeing with Anne, but you choose to keep quoting me as though you're disagreeing with me (nothing in any of your posts quoting me substantively contradicts me, yet you keep phrasing your responses quoting me as though I said something different from what you're saying).
0 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.
True, but I think Anne was referring to basal metabolic rate, which is what most posters on here think of when they think "metabolism"
Yes, and this is what I was getting at when I said nobody's really wrong here and that most people aren't thinking about NEAT when they talk about screwing up their metabolism -- they seem to be thinking about having damaged the underlying chemical processes in a way that's causing them to use a lot less energy to fuel their BMR.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.
True, but I think Anne was referring to basal metabolic rate, which is what most posters on here think of when they think "metabolism"
Yes, and this is what I was getting at when I said nobody's really wrong here and that most people aren't thinking about NEAT when they talk about screwing up their metabolism -- they seem to be thinking about having damaged the underlying chemical processes in a way that's causing them to use a lot less energy to fuel their BMR.
Exactly.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.
I said that in an article like the one linked, I thought that including NEAT in metabolism wasn't really responsive to the question I believe people are really asking when they ask whether their metabolism is ruined, or how to speed up their metabolism, or similar questions. I think they believe something like their BMR/RMR is somehow the issue. I don't think NEAT is part of the "metabolism" intended (by the questioner) in that context.
At least that's what I meant to be saying, but I'm fully capable of communicating my thoughts unclearly: I do it frequently, unfortunately. I can see how I could've been clearer here. In retrospect, because retrospect is like that.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.
I said that in an article like the one linked, I thought that including NEAT in metabolism wasn't really responsive to the question I believe people are really asking when they ask whether their metabolism is ruined, or how to speed up their metabolism, or similar questions. I think they believe something like their BMR/RMR is somehow the issue. I don't think NEAT is part of the "metabolism" intended (by the questioner) in that context.
At least that's what I meant to be saying, but I'm fully capable of communicating my thoughts unclearly: I do it frequently, unfortunately. I can see how I could've been clearer here. In retrospect, because retrospect is like that.
Like I said in that response, I just took it at face value and also, understood better why you said what you said, but unfortunately, I just couldn't let that nugget slip by and I like to believe you understand that.
cheers 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions