Reality Check: Skinny People Must Have Fast Metabolisms

lilawolf

Bump for after work

Mr_Knight

Still doesn't make sense. Having to move around a lot of bodyweight is extra energy expended during activities, not an increase in BMR.

Every ounce of body mass carried is an ounce of body mass that needs to be maintained by the body's biological infrastructure. Maintenance takes energy. More ounce = more maintenance = higher BMR/RMR.

farmers_daughter

"...forgot to record 43% of what she'd eaten."

Yeah, I can see that.

The "doubly-labeled water" or whatever that isotope shake was - wow - that's awesome!

Isn't that what they call 'heavy water'? Yeah, totally busted them on their overeating. Whenever I hear an obese person going on and on about how they don't eat 'much' I have to bite my tongue severely.

And you've probably never given a second thought to the fact that they honestly might believe that? Fat people are fat because they never truly learned portion control. So yes when they say they aren't eating "much" that is a fact to them.

BinaryPulsar

bump

Sandytoes71

Wow! Enlightening!

Ang108

I remember that there was an Oprah show where she got her metabolism tested and it was actually higher then average ... I wonder whether it is actually portion size that catches people out, I mean I ate healthily, but 2-3 times the amount that I was supposed to :-)

Yes, portion size it what does it to many of us. But since especially in the US a "average " portion is 2-3 times the size of a normal portion in other countries, people don't even realize they overeat.
Since I joined MFP I eat exactly what I used to eat before.....except before I accompanied all the veggies and very moderate amounts of meat with double and triple amounts of rice, pasta or bread. After I had my thyroid out due to cancer and was put on Cortisone and therefore had a good excuse, I also ate carbs between meals, because I was miserable and full of selfpity. I gained 40 kilos/about 85 pounds in two years.........all because of my thyroid, or so I made myself believe.
Statistically speaking the average weight gain from thyroid or hard core medication problems is less than 5 pounds. The rest is almost always from overeating, often due to a lack of portion control. This often means that people often eat no more than three meals and are convinced that they don't overeat. They do not realize that often one meal is equivalent to several meals. I still eat the same way as before; huge amounts of vegetables and moderate amounts of protein, but I have cut out all starches ( I know moderation, moderation.....except it does not work for me ) and lost since April just under 35 pounds.....and....I don't kill myself with exercise.

MissFuchsia

Bookmarking to watch later

WhataBroad

it!

bcattoes

"...forgot to record 43% of what she'd eaten."

Yeah, I can see that.

The "doubly-labeled water" or whatever that isotope shake was - wow - that's awesome!

Isn't that what they call 'heavy water'? Yeah, totally busted them on their overeating. Whenever I hear an obese person going on and on about how they don't eat 'much' I have to bite my tongue severely.

Missing 43% of my calorie intake is nothing I tell you! NOTHING!

Calories-in, calories-out is a LIE!



Puhh...

If you ever come across a study that uses 'self-reporting' as it's methods...

Gently ease a giant smile on your face, walk away calmly, and forget everything you just read.

Oh,
and demand that NSF stop funding poorly designed research studies.

Do you know of any long term large studies that haven't used this method?

jwdieter

The high calcium diet results were interesting.

The video with the girl hiding intake and the girl hiding lack of intake - both pretending they ate about the same amount - was amusing.

tracieangeletti

Bump

Cindyinpg

That's what I thought. Isn't there a "quick and dirty" way to estimate your BMR by multiplying your body weight by ten?
Edited for typo.

Not if you want an accurate estimate. Fat is not a significant contributor to BMR. Adding 100lbs of fat should only increase BMR maybe ~300 cals or so, not 1000 as your estimate would imply. If you care enough about your caloric intake to be logging food, you should find a better way to calculate your BMR.

I never said 'I' estimate it that way. But the fact that it can be estimated that way implies that body weight and BMR are linear. I use a Bodymedia Fit and while not 100% accurate. I have eaten at an average of 7000 calorie deficit per week for 44 weeks and have lost 2lbs nearly every single week so my experience shows that my estimates are fairly bang on.

ninerbuff

This is a usual excuse for clients I've had who don't think they lose weight. Doesn't help to burn off 500 calories in a session then go eat 1000 calories worth of pizza right after (unless of course one had the calories to spare).

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

tigerblue

I've always had to eat much less than is recommended for a man of my height, weight and age if I want to lose weight. In the past, I have been guilty of blaming this on a "slow metabolism", but over time I've come to realise that it's more to do with HOW sedentary I am during a normal day - which is pretty much "completely sedentary"!.

Whether my metabolism is slower than normal or not is irrelevant - all that matters for me is that I have to eat less than I burn. That means I have to exercise a fair bit - I burn over 4000 calories a week - in order to give myself some extra calories to eat. If I don't do that, I have to eat so little that a diet is simply not sustainable over long periods of time.

For what it's worth, I am meticulous with my logging and weighing of my food (check my diary and you will see "2 Pringles" or "4 M&Ms" etc.) and by logging everything I eat and my weight loss, I know that my average TDEE works out at about 2200. If you take away the near 600 calories a day of exercise, that would give me a sedentary TDEE of less than 1700. This is MUCH less than the "average TDEE" which all the online predictions have, at somewhere around 2100-2200.

As I say, whether my TDEE is around 500 calories per day less than predicted is because I have a slower than average metabolism, because I sit on my *kitten* all day (when not exercising!) or whether (despite my care) I am very bad at measuring my intake, is immaterial - I have to eat what I have to eat and by doing that I know I can lose weight...

Very well said!

tigerblue

I know the "special snowflake" stuff. I am not disputing that most of us fall within the same norms.

But I would guess that BMR charts, just like any other statistic based on studies of large numbers of people, are based on the bell curve. That would mean that statistically speaking, some people would fall outside the norms, and have significantly higher or lower BMRs. If I am remembering correctly from all those college classes so many years ago, there will be about 2 1/2% of the population that will fall on each end of the chart. So, some of us actually don`t fit the regular weight loss math!

I you track your numbers over the long haul, you can see how much you ate, and then how much you gained or lost. This would help you find YOUR true TDEE.

Then, as another poster said, just stay within that!

TheRealParisLove

I quite enjoyed watching these videos. If I could have those tests done on me, I would do it. It would be quite interesting to know the results.

You can get the metabolic test done. Just do a google search for your area for RMR Test and the name of your city or nearest large metro area. It costs around $30 where I live.

dicoveringwhoIam

Watching after work.

Pelly57

gotta watch this when I get home

nextrightthing

bump to watch

riblust

I know the "special snowflake" stuff. I am not disputing that most of us fall within the same norms.

But I would guess that BMR charts, just like any other statistic based on studies of large numbers of people, are based on the bell curve. That would mean that statistically speaking, some people would fall outside the norms, and have significantly higher or lower BMRs. If I am remembering correctly from all those college classes so many years ago, there will be about 2 1/2% of the population that will fall on each end of the chart. So, some of us actually don`t fit the regular weight loss math!

I you track your numbers over the long haul, you can see how much you ate, and then how much you gained or lost. This would help you find YOUR true TDEE.

Then, as another poster said, just stay within that!

Absolutely. One often-cited study on BMR has a standard deviation of ~350 calories. By definition, 32% of the population would have a BMR more than 350 cals from the mean. The 2.5% you mention is for 2 sigma.... in this case, a difference of 700 cals. No one fits the weight loss math except the subject measured, but for most of us, it works just fine for weight control.

heatherloveslifting

"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:

IpuffyheartHeelsinthegym

I know it's not always a valid excuse but it is true for some.

Very true.

Same with being born with a tail. Rare, but it happens. Luckily 99.99999999999% of us are born without a tail and just a tail-bone.

Funny how 99.99999999999% of us are convinced that we fit in the 0.00000000001 percentile.

It's time to be honest with ourselves folks.


.

PikaKnight

"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:

You do know that isotope markers are used in the medical field for things like PET and certain CT scans, right?

pcastagner

"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:

You do know that isotope markers are used in the medical field for things like PET and certain CT scans, right?

SCIENCE!

klynnshuck

tagging to watch later

whierd

"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:

The videos said it was non-radioactive.

jfrankic

tigerblue

I know the "special snowflake" stuff. I am not disputing that most of us fall within the same norms.

But I would guess that BMR charts, just like any other statistic based on studies of large numbers of people, are based on the bell curve. That would mean that statistically speaking, some people would fall outside the norms, and have significantly higher or lower BMRs. If I am remembering correctly from all those college classes so many years ago, there will be about 2 1/2% of the population that will fall on each end of the chart. So, some of us actually don`t fit the regular weight loss math!

I you track your numbers over the long haul, you can see how much you ate, and then how much you gained or lost. This would help you find YOUR true TDEE.

Then, as another poster said, just stay within that!

Absolutely. One often-cited study on BMR has a standard deviation of ~350 calories. By definition, 32% of the population would have a BMR more than 350 cals from the mean. The 2.5% you mention is for 2 sigma.... in this case, a difference of 700 cals. No one fits the weight loss math except the subject measured, but for most of us, it works just fine for weight control.

Thanks for clarifying and expanding. sometimes I know just enough math to be dangerous!

But I endured a lot of people on here telling me that there was no way my BMR/TDEE didnt fit the charts. That obviously I was doing something wrong. Well, time has told the story. My numbers dont match the chart. My BMR is about 140 lower than the charts, and the TDEE chart is about 500 cals too high for me. I would guess that the more active you are the more the TDEE will be off in the end, since all the activity is extrapolated from your BMR.

But I am finally getting smart and just using the real life numbers that I have rather than listening to all the advice about how much more I need to eat. And now I am back on track and losing the 12 lbs that exploration put on me.

Bottom line, it is about calories in and calories out. You may just have to search a bit to find out how many you need!

heatherloveslifting

"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:

You do know that isotope markers are used in the medical field for things like PET and certain CT scans, right?

Um yes actually.

PET= Positron Emission Tomography detects gamma particles (emitted from a positron-emitting radionuclide. Such the radioisotope 18F (FDG).

CT is also radiation based. I can see using these for diagnosing a real medical problem like cancer, but not just "for kicks" rto show you are eating too much.

PikaKnight

"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:

You do know that isotope markers are used in the medical field for things like PET and certain CT scans, right?

Um yes actually.

PET= Positron Emission Tomography detects gamma particles (emitted from a positron-emitting radionuclide. Such the radioisotope 18F (FDG).

CT is also radiation based. I can see using these for diagnosing a real medical problem like cancer, but not just "for kicks" rto show you are eating too much.

As Whierd said, in the video they are non-radioactive. and how is doing this and showing the women the truth to help them get healthier something for "kicks"?

If doing this helps them change their habits and thinking and be successful in getting healthier...isn't that the same as getting a CT scan to show where the issues are? If one is "for kicks" then you are saying that both methods are.