Overweight? Maybe You Really Can Blame Your Metabolism

I will go read the article now, but my initial thought when reading the title of the thread is:

Sure, you can blame your metabolism. . . but then you'll just be overweight with a slow metabolism.

You might have to work harder, and maybe it isn't fair, but a slow metabolism isn't a reason to raise the white flag and accept a body size you're not comfortable with.

I'm wondering what you guys think about this article, do you feel like it's an overweight person's fault or are the odds just stacked against them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/health/overweight-maybe-you-really-can-blame-your-metabolism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

They want *SO* badly to be able to call obesity a disease so they can sell their drugs. There *ARE* diseases that can cause obesity, but obesity is not a disease.

IMHO: Let's assume that not everyone is lying, is unaware of how much they eat, is eating in secret or has an unknown health issue. Two committed people follow the same weight loss and exercise program but have very different results. Is it possible that metabolism played a part in this?!!! The study on the sets of twins demonstrated this very nicely. As the scientific community is fond of saying, more and larger studies need to be done and they will need to understand a lot more, it does appear to support the premise that metabolisms do differ from one person to another. If the amount of movement and the reduction in calories needed by one person is distinctly greater than what another needs, discounting variations in metabolism and saying that it's just a matter of eating less and moving more is too simplistic and unrealistic. Variety is the spice of life and, evidently, the spice of metabolisms.

IMHO: Let's assume that not everyone is lying, is unaware of how much they eat, is eating in secret or has an unknown health issue. Two committed people follow the same weight loss and exercise program but have very different results. Is it possible that metabolism played a part in this?!!! The study on the sets of twins demonstrated this very nicely. As the scientific community is fond of saying, more and larger studies need to be done and they will need to understand a lot more, but it does appear to support the premise that metabolisms do differ from one person to another. If the amount of movement and the reduction in calories needed by one person is distinctly greater than what another needs, discounting variations in metabolism and saying that it's just a matter of eating less and moving more is too simplistic and unrealistic. Variety is the spice of life and, evidently, the spice of metabolisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiponectin
http://www.livestrong.com/article/549960-glycemic-load-adiponectin/
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=207088

I am sharing links to a fraction of the things I have been reading over the last 10 years. A calorie is not a calorie The quality of your nutrition matters MORE.

Mainstream understanding of nutrition and weightloss must begin to digest current science or it will further resemble "the flat-earth society".

In sum, the first link will sound like doom--if you are overweight you body makes less of what is needed to burn fat. But the light at the end of the tunnel is that exercise and select nutrients will create an environment where your body will begin making more adiponectin.

The other links point to the value of a low-glycemic diet for weightloss.

I began following a low-glycemic diet years ago. It stabilized my weight and although it was not enough for me to have weightloss, my overall health improved dramatically. Naturally, I began following the biological mechanism of cellular energy further back to digestion. I made further dietary forever changes and added moderate cardio to toning and lost 14 lbs & nearly 20" down quickly.

It would be a whole other post to discuss how hard cardio causes weight gain in me and the few studies I found that proved I am not mistaken!

Take a look at low-glycemic diet

I think that metabolism is a big factor in gaining weight but there are easy cheap ways to speed up your metabolism. For example I have a pretty pants metabolism, I just look at food and put weight on, so I drink green tea a lot. There are supplements out there for metabolism but some are a bit pricey.

I'm not exactly sure what a pretty pants metabolism is, but none of those supplements makes much of a difference in metabolism. I have an autoimmune disease that causes my metabolism to speed up, and there's a green tea drink that I really like. I asked my doctor if it would compound the problem with my metabolism, and he laughed. He told me to drink as much as I wanted and it wouldn't make much difference. Most studies I've seen on green tea are based on changing from a sugery drink to green tea and losing XXX pounds a year. You could sub water and get the same thing.

The only thing proven to make a real change in metabolism is exercise, and that effect is temporary. So you gotta hit it all the time. :bigsmile:

The article doesn't address the question because the answer has nothing to do with genetics. 40 years ago we ate about 500 calories a day less than we do today, and we were far more active, both at work, and leisure time, due to not having the advanced technology that automates so much of our lives nowadays.

It's really a simple issue to comprehend. We eat more and move less. To fix the problem everyone needs to eat less and move more.

40 years ago we ate much less sugar. Open this link to look at the charts,
http://blog.zestos.co.nz/2010/09/sugar-consumption-been-high-before.html

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Now since the 70's - ie over 40 years, the sugar consumption has continued to rise. As the graph below shows the total sugar intake as gone from 55 kg / person to 69 kg / person. This increase is with line with the trend of the above graph. Also note that the types of sugar have changed from sugar (sucrose) to glucose and high fructose corn syrup. Neither glucose or fructose corn syrup are found in large quantities in nature (or not at all with high fructose syrup).




Take a look at low-glycemic eating.

For various reasons my metabolism has always been slower than normal. It sucks. But it is not an excuse to be obese. I learned early on that to stay within a healthy weight, I had to watch my calorie intake. I simply could not eat like some other people around me could eat. And I had to stay fairly active.

BUT, that also meant that if I ate the right foods, I would not be hungry on a much lower calorie level than others who have higher metabolisms. It is all relative.
If your body burns 3000 cals a day, and you eat 3500, you will gain a pound a week.
If your body burns 1500 cals, and you eat 2000, you will also gain a pound a week.

The secret that I have found, is finding out the number that is right for me, figuring out the macros that work best for me, and willpower to only eat when I am hungry, and not just because I am bored, or frustrated, or because it just smells so good!