naturally thin people

Hornsby

But you do agree that some people have much faster metabolisms/higher TDEEs naturally, correct?

HealthyBodySickMind

I have always been one of those "naturally thin" people who seemed to eat huge portions of calorie dense foods. Even pregnant, I'm right where I'm supposed to be weight-wise for a healthy pregnancy, just eating what I feel like when I'm hungry. I got sick of people telling me that if I continued to eat this way as I got older/had kids, etc, that I was going to suddenly pack on the pounds. So I started tracking what I ate, not changing the way I eat, just to see what it was I actually did eat.

Do you know what I found out?

It turns out that I eat a reasonable amount of food for my size and activity level. Crazy, huh?

ETA: some of us are better at intuitively eating the right amount of food.

WalkingAlong

This is "just" from Wikipedia but it's at least cited.

Causes of individual differences in BMR
The basal metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ/day) to as high as 2499 kcal/day (10455 kJ/day); with a mean BMR of 1500 kcal/day (6279 kJ/day). Statistically, the researchers calculated that 62.3% of this variation was explained by differences in fat free mass. Other factors explaining the variation included fat mass (6.7%), age (1.7%), and experimental error including within-subject difference (2%). The rest of the variation (26.7%) was unexplained. This remaining difference was not explained by sex nor by differing tissue sized of highly energetic organs such as the brain.[9]
Thus there are differences in BMR even when comparing two subjects with the same lean body mass. The top 5% of people are metabolizing energy 28-32% faster than individuals with the lowest 5% BMR.[10] For instance, one study reported an extreme case where two individuals with the same lean body mass of 43 kg had BMRs of 1075 kcal/day (4.5 MJ/day) and 1790 kcal/day (7.5 MJ/day). This difference of 715 kcal/day (67%) is equivalent to one of the individuals completing a 10 kilometer run every day.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

psuLemon

But you do agree that some people have much faster metabolisms/higher TDEEs naturally, correct?

You really need to separate TDEE from BMR. Yes, there is slight variations in BMR but you aren't going to see large 500 calorie switch (excluding medical conditions and the those growing); if anything, it's going to be +/- ~ 10%. In fact, I have yet to see anyone on this board post an RMR/BMR study that suggest their metabolic rate is significantly higher than the typical formula's predict. The bigger variance is TDEE. TDEE is where you see they wild swings because it's dependent on activity level. I have seen several quotes in here that said "I was naturally skinny until I got sick or injured", which translates to, I was very active and didn't realize I was eating at maintenance until I maintained my eat level but decreased my activity. For full grown adults, gene's don't play much of a factor, activity level does.


The one issue with these studies is understanding a holistic picture and understanding body composition. This is why Katch McArdle is better than Harris Benedict. Those with higher lean body mass have increase metabolic rates over those equivalent in their weight. Diet history can play a huge part in RMR/BMR rates. If you have done a lot of low calorie diets and gained a lot back, it was probably due to the lack of protein and nutrition to sustain muscle mass. So with the loss of muscle and extreme suppression of calorie can cause your body to adapt and burn less calories from a metabolic standpoint... this is why you see people ask about repairing metabolisms.

Hornsby

But you do agree that some people have much faster metabolisms/higher TDEEs naturally, correct?

In fact, I have yet to see anyone on this board post an RMR/BMR study that suggest their metabolic rate is significantly higher than the typical formula's predict.

Someone did right before you

psuLemon

But you do agree that some people have much faster metabolisms/higher TDEEs naturally, correct?

In fact, I have yet to see anyone on this board post an RMR/BMR study that suggest their metabolic rate is significantly higher than the typical formula's predict.

Someone did right before you

I actually just saw that.. I will have to check out the wikipedia to back trace the original study. Lets face it, wiki isn't the most credible source of data.. while good, it still doesn't mean it's the most current or most accurate.

ps- it doesn't link it to genetics.. it's unexplained.

Hornsby

True, I had a Harvard study pulled up yesterday that said the same thing, but I can't find it. (My work comp rebooted overnight). I am looking though.

psuLemon

True, I had a Harvard study pulled up yesterday that said the same thing, but I can't find it. (My work comp rebooted overnight). I am looking though.

Either way, it still doesn't suggest there are naturally thin people. There are a lot of variables that come into play. Eating habits, activity level, and life style. If all the "naturally thin" people truly were outliers, they probably wouldn't be on this site. At some point, their food habits changed, the types of food they eat changed or their activity level changed.

I wish the study in wiki would explain the variation to the mean. The only refernce I see is the higher metabolize 30% higher than the low. Essentially, if its a standard straight curve, i guess I can transpose that the "genetically gifted" would burn 15% more calories than the mean, which is 100-300 calories additional per day. Which to me is far from making a person genetically gifted.

husseycd

Body shape is genetic. The ability to build muscle is genetic. I imagine production of hunger hormones is somewhat genetic. Those things certainly contribute to weight and appearance (like, I will never have a ballerina body), however, I think people like to blame genetics. After all, it's a nice excuse.

I used to wonder how I could weigh less than some of my friends when I seem to eat so much more. Once I got a BodyMedia, I got my answer. I'm a fidgety person. I move a lot. On days I don't move a lot (like I'm sick), I burn about 400 calories less. That's non-exercise calories. Add exercise in there and you get an even bigger difference.

One thing that can be very different is the ability to gain muscle. I've always been a fairly muscular person and when tested, my RMR did end up being 200 calories more than a friend who weighs a good 60 lbs more than I do. But that's still only 200 calories. She's also pretty sedentary except for exercise. My TDEE may actually be more than hers. But I bet if she did the same exercise and ate the same food I do, we'd be a lot closer in weight.

savannah31548

I work with a guy who is naturally thin. I've known him for about 7 years and his eating habits have never changed. The guy can put away 10 pieces of pizza and he never gains a pound. He is a big fan of cheetos and lots of mayo on sandwiches. He is just as active as anyone else doing normal activity like yard work. He is not sporty at all. However, even though he is stick thin, he has a family history of diabetes and high cholesterol. He even told us that his parents never made him eat his veggies as a kid. Thin doesn't equal healthy.

Hornsby

True, I had a Harvard study pulled up yesterday that said the same thing, but I can't find it. (My work comp rebooted overnight). I am looking though.

Either way, it still doesn't suggest there are naturally thin people. There are a lot of variables that come into play. Eating habits, activity level, and life style. If all the "naturally thin" people truly were outliers, they probably wouldn't be on this site. At some point, their food habits changed, the types of food they eat changed or their activity level changed.

I wish the study in wiki would explain the variation to the mean. The only refernce I see is the higher metabolize 30% higher than the low. Essentially, if its a standard straight curve, i guess I can transpose that the "genetically gifted" would burn 15% more calories than the mean, which is 100-300 calories additional per day. Which to me is far from making a person genetically gifted.

I agree for the most part. I don't think there is anyone that can eat whatever they want and not get fat....but..... that study is based on 150 people and one of the cases showing a a 67% difference in BMR for two people with the exact same dimensions/LBM. That's pretty drastic. My only thinking is that it is obviously obvious for some of the people on this board to know some other outliers like that, eventhough some would have you believe that it just isn't possible.

WalkingAlong

This study is interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17324656

Conclusions: No equation accurately predicted REE in most hospitalized patients. Without a reliable predictive equation, only indirect calorimetry will provide accurate assessment of energy needs. Although indirect calorimetry is considered the standard for assessing REE in hospitalized patients, several predictive equations are commonly used in practice. Their accuracy in hospitalized patients has been questioned. This study evaluated several of these equations, and found that even the most accurate equation (the Harris-Benedict 1.1) was inaccurate in 39% of patients and had an unacceptably high error. Without knowing which patient's REE is being accurately predicted, indirect calorimetry may still be necessary in difficult to manage hospitalized patients.

in_the_stars

I am naturally thin. At 5'2 I've never weighed more than 107. After listing my food carefully and eating 2500+ daily for 6 months I went from 100 pounds to 107. Lost it in a month when I went back to eating normally, as in 1200 to 2200 daily. Genetics plays a much bigger part than you realize.

* DNA methylation at gene sites was decreased by 31%. (DNA methylation was reduced on other genes as well.) These results supported the hypothesis that bisphenol A alters the action of organisms' epigenomes by removing methyl groups from DNA.

psuLemon

I agree for the most part. I don't think there is anyone that can eat whatever they want and not get fat....but..... that study is based on 150 people and one of the cases showing a a 67% difference in BMR for two people with the exact same dimensions/LBM. That's pretty drastic. My only thinking is that it is obviously obvious for some of the people on this board to know some other outliers like that, eventhough some would have you believe that it just isn't possible.

I would be curious to see the whole study on the two extreme.. because it's not just about total lean body mass, but more so body composition.


But with the same token, if we assume that there are naturally thin people, do we have to assume there are naturally fat people? If one condition exist, than the other has to as well.

psuLemon

I am naturally thin. At 5'2 I've never weighed more than 107. After listing my food carefully and eating 2500+ daily for 6 months I went from 100 pounds to 107. Lost it in a month when I went back to eating normally, as in 1200 to 2200 daily. Genetics plays a much bigger part than you realize.

* DNA methylation at gene sites was decreased by 31%. (DNA methylation was reduced on other genes as well.) These results supported the hypothesis that bisphenol A alters the action of organisms' epigenomes by removing methyl groups from DNA.

The one issue with your equation is we are only talking a 7 lb difference and we don't know how much of that was water weight. I gain and lose that daily.

WalkingAlong

As far as being fidgety, well, you would have to fidget a lot to make up for the difference in energy usage. With exercise, you can burn up to 50 times your basal metabolic rate in 24 hours. Burning an extra 200 calories a day fidgeting is probably not going to make a lot of difference. And there are likely other factors in play.

Studies show it's more like 350 calories/day in fidgeting, which is pretty huge. That's more than I burn in a 4-mile walk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/health/28weight.html?_r=0

And I'm guessing you mean you can burn "50% more than" your BMR not 50 times your BMR in exercise, right?

Hornsby

I agree for the most part. I don't think there is anyone that can eat whatever they want and not get fat....but..... that study is based on 150 people and one of the cases showing a a 67% difference in BMR for two people with the exact same dimensions/LBM. That's pretty drastic. My only thinking is that it is obviously obvious for some of the people on this board to know some other outliers like that, eventhough some would have you believe that it just isn't possible.

I would be curious to see the whole study on the two extreme.. because it's not just about total lean body mass, but more so body composition.


But with the same token, if we assume that there are naturally thin people, do we have to assume there are naturally fat people? If one condition exist, than the other has to as well.

No, because I don't think "Naturally Thin' is the right term, therefore, "Naturally Fat" wouldn't work either. If there are variations in how much one burns though, it will make some look like they are "naturally thin" because they "eat whatever they want". Obviously, they don't actually eat more than they burn, they just happen to burn more than most while sitting still.

WalkingAlong

If there are variations in how much one burns though, it will make some look like they are "naturally thin" because they "eat whatever they want".

I think that the people who eat whatever they want probably also just want less than the people who are prone to overeating. Their wants are more in tune with their physical needs (which is probably easier if you're on the high end of the BMR bell curve). The statement that "Some people eat whatever they want so they are just naturally thin" implies that they overeat without consequences. I think it's probably more accurate to say the rest of us "over want". Dieting has a way of making us into over-wanters, too.

in_the_stars

5 out of 4 Americans Do Not Understand Statistics
Posted by Mark Crislip on December 13, 2013 (14 Comments)

Ed: Doctors say he’s got a 50/50 chance at living.
Frank: Well there’s only a 10% chance of that
Naked Gun

There are several motivations for choosing a topic about which to write. One is to educate others about a topic about which I am expert. Another motivation is amusement; some posts I write solely for the glee I experience in deconstructing a particular piece of nonsense. Another motivation, and the one behind this entry, is to educate me.

I hope that the process of writing this entry will help me to better understand a topic with which I have always had difficulties: statistics. I took, and promptly dropped, statistics 4 times a college. Once they got past the bell shaped curve derived from flipping a coin I just could not wrap my head around the concepts presented. I think the odds are against me, but I am going to attempt, and likely fail, in discussing some aspects of statistics that I want to understand better. Or, as is more likely, learn for the umpteenth time, only to be forgotten or confused in the future.

Frequentist

In medicine it is the p <= 0.05 that rules. If the results of the study meet that requirement the results are statistically significant. Maybe not clinically relevant or even true, but you have to have pretty good reasons not to bow before the power of a p <= 0.05. It is SIGNIFICANT, dammit.

But what does that mean? First you have to consider the null hypothesis: that two events are totally unrelated, that there is no difference between the two treatments in terms of their effect. The p value is the likelihood that any observed difference away from the null hypothesis is due to chance. Or

The probability of the observed result, plus more extreme results, if the null hypothesis were true.

So if there is a small p value, 0.05, then the chance that a difference observed in two treatments is random is 5%. If the p-value is ≤ 0.05 then the result is significant and the null hypothesis may be rejected and the alternative hypothesis, that there is a difference in the treatments, might be accepted.

The cut-off of significance, 0.05, it is should be emphasized, it an arbitrary boundary that was established by Fischer in 1925 but has since become dogma set in rebar-reinforced cement.

And what is significant, at least as initially formulated by Fischer?

Personally, the writer prefers to set a low standard of significance at the 5 percent point … A scientific fact should be regarded as experimentally established only if a properly designed experiment rarely fails to give this level of significance.

In other words, the operational meaning of a P value less than .05 was merely that one should repeat the experiment. If subsequent studies also yielded significant P values, one could conclude that the observed effects were unlikely to be the result of chance alone. So “significance” is merely that: worthy of attention in the form of meriting more experimentation, but not proof in itself.

The p value has numerous problems as a method for determining whether the null hypothesis can be rejected. There are at least 12 misconceptions with p value, all of which are common and I would have though true once upon a time:

1. If P = .05, the null hypothesis has only a 5% chance of being true.
2. A nonsignificant difference (eg, P ≥.05) means there is no difference between groups.
3. A statistically significant finding is clinically important.
4. Studies with P values on opposite sides of .05 are conflicting.
5. Studies with the same P value provide the same evidence against the null hypothesis.
6. P =.05 means that we have observed data that would occur only 5% of the time under the null hypothesis.
7. P =.05 and P ≤ .05 mean the same thing.
8. P values are properly written as inequalities (eg, “P ≤.02” when P = .015)
9. P = .05 means that if you reject the null hypothesis, the probability of a type I error is only 5%.
10. With a P = .05 threshold for significance, the chance of a type I error will be 5%.
11. You should use a one-sided P value when you don’t care about a result in one direction, or a difference in that direction is impossible.
12. A scientific conclusion or treatment policy should be based on whether or not the P value is significant.

My head is already starting to hurt. It appears from reading writers wiser than I that the p value is a piss-poor criterion to judge biomedical results.

Above all what the p value does not include is measure of the quality of the study. If there is garbage in, there will be garbage out. I would wager that the most popular way to find a significant p value is subgroup analysis, the Xigris study perhaps being the most expensive example of that bad habit. Just this week I was reading an article on high dose oseltamivir for treatment of influenza and

Subanalysis of influenza B patients showed faster RNA decline rate (analysis of variance, F = 4.14; P = .05) and clearance (day 5, 80.0% vs 57.1%) with higher-dose treatment.

And I have no end of colleagues who will see that meaningless p value and up the dose of the oseltamivir. Same as it ever was. To my mind most p of 0.05 is almost certainly random noise and clinically irrelevant.

The most important foundational issue to appreciate is that there is no number generated by standard methods that tells us the probability that a given conclusion is right or wrong. The determinants of the truth of a knowledge claim lie in combination of evidence both within and outside a given experiment, including the plausibility and evidential support of the proposed underlying mechanism. If that mechanism is unlikely, as with homeopathy or perhaps intercessory prayer, a low P value is not going to make a treatment based on that mechanism plausible. It is a very rare single experiment that establishes proof. That recognition alone prevents many of the worst uses and abuses of the P value. The second principle is that the size of an effect matters, and that the entire confidence interval should be considered as an experiment’s result, more so than the P value or even the effect estimate.

So what’s a science-based medical practitioner to do?

Bayes

If comprehending a p value gives me a headache, Bayes gives me a migraine. Bayes is evidently a superior conceptual framework for determining whether a result is ‘true’ and has none of the flaws of the p value. But Bayes also lacks the simplicity of a simple number and I prefer a simple number, especially given the volume of papers I read. The p value is a shortcut, and unfortunately an unreliable shortcut.

If you Google Bayes theorem you always get that formula, an expression of the concept that is both concise and, for a practicing clinician, imminently forgettable and impossible to apply without help. I have a Bayes calculator on my iPhone and I re-read blog entities on the topic over and over. It is still difficult to comprehend and apply, at least for me.

As a clinician, as someone who takes of sick people for a living, and not a scientist, how do I apply Bayes?

Simplistically how valid, how true, a result might be depends in part on the prior plausibility. In a world of false positives and false negatives, it is not always so simple to determine if a positive test result makes a diagnosis likely or a treatment effective. Many of the Bayes explanation sites use cancer screening as an example and I cannot retain that example any longer than while I read it.

The problem with Bayes, although superior to p values, is that of pretest plausibility. Often it seems people are pulling pretest plausibilty out of thin air. In the old days we would do V/Q scans to diagnosis pulmonary embolism (PE), not a great test, and there was always the issue of how to interpret the result based on whether you thought by risk factors that the patient was likely to have had pulmonary embolism. I always felt vaguely binary during the discussions. Either they had a PE or they didn’t. The pre-test probability didn’t matter.

But it does. And that is my problem.

I have found the Rx-Bayes program for iOS gives a nice visual for understanding of Bayes. Even a highly sensitive and specific test is worthless if the pretest probability is low. I deal with this most often with Lyme testing. There is virtually no Lyme in Oregon, so a positive test is so much more likely to be a false positive than represent the real deal. It is striking how high the pretest probability has to be before even a sensitive and specific test has good reliability. And most tests have only a middling sensitivity and specificity.

Synthesis

The p value is so much nicer as it gives a single number rather than a range of probabilities. It is interesting to see what happens when you apply Bayes to p values:

If one starts with a chance of no effect of 50%, a result with a minimum Bayes factor of 0.15 (corresponding to a P value of 0.05) can reduce confidence in the null hypothesis to no lower than 13%. The last row in each entry turns the calculation around, showing how low initial confidence in the null hypothesis must be to result in 5% confidence after seeing the data (that is, 95% confidence in a non-null effect). With a P value of 0.05 (Bayes factor = 0.15), the prior probability of the null hypothesis must be 26% or less to allow one to conclude with 95% confidence that the null hypothesis is false. This calculation is not meant to sanctify the number “95%” in the Bayesian approach but rather to show what happens when similar benchmarks are used in the two approaches.
These tables show us what many researchers learn from experience and what statisticians have long known; that the weight of evidence against the null hypothesis is not nearly as strong as the magnitude of the P value suggests. This is the main reason that many Bayesian reanalyses of clinical trials conclude that the observed differences are not likely to be true

As I understand it as a clinician, the take home is that a p of 0.05 or even 0.01 maybe statistically significant, it is unlikely to mean the result is ‘true’, that you can reject the null hypothesis. In part this is due to the unfortunate fact than many clinical studies stink on ice.

Recently an article in PNAS, way over my head, discussed how Bayes, by way of the Bayes factor, and the p value can be related.

The Bayes factor is a method by which the subjective prior probability is removed:

The Bayes factor is a comparison of how well two hypotheses predict the data. The hypothesis that predicts the observed data better is the one that is said to have more evidence supporting it.

How do the two values compare? A p of 0.05 corresponds to a Bayes factor of 3 to 5, considered weak evidence. The take home is that p of 0.005 is probably a better value for significant and 0.001 for highly significant if you really want to reject the null hypothesis. Not quite the 5 sigma criteria that CERN used to find the Higgs boson, but better and more likely to be true (true meaning the null hypothesis is unlikely).

Wallowing in the medical literature these last 30 years I have been struck how studies wobble about the zero. Some studies show benefit, some do not, of a given intervention, all with slightly different designs but all with middling p values.

My big take home from the above is to consider an intervention effective, as true, if the p is 0.005 AND has been replicated. But a p of 0.05 in a single study? Pffffftttttttt.

I think the above analysis probably excludes a big chunk of real medicine and all the topics covered by this blog as being true. I wonder, is there an SCAM intervention that has a p of 0.005, much less 0.001? Not that I can find, but I am sure the comments will correct me about this and the numerous other errors I have made in the essay.

I think I have a simple rule of thumb with a sophisticated background.

ISoWish

'Naturally thin' I always think, refers to people with high metabolic rates. My friend, is thin and tall and eats crap. Sometimes it feels like you can push her and tip her over. She does a lot of sport too but our mutual friend is the sports star of the school, and so does lots more sport than her and eats about as half as much as she does and will never be that sort of build.