Overweight? Maybe You Really Can Blame Your Metabolism

Options
1235»

Replies

  • RoamingDuck
    Options
    I admit that I did not read the article, but I have been people watching since I started losing weight. What I've noticed is that thin people seem to have a much easier time simply not eating when they are not hungry, and stopping when they are full. Obese people seem to eat much more often. This is NOT a criticism, simply my observation of the last couple of years. I myself would fall into the "feel the need to eat even when I don't" category, so I have to actively monitor myself.

    I think this plays a much more important role than metabolism. I've also heard the most people's metabolisms even out by the time they hit 30 or so, though I have no idea if that is scientifically true.

    I think it comes down to training yourself not to eat when you don't need to. This is by far the most important factor in losing weight. Exercise and metabolism are secondary. My two cents :]
  • Kindone
    Kindone Posts: 138 Member
    Options
    My armchair belief is that it seems pretty obvious that some people have an easier time with weight than others, but so what? I have an easier time doing well on tests and getting into leadership positions than others. My daughter has an easier time creating prolific art than others. We all have things that come easier to us naturally. But I am done with using that as an excuse to be fat and out of shape. If it takes me three months to lose five pounds, then OK then. I might get there slower, but i am going to get there.
  • alleekat
    alleekat Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    Some folks maybe missing the point of the article. 

    By now, many have come to terms with the fact that everyone's TDEE/BMR is slightly different based on their genetics & body composition. What is new from these studies, is that differences in metabolism may not be only about how much your base/equilibrium burn rate is, but also how efficiently your body deals with overages and underages.

    The researchers are suggesting that two people may have the same equilibrium TDEE (let's say 2000 calories). The average person may process additional calories at a rate of 3500 calories over to gain one pound. However, these new studies suggest that people's bodies are more or less efficient at dealing with extra calories at a chemical level. For some people, 2500 additional calories generates a pound and for others, 4500 extra calories generates a pound.

    As an analogy, think of a car.
    - Some cars weigh a lot. Some cars have a better aerodynamic shape. These are the factors affect the forward force that is necessary to keep a car moving at a given speed.  Think of these factors as TDEE. 
    - Now let's say we want to speed up the car, so we apply more gas. However, some cars have a more efficient engine than other cars. Those engines can create more forward energy from the same amount of gas.
    - In this way, the gas mileage our car gets is a factor of two things: the weight/aerodynamics of our car PLUS the efficiency of our engine.
    - Our ability to gain or lose weight may be a function of both our TDEE and our body's efficiency rate for our calorie deficit.

    The hypothesis from this research is that 3500 extra calories does not always equal a pound.

    This would be a huge insight for people that are working on losing weight and are getting frustrated by the scale not reacting as they anticipate. Right now, we tell those people that they must be doing it wrong. If you were REALLY cutting 3500 calories out of your diet, you would have lost a pound. You must be lying about what you are eating. You must be lying about your exercise. Quit cheating. But what if they are not?  If that person is actually not cheating, that's a pretty demoralizing message. Telling people things have happened that haven't and making people question their sanity is a form of torture used to break war prisoners. Imagine the impact that has on a person trying to get healthy. If we could tell people that their personal formula is actually 4750 to lose a pound, then the person could say "hey, sucks to be me, but now I know what to do" and get on with their weight loss program.

    None of this changes the fact that people still need to commit and take responsibility to make lifestyle changes. Or that we may need to reconsider our nation's food chain. It just may mean that the current mathematical formulas for weight management are not as fixed as everyone wants them to be.

    So, the current formula is:

    TDEE + calories consumed - deficit / 3500 calories = pounds lost or gained

    These researcher suggest that the formula is actually:

    TDEE + calories consumed - deficit / (3500 calories * your body's chemical efficiency) = pounds lost or gained

    Great post/insight!!
  • AbsoluteNG
    AbsoluteNG Posts: 1,079 Member
    Options
    This research is very true for those people that are insulin resistant. If you live in America, one third of the population is insulin resistant, which basically means that eating carbs can hamper your weight-loss goals.
  • kamiyu910
    kamiyu910 Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    I can only blame myself for my weight. My dad's side of the family are all overweight. Every single one of them, some of which are grossly obese. They're from back east and eat amazingly delicious foods like biscuits, fried chicken, vegetables cooked in lard. It's definitely a diet issue. My grandma was always trying to get everyone to eat more! Always had delicious treats like cookies, ice cream, candies, and cake laying around for us grandkids. Is it any wonder that I gained weight?
    I have hypothyroidism, fibromyalgia and really bad food allergies that make dieting extremely difficult. Depression doesn't help either. But since I've started working out more and cut my caloric intake by a lot, and don't eat my exercise calories, I've been able to lose a lot better. There are many days where I don't even want to move, but I've found that if I stay stationary too long, it just makes it worse and so I have to kick myself into working out to feel better. It also doesn't help that I love love love food... eating only 1200-1800 calories a day is painful...
    My husband, on the other hand, can sit in front of the computer all day eating garbage and lose weight...
  • hookilau
    hookilau Posts: 3,134 Member
    Options
    This research is very true for those people that are insulin resistant. If you live in America, one third of the population is insulin resistant, which basically means that eating carbs can hamper your weight-loss goals.

    Every time I point this out, the response is always, 'this is a rare condition and probably does not apply to you but on the outside chance of metabolic dysfunctinon, then yes, you are corect'.

    Eyeroll. I am ashamed to say that I fell for that 'not a special snowflake' BS.....logged faithfully, bought a fit bit, calculated my tdee <20%, lifted heavy, ate at a deficit, weighed all my food in grams and still could not lose...did this for 3 months, i accounted for all sorts of user error but did not count on a medical reason, metabolic dysfunction.

    Thank you for your post, I get to feeling invisible because apparently the 'calories in vs calories out' folks aren't actually speaking to those of us their theories do not apply to.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options

    As for the insulin spiking... Blocking fat-burning... Where do I begin? The thing we have to understand about our body is that there is an energy balance. We are constantly building up and breaking down, 24/7. This is why if we eat before bed it doesn't ruin us, because the fat that is laid down will just be used up later when the net absorption of nutrients in the GI tract is below what the body needs to remain running at that time.
    So taking this into consideration, it is fairly irrelevant to talk about insulin. In fact, it is fairly pointless to talk about adjusting any hormones in the body unless A) you have a medical condition that means your choices DO have a significant impact on your body's ability to regulate itself; or B) you are injecting performance enhancing drugs.

    This is where science differs from your perception of the digestion-absorption cycle. Yes, the body does cycle through aerobic and anaerobic processes--but an assumption of what you ate yesterday is what you are using today is not necessarily true. It depends not only how much you ate, but also how many of those calories were sugar.

    Once sugar goes into storage (i.e. fat), it is not the first place your body goes for energy. Only when you create a situation where there is a deficit will the body go looking elsewhere and the body will go looking to breakdown muscle as well as fat storage.

    Your body will only use what it needs and because sugar is toxic to our organs the body uses insulin to carry it into safe storage for later. This is happens relatively quickly (~2 hrs when eaten without fats, fiber, or protein). The problem is that this "for later" storage is not the first place your body goes when it needs more energy. Chemicals are released to trigger hunger, so you eat more. And if what you eat is more sugar than complex carbohydrates, fats, and proteins, then more of that sugar is going to storage. And so on, and so on.

    BTW, if insulin was irrelevant to the process of digestion & absorption, then the whole understanding and treatment of diabetes would be undone.
    Uhhh, sugar is not toxic. The human body runs on sugar. Pretty much everything you just posted is completely incorrect. Insulin actually has NOTHING to do with storing sugar in fat. Insulin transports glucose in the blood into muscle and organ cells. When there is an excess of glucose, insulin transports the rest of it into the liver for conversion into glycogen, and, once glycogen stores are full, any remaining glucose is converted into triglycerides, which are then transported to adipose cells for storage. Insulin has nothing to do with that part of the equation. Insulin also transports protein into muscles, and has roughly 100 other major bodily functions.

    As for your comment about diabetes, I get the feeling you don't really understand how it works.
  • stefjc
    stefjc Posts: 484 Member
    Options
    Step away, tigersword. Step away.....

    .... and breathe!
  • zornig
    zornig Posts: 336 Member
    Options
    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.

    Not to mention they ruin your liver.
  • zornig
    zornig Posts: 336 Member
    Options
    Some folks maybe missing the point of the article. 

    By now, many have come to terms with the fact that everyone's TDEE/BMR is slightly different based on their genetics & body composition. What is new from these studies, is that differences in metabolism may not be only about how much your base/equilibrium burn rate is, but also how efficiently your body deals with overages and underages.

    The researchers are suggesting that two people may have the same equilibrium TDEE (let's say 2000 calories). The average person may process additional calories at a rate of 3500 calories over to gain one pound. However, these new studies suggest that people's bodies are more or less efficient at dealing with extra calories at a chemical level. For some people, 2500 additional calories generates a pound and for others, 4500 extra calories generates a pound.

    As an analogy, think of a car.
    - Some cars weigh a lot. Some cars have a better aerodynamic shape. These are the factors affect the forward force that is necessary to keep a car moving at a given speed.  Think of these factors as TDEE. 
    - Now let's say we want to speed up the car, so we apply more gas. However, some cars have a more efficient engine than other cars. Those engines can create more forward energy from the same amount of gas.
    - In this way, the gas mileage our car gets is a factor of two things: the weight/aerodynamics of our car PLUS the efficiency of our engine.
    - Our ability to gain or lose weight may be a function of both our TDEE and our body's efficiency rate for our calorie deficit.

    The hypothesis from this research is that 3500 extra calories does not always equal a pound.

    This would be a huge insight for people that are working on losing weight and are getting frustrated by the scale not reacting as they anticipate. Right now, we tell those people that they must be doing it wrong. If you were REALLY cutting 3500 calories out of your diet, you would have lost a pound. You must be lying about what you are eating. You must be lying about your exercise. Quit cheating. But what if they are not?  If that person is actually not cheating, that's a pretty demoralizing message. Telling people things have happened that haven't and making people question their sanity is a form of torture used to break war prisoners. Imagine the impact that has on a person trying to get healthy. If we could tell people that their personal formula is actually 4750 to lose a pound, then the person could say "hey, sucks to be me, but now I know what to do" and get on with their weight loss program.

    None of this changes the fact that people still need to commit and take responsibility to make lifestyle changes. Or that we may need to reconsider our nation's food chain. It just may mean that the current mathematical formulas for weight management are not as fixed as everyone wants them to be.

    So, the current formula is:

    TDEE + calories consumed - deficit / 3500 calories = pounds lost or gained

    These researcher suggest that the formula is actually:

    TDEE + calories consumed - deficit / (3500 calories * your body's chemical efficiency) = pounds lost or gained

    Thank you very much for this summary/re-cap. I hadn't actually read the article (too lazy). As someone who has been on the receiving end of the "you must be not doing it right" discourse, I agree with you: such a finding would be major!
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    Options
    The article says this genetic mutation (which is rare) only makes a difference of 10-15%. We're not talking about having to eat half as much while exercising twice as much. For me it would be the difference between 1900 calories per day (which is what I eat now) and eating 1600-1700.
  • Hadabetter
    Hadabetter Posts: 941 Member
    Options
    Apparently this genetic mutation has only shown up in the last 30 years and only in wealthy cultures? I suppose that is possible, but that is a crazy fast mutation. Usually evolutionary changes take tens of thousands of years, not 30.

    I smell a diet drug marketing opportunity coming.
    I'm sorry...you make too much sense. Therefore, you have been banned from the message boards.