If it is simply calories in and out...
Matt_Wild
Posts: 2,673 Member
Why do we not all gain/lose weight at the same rate?
0
Replies
-
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:0
-
Lies and bad measuring!!! It's a conspiracy!0
-
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
this....0 -
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?0 -
1. Accuracy of counting
2. Different metabolism levels
3. Accuracy of exercise
I subscribe to the basic premise of cal in cal out but recognize many variables in the equation ... age affects body composition, activity level, etc. women, men, weight... all these things affect the equation.0 -
1. Accuracy of counting
2. Different metabolism levels
3. Accuracy of exercise
I subscribe to the basic premise of cal in cal out but recognize many variables in the equation ... age affects body composition, activity level, etc. women, men, weight... all these things affect the equation.
Therefore it is not simply in/out?0 -
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?
Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...0 -
In...0
-
0 -
Ultimately you cannot reasonably expect to find two perfectly similar people to test that out on.0
-
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?
Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...
Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?0 -
1. Accuracy of counting
2. Different metabolism levels
3. Accuracy of exercise
I subscribe to the basic premise of cal in cal out but recognize many variables in the equation ... age affects body composition, activity level, etc. women, men, weight... all these things affect the equation.
Therefore it is not simply in/out?
Yes, it is simply in/out.
If you take in more than you push out, you will gain weight. Vice versa, you will lose weight.0 -
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?
Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...
Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?
But all those factors would determine your calorie # for maintenance and eating below that would cause weight loss so.......0 -
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?
Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...
Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?
Yes, it still comes down to calories in/out. It is just how to accurately obtain an accurate caloric requirement that is the issue.0 -
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?
Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...
Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?
I think all those things affect the "calories out" component of the equation.0 -
In for the conspiracy.0
-
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?
Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...
Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?
You're just playing devil's advocate here.. you already know the answer....0 -
Why do I feel this thread is about to go swirling down the Porcelain Bowl of Pedantry?0
-
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?
Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...
Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?
You're just playing devil's advocate here.. you already know the answer....
Shhh! Don't ruin it.
I'm still not sure which side of the argument he's on.0 -
Metabolism for one. Some people plateau because their bodies refuse to lose more- either in starvation mode or some other chemical imbalance. Not everybody burns the same amount of calories; men burn it faster for example. Medication is a big factor. Illness. I kind of wonder if it is simply just calories in and out. I know there was a guy who did a study who ate only junk at under his caloric needs and still lost weight...but I'm not completely convinced. I'm hard pressed to believe someone could eat more than their supposed to in only fruits and veggies and gain weight. I could be wrong though...0
-
In for circling the drain.0
-
Why do I feel this thread is about to go swirling down the Porcelain Bowl of Pedantry?
Shhh. I'm hoping this goes somewhere.
/popcorn0 -
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?
Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...
Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?
Yes, it still comes down to calories in/out. It is just how to accurately obtain an accurate caloric requirement that is the issue.
Its not that simple, as in/out then, is it?
For example:
Metabolic rates - Two people, identical height and weight and muscle mass.
Different metabolic rate thro hormone levels. Same calories would result in different weight gains/losses.
If it was simply in/out, you would just need height/weight/age/sex and would be able to say what they need. Indeed, some people are more sensitive to carbs than others, for example and lose fat or gain muscle in a harder/easier manner than others.0 -
Metabolism for one. Some people plateau because their bodies refuse to lose more- either in starvation mode or some other chemical imbalance. Not everybody burns the same amount of calories; men burn it faster for example. Medication is a big factor. Illness. I kind of wonder if it is simply just calories in and out. I know there was a guy who did a study who ate only junk at under his caloric needs and still lost weight...but I'm not completely convinced. I'm hard pressed to believe someone could eat more than their supposed to in only fruits and veggies and gain weight. I could be wrong though...
Yes, you can over eat and gain weight even on the healthiest of foods. Some fruits are very high in fats and calories, like bananas and avocados.
Men burn more calories because they have (usually) more muscle than women, increasing their basal metabolic rate. Medication can make you feel more hungry, less likely to move around, or retain water. Not change your metabolism.
Starvation mode - sure. But there are not any overweight people I can think that are in danger of starvation mode. The body only starts to REALLY slow things down once most energy resources have been depleted.0 -
We do all lose at the same rate. Some of us just take longer to do it.0
-
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?
Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...
Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?
Yes, it still comes down to calories in/out. It is just how to accurately obtain an accurate caloric requirement that is the issue.
Its not that simple, as in/out then, is it?
For example:
Metabolic rates - Two people, identical height and weight and muscle mass.
Different metabolic rate thro hormone levels. Same calories would result in different weight gains/losses.
If it was simply in/out, you would just need height/weight/age/sex and would be able to say what they need. Indeed, some people are more sensitive to carbs than others, for example and lose fat or gain muscle in a harder/easier manner than others.
But you are asking calories in and out. As I said earlier. Those factors will determine the person's maintenance. Eating below that will cause a drop in weight. What you seem to be arguing or mixing up is the determination of the maintenance calorie amount...not really whether it is simply calories in and out.0 -
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?
Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...
Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?
I think all those things affect the "calories out" component of the equation.
In for repeat.0 -
Because we don't all eat/exercise at the same rate. :huh:
So using that logic, no exercise and equal calories = same weight gain/loss for each persons?
Different muscle mass, different lifestyles, slight variations in hormone levels and such...
Therefore not simply calories in/out, no?
Yes, it still comes down to calories in/out. It is just how to accurately obtain an accurate caloric requirement that is the issue.
Its not that simple, as in/out then, is it?
For example:
Metabolic rates - Two people, identical height and weight and muscle mass.
Different metabolic rate thro hormone levels. Same calories would result in different weight gains/losses.
If it was simply in/out, you would just need height/weight/age/sex and would be able to say what they need. Indeed, some people are more sensitive to carbs than others, for example and lose fat or gain muscle in a harder/easier manner than others.
I find it hard to believe that you would find two people with identical height weight and muscle mass (and of course, same age), that had big differences in their hormone levels. Assuming (of course) that both people got to the the identical weight and muscle mass the same way. Either way, it is STILL calories in, calories out. Perhaps different caloric NEEDS for each individual, but that does nothing to negate calories in, calories out.0 -
If it was simply in/out, you would just need height/weight/age/sex...
That's like arguing evolution isn't real because cows don't give birth to goats.0 -
But you are asking calories in and out. As I said earlier. Those factors will determine the person's maintenance. Eating below that will cause a drop in weight. What you seem to be arguing or mixing up is the determination of the maintenance calorie amount...not really whether it is simply calories in and out.
Of course dropping below a maintenance level will lose weight.
But its determining this rate. And I see the line "simply calories in/out" that determine weight loss, when it doesn't take into account anything about the person at hand.
These factors effect how many calories are needed.
If it was simply calories in/out at a certain size and weight we would need the same calories.
Its far from as simple as people make out!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions