The myth of metabolism

Different metabolisms is definitely not a myth. And by definition, people with higher metabolisms need to intake more calories to operate. The "real myth" about metabolism is that it increases significantly when you increase your muscle mass.

Someone's metabolic rate may be genetically higher, but save any sort of medical condition, it's probably not what's really accounting for the ability for them to eat more.

People who can eat a LOT more are probably exercising more (and therefore the reason they can eat so much more is because of the calories burnt during exercise-and after exercise depending on the type of exercise done) and/or they are eating foods that are less dense (less calories per unit volume).

Read this: http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/#metabolism

The fact is, metabolic rate does not vary drastically between matched populations. But I suppose that depends on your definition of drastically. I'd say that it certainly can vary meaningfully... in the tune of 30% differences between the slowest and fastest.

You better believe that someone who's 15% above average is going to have an easier time controlling weight than someone who's 15% below the average.

More interestingly is the concept of spontaneous physical activity or non-exercise activity thermogenesis. Some people are high responders while others are not. What I mean is, some people, when faced with a surplus, will automatically expend more energy through activity to defend against the surplus. This activity can be mostly unconscious, such as fidgeting and such. This can account for 600+ calories worth of expenditure per day.

Think about that for a second.

Chances are, the people you know who can't gain weight no matter what they eat aren't working with super fast resting metabolic rates. Rather, it's more likely dealing with the fact that they have very high SPAs or NEATs in the face of overfeeding.

On the flipside, some people, in the face of a calorie shortage, overcompensate their SPA/NEAT by unconsciously expending substantially less energy via activity, which is likely one of the primary culprits making lasting weight loss so challenging.

Interesting post.

First of all, hormones can effect expenditure so I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's a "myth". But I would also add that people tend to use "metabolism" as a big excuse when either justifying their own inability to lean out OR when looking at another person's physique and pinning it on their "super high metabolism".

I read a post a few days ago where a friend of mine posted her pics and she eats what most people would call "junk food", and a few people immediately chimed in with ridiculous claims of "you must be lucky to have that metabolism" and "lets see you do that when you get older". They completely glossed over the fact that she isn't over-consuming calories. She's creating a deficit like the rest of us should be doing when trying to lean out.

Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis is gives a very big contribution to TDEE, and in addition to this, I absolutely agree with the OP that in just about all cases, "you don't know how much that other person really eats".

Typically people who are overweight are over-estimating their deficit or under-estimating their food intake. Hardgainers typically over-estimate their food intake and simply don't eat as much as they think.

All of the above factors play a role in this.


So are different metabolisms a "myth"? Of course not. But it sure is a good excuse.

If you spent a day with my dad, you might not be posting this, lol

So we all know people who are skinny but appear to eat all the time, right?

Except...have you ever spent a few days with them eating exactly what they do? Do they really eat as much as you think? And those overweight healthy eaters....again, I have spent some time trying to match exactly what my larger friends eat, and I can't. I can't eat that much.

Sorry, but I simply don't believe the different metabolisms myth. I haven't seen a scrap of actual evidence for it, besides people's own word for what they are eating, which is notoriously unreliable, and I have seen a lot of evidence to refute it. I do think people get full at vastly different caloric intakes, so a thin person might eat until she is stuffed, but actually not have eaten much, whereas a bigger person might feel she is always starving herself and yet can't lose weight. I believe that is where the difference lies, in our biological propensity to feel full or not.

Well start believing it because until age 30 I was living proof of it. I consumed 1600 calories a day in drinks alone. I ate what I wanted, when I wanted and how much I wanted. I didn't sit on my butt all day every day but I didn't exercise and wasn't particularly active.

Is it common? Probably not but I've known a few others like me through the years. I imagine next to none are above age 30. At 30 your metabolism starts to slow (at least it does if you're not active).

You can believe its just a myth if you want to but I have 1st hand knowledge to tell me it is not.

Same thing for me. Until I was about 25 I ate all the time, very unhealthy foods, and couldn't gain a pound. Then, age kicked in and I no longer had that issue.

Isn't it somethin? For the 1st half of your life you can't pay to gain weight. Then slowly you start to gain and don't really notice it until it's late enough you have to bust your hiney to reverse it.

Interesting post.

First of all, hormones can effect expenditure so I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's a "myth". But I would also add that people tend to use "metabolism" as a big excuse when either justifying their own inability to lean out OR when looking at another person's physique and pinning it on their "super high metabolism".

I read a post a few days ago where a friend of mine posted her pics and she eats what most people would call "junk food", and a few people immediately chimed in with ridiculous claims of "you must be lucky to have that metabolism" and "lets see you do that when you get older". They completely glossed over the fact that she isn't over-consuming calories. She's creating a deficit like the rest of us should be doing when trying to lean out.

Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis is gives a very big contribution to TDEE, and in addition to this, I absolutely agree with the OP that in just about all cases, "you don't know how much that other person really eats".

Typically people who are overweight are over-estimating their deficit or under-estimating their food intake. Hardgainers typically over-estimate their food intake and simply don't eat as much as they think.

All of the above factors play a role in this.


So are different metabolisms a "myth"? Of course not. But it sure is a good excuse.

So true!!!

Read this: http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/#metabolism

The fact is, metabolic rate does not vary drastically between matched populations. But I suppose that depends on your definition of drastically. I'd say that it certainly can vary meaningfully... in the tune of 30% differences between the slowest and fastest.

You better believe that someone who's 15% above average is going to have an easier time controlling weight than someone who's 15% below the average.

More interestingly is the concept of spontaneous physical activity or non-exercise activity thermogenesis. Some people are high responders while others are not. What I mean is, some people, when faced with a surplus, will automatically expend more energy through activity to defend against the surplus. This activity can be mostly unconscious, such as fidgeting and such. This can account for 600+ calories worth of expenditure per day.

Think about that for a second.

Chances are, the people you know who can't gain weight no matter what they eat aren't working with super fast resting metabolic rates. Rather, it's more likely dealing with the fact that they have very high SPAs or NEATs in the face of overfeeding.

On the flipside, some people, in the face of a calorie shortage, overcompensate their SPA/NEAT by unconsciously expending substantially less energy via activity, which is likely one of the primary culprits making lasting weight loss so challenging.

Bumping this and bolding the site. To anyone reading this that isn't familiar with Steve Troutman's work, check him out. This guy has a great pile of free articles on his site and you won't find any broscience here. Solid info.

"One of the few studies ever to have scrupulously monitored exercise, food intake and metabolic rates found that volunteers’ basal metabolic rates dropped as they lost weight, even though they exercised every day. As a result, although they were burning up to 500 calories during an exercise session, their total daily caloric burn was lower than it would have been had their metabolism remained unchanged, and they lost less weight than had been expected."


http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/dieting-vs-exercise-for-weight-loss/?src=me&ref=general

Metabolism is not a myth, but the exact way it works in combination with diet and exercise is still being researched. I think it really all comes back to what and how much you eat more than fast or slow metabolism. Of course, that statement is barring anyone with a metabolic disorder requiring medication - special circumstances.

I wonder if he can explain the skinny person who eats more and is not any more active than their not so skinny friend. It happens something causes it.

Differences in metabolic rates do vary amongst individuals but it is not as great as people believe in many instances - about 3% - 8% were the figures given in the article.

I suspect if you got the skinny and not so skinny individual into a metabolic ward you would probably find the skinny friend ate less and /or had a higher level of physical activity. However, physical activity doesn't only mean planned physical exercise like jogging or going to the gym.

It can also be NEAT / SPA as the posts by Sidesteal reference. Some people just can't keep still for the life of them. What does that do? Burn calories. It's an aggregation of small benefits.

The reason most people put on weight as they get older isn't really about "metabolism" as such or even loss of muscle mass (although that does play a small part.)

It's because people generally become more sedentary and eat more as they get older.

I wonder if he can explain the skinny person who eats more and is not any more active than their not so skinny friend. It happens something causes it.

Differences in metabolic rates do vary amongst individuals but it is not as great as people believe in many instances - about 3% - 8% were the figures given in the article.

I suspect if you got the skinny and not so skinny individual into a metabolic ward you would probably find the skinny friend ate less and /or had a higher level of physical activity. However, physical activity doesn't only mean planned physical exercise like jogging or going to the gym.

It can also be NEAT / SPA as the posts by Sidesteal reference. Some people just can't keep still for the life of them. What does that do? Burn calories. It's an aggregation of small benefits.

The reason most people put on weight as they get older isn't really about "metabolism" as such or even loss of muscle mass (although that does play a small part.)

It's because people generally become more sedentary and eat more as they get older.

I agree that people become much more sedentary when they get older (desk jobs, driving, etc). I don't think it's so much that they eat more. I think it's a lot more that they eat "more than they need". Meaning, they probably eat about the same maybe a little bit more depending on their lifestyle, but people probably don't need to eat as much as they were younger and more, however little, active.

Sitting on your butt and having the same eating habits can pack on weight fast. That's my experience.