Reality Check: Skinny People Must Have Fast Metabolisms
Options
Replies
-
"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:0
-
I know it's not always a valid excuse but it is true for some.
Very true.
Same with being born with a tail. Rare, but it happens. Luckily 99.99999999999% of us are born without a tail and just a tail-bone.
Funny how 99.99999999999% of us are convinced that we fit in the 0.00000000001 percentile.
It's time to be honest with ourselves folks.
.
0 -
"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:
You do know that isotope markers are used in the medical field for things like PET and certain CT scans, right?0 -
"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:
You do know that isotope markers are used in the medical field for things like PET and certain CT scans, right?
SCIENCE!0 -
tagging to watch later0
-
"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:
The videos said it was non-radioactive.0 -
0 -
I know the "special snowflake" stuff. I am not disputing that most of us fall within the same norms.
But I would guess that BMR charts, just like any other statistic based on studies of large numbers of people, are based on the bell curve. That would mean that statistically speaking, some people would fall outside the norms, and have significantly higher or lower BMRs. If I am remembering correctly from all those college classes so many years ago, there will be about 2 1/2% of the population that will fall on each end of the chart. So, some of us actually don`t fit the regular weight loss math!
I you track your numbers over the long haul, you can see how much you ate, and then how much you gained or lost. This would help you find YOUR true TDEE.
Then, as another poster said, just stay within that!
Absolutely. One often-cited study on BMR has a standard deviation of ~350 calories. By definition, 32% of the population would have a BMR more than 350 cals from the mean. The 2.5% you mention is for 2 sigma.... in this case, a difference of 700 cals. No one fits the weight loss math except the subject measured, but for most of us, it works just fine for weight control.
Thanks for clarifying and expanding. sometimes I know just enough math to be dangerous!
But I endured a lot of people on here telling me that there was no way my BMR/TDEE didnt fit the charts. That obviously I was doing something wrong. Well, time has told the story. My numbers dont match the chart. My BMR is about 140 lower than the charts, and the TDEE chart is about 500 cals too high for me. I would guess that the more active you are the more the TDEE will be off in the end, since all the activity is extrapolated from your BMR.
But I am finally getting smart and just using the real life numbers that I have rather than listening to all the advice about how much more I need to eat. And now I am back on track and losing the 12 lbs that exploration put on me.
Bottom line, it is about calories in and calories out. You may just have to search a bit to find out how many you need!0 -
"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:
You do know that isotope markers are used in the medical field for things like PET and certain CT scans, right?
Um yes actually.
PET= Positron Emission Tomography detects gamma particles (emitted from a positron-emitting radionuclide. Such the radioisotope 18F (FDG).
CT is also radiation based. I can see using these for diagnosing a real medical problem like cancer, but not just "for kicks" rto show you are eating too much.0 -
"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:
You do know that isotope markers are used in the medical field for things like PET and certain CT scans, right?
Um yes actually.
PET= Positron Emission Tomography detects gamma particles (emitted from a positron-emitting radionuclide. Such the radioisotope 18F (FDG).
CT is also radiation based. I can see using these for diagnosing a real medical problem like cancer, but not just "for kicks" rto show you are eating too much.
As Whierd said, in the video they are non-radioactive. and how is doing this and showing the women the truth to help them get healthier something for "kicks"?
If doing this helps them change their habits and thinking and be successful in getting healthier...isn't that the same as getting a CT scan to show where the issues are? If one is "for kicks" then you are saying that both methods are.0 -
"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:
The videos said it was non-radioactive.
This is why I'd rather read a paper. Had never heard of "nonradioactive isotope" used for detection. But I see things like 13C do exist.0 -
"Special Isotope Markers" - doesn't that mean these people drank a radioactive solution?:sick:
You do know that isotope markers are used in the medical field for things like PET and certain CT scans, right?
Um yes actually.
PET= Positron Emission Tomography detects gamma particles (emitted from a positron-emitting radionuclide. Such the radioisotope 18F (FDG).
CT is also radiation based. I can see using these for diagnosing a real medical problem like cancer, but not just "for kicks" rto show you are eating too much.
As Whierd said, in the video they are non-radioactive. and how is doing this and showing the women the truth to help them get healthier something for "kicks"?
If doing this helps them change their habits and thinking and be successful in getting healthier...isn't that the same as getting a CT scan to show where the issues are? If one is "for kicks" then you are saying that both methods are.
Oh yikes. Well, I admitted my lack of knowledge about "nonradioactive isotopes" used for detection above. But still, if I had to elect to drink a radioactive solution to identify the location of a tumor in my body I would. If I had to do it to tell me whether I was justified in staying overweight or not, I would not. Sorry if I offended you. :flowerforyou:0 -
Two things...
I've got a friend who's one of those "I eat and eat and never weigh more than 105" people...and I admit that when we go out to lunch or whatever she eats just as much as anyone else. But I have no idea what she eats or doesn't eat when I'm not around. I've always assumed that she just enjoys being the special skinny snowflake that everyone else wants to be, so she exaggerates her food consumption. The fact that she brings it up all the time is a good clue that it's something she enjoys talking about and makes her feel good to be an object of envy.
Second, I remember reading a study many years ago that determined that the vast majority of people of a slim to healthy weight practice what they called "chronic restrained eating". In other words, they were mindful of what they ate and in what portions. Myself, I weighed between 120 and 150 for most of my adult life (up until I was about 40 years old) and maintained that weight only through restricting food and exercising. It certainly wasn't effortless.
So maybe the question should be why it's easier for some people to control what they eat and why it's so much harder for others.0 -
Bump0
-
I'm going to add this to my arsenal! I had an extremely overweight friend tell me that he looks like he eats like a pig, but he doesn't. I told him to watch Secret Eaters, and he said he wasn't a secret eater. Ugh. Just watch the damn thing! Thanks for posting this!0
-
I've got a friend who's one of those "I eat and eat and never weigh more than 105" people...and I admit that when we go out to lunch or whatever she eats just as much as anyone else. But I have no idea what she eats or doesn't eat when I'm not around.
When I was younger, I ate whatever I wanted and I ate A LOT. You name the junk food, it was pretty much in my daily diet. The restaurant meals I ate regularly were easily more than 3,000 calories alone. And I didn't do much in the way of exercise, by accident or on purpose.
I was tiny.
I turned 28 and continued eating and moving the same and gained 30 pounds in a matter of months. I took control, ate less and moved more and lost it.
I think that's pretty good evidence that metabolism CAN impact weight and sometimes it slows down.
I'm sure there are people who out-eat their faster metabolisms and gain and there are people who are very thin simply because of their eating and exercise habits. But there ARE people who are thin because they have a faster metabolic rate in general. It happens.0 -
So maybe the question should be why it's easier for some people to control what they eat and why it's so much harder for others.
And this could be where genetics comes into play. I read a study recently that people who are very overweight or obese have a much greater instance of a genetic mutation that actually makes them feel hungry after eating, often leading them to overeat.
The study was a prompted by the fact that those who have weight loss surgery and lose weight very quickly can reverse this mutation. Children born to overweight women with the mutation often have the same mutation, but children born to the same woman after weight loss surgery do not. It's pretty interesting stuff.0 -
It makes perfect sense. Usually, the bigger you are the FASTER your metabolism because you are unfit, so your body has to work harder to move your mass around.
Still doesn't make sense. Having to move around a lot of bodyweight is extra energy expended during activities, not an increase in BMR.
The body burns a lot of calories trying to stay cool. Imagine how hard it would have to work if it was wearing a literal fat suit? Extra calories. Heart has to pump faster and harder because the blood volume is so much larger. More calories.
Just off the top of my head why an obese person might have a higher BMR than a normal weight person.0 -
So maybe the question should be why it's easier for some people to control what they eat and why it's so much harder for others.
And this could be where genetics comes into play. I read a study recently that people who are very overweight or obese have a much greater instance of a genetic mutation that actually makes them feel hungry after eating, often leading them to overeat.
The study was a prompted by the fact that those who have weight loss surgery and lose weight very quickly can reverse this mutation. Children born to overweight women with the mutation often have the same mutation, but children born to the same woman after weight loss surgery do not. It's pretty interesting stuff.
Do you have a ref. to the study?0 -
bump0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions