naturally thin people

Ohhh, I'm quite serious. It's hard for me to gain weight or muscle. No health problems, I just don't gain easily.

My husband is like a rail. He eats far more than me at each meal, drinks sugary sodas and coffee drinks regularly and snacks a lot. He is almost half my weight. We have been together over 5 years with this difference in our eating styles and he never gains weight. I would say he is one of those naturally thin people. They exist.

Nothing you've written in this post (or subsequent posts) suggests that your husband is naturally thin . . . just that he has a higher TDEE than you and eats to meet that TDEE - not more, not less. If he did force himself to eat above that, he would gain weight.

It seems we have a different opinion of what "naturally thin" means. Not just you but others here. Some people say "Oh he is not naturally thin, he just has a higher metabolism or TDEE" or whatever other factor. To me that means he has a natural tendency to be able to eat far more food than I do, and stay thin. To me, that means "naturally thin". I don't assume that he could stuff himself all day every day with lard and stay thin. Is this what some people think we mean by "naturally thin"? lol, no, I am sure there is a threshold when he would start to gain weight for sure!

What I really mean by naturally thin, is that he can eat all he wants, be it healthy food or junk food, and far FAR more than I do, and stay thin while I either gain or maintain.

He eats the same diet I do, only I give him a bit more to compensate for his height and gender and general high metabolism that I know he has. Yet he eats a lot of junk food on top of that. His weight, despite this always remains between 150 to 165. It does fluctuate, but he never gains a large amount of weight despite his eating junk food to his hearts content on a regular basis. And by "hearts content" I do not mean he gorges himself. I only mean that he eats far more than I do, even taking into account the extra food he gets at meals, and it is usually junk food, without taking any consideration of how much he is eating and only stopping when it is gone or he is nice and full and sluggish. To me, this means "naturally thin".

Some people here seem to be kind of angry that some people simply do have an easier time staying thin. It is not a fat person's excuse (all the time). It is just that some people have this lucky trait. I don't bemoan or hold it against them. And I am certainly not in any kind of denial about how I put on weight. I ate far too much starchy foods for years. It was not always my fault, as I have explained, but the last year and 15 pounds certainly were. Because at that point we were ok financially again, but I missed awesome food and just let myself have everything I wanted. My husband did the same but he did not gain weight. Good for him! lol.

Some people's bodies just store fat more readily for a wide variety of reasons. Not matter how you feel about it, it is true. Maybe we can change the term "naturally thin" to "easily thin". Would that be more clear? Would the fat blaming sarcasm be less necessary if we changed the term?

My husband is like a rail. He eats far more than me at each meal, drinks sugary sodas and coffee drinks regularly and snacks a lot. He is almost half my weight. We have been together over 5 years with this difference in our eating styles and he never gains weight. I would say he is one of those naturally thin people. They exist.

Nothing you've written in this post (or subsequent posts) suggests that your husband is naturally thin . . . just that he has a higher TDEE than you and eats to meet that TDEE - not more, not less. If he did force himself to eat above that, he would gain weight.

It seems we have a different opinion of what "naturally thin" means. Not just you but others here. Some people say "Oh he is not naturally thin, he just has a higher metabolism or TDEE" or whatever other factor. To me that means he has a natural tendency to be able to eat far more food than I do, and stay thin. To me, that means "naturally thin". I don't assume that he could stuff himself all day every day with lard and stay thin. Is this what some people think we mean by "naturally thin"? lol, no, I am sure there is a threshold when he would start to gain weight for sure!

What I really mean by naturally thin, is that he can eat all he wants, be it healthy food or junk food, and far FAR more than I do, and stay thin while I either gain or maintain.

He eats the same diet I do, only I give him a bit more to compensate for his height and gender and general high metabolism that I know he has. Yet he eats a lot of junk food on top of that. His weight, despite this always remains between 150 to 165. It does fluctuate, but he never gains a large amount of weight despite his eating junk food to his hearts content on a regular basis. And by "hearts content" I do not mean he gorges himself. I only mean that he eats far more than I do, even taking into account the extra food he gets at meals, and it is usually junk food, without taking any consideration of how much he is eating and only stopping when it is gone or he is nice and full and sluggish. To me, this means "naturally thin".

Some people here seem to be kind of angry that some people simply do have an easier time staying thin. It is not a fat person's excuse (all the time). It is just that some people have this lucky trait. I don't bemoan or hold it against them. And I am certainly not in any kind of denial about how I put on weight. I ate far too much starchy foods for years. It was not always my fault, as I have explained, but the last year and 15 pounds certainly were. Because at that point we were ok financially again, but I missed awesome food and just let myself have everything I wanted. My husband did the same but he did not gain weight. Good for him! lol.

Some people's bodies just store fat more readily for a wide variety of reasons. Not matter how you feel about it, it is true. Maybe we can change the term "naturally thin" to "easily thin". Would that be more clear? Would the fat blaming sarcasm be less necessary if we changed the term?

Okay, this makes a little more sense . . . but it's still not a magical "lucky trait" in my opinion. It's just genetics, a 6'1 male is going to have a higher TDEE than a sedentary shorter female, and will therefore be able to eat more. I might feel differently about this if I had a lower TDEE - mine's about 2400 and I lose fairly rapidly eating 2000 calories a day - which is more than some people who are much heavier than me eat in order to maintain. I mean, but if my TDEE were 1800 and I saw myself starting to gain weight while eating the recommended amount of calories for an average woman (2000, I think), and I saw less active people eating more than that and staying the same, I might be pissed off about it too and blame it on them being "naturally thin" (and I don't think you're necessarily making an excuse and I don't mean to "fat blame" as you put it) . . .

On a very simple level, your weight depends on the number of calories you consume, how many of those calories you store, and how many you burn up. But each of these factors is influenced by a combination of genes and environment. Both can affect your physiology (such as how fast you burn calories) as well as your behavior (the types of foods you choose to eat, for instance). The interplay between all these factors begins at the moment of your conception and continues throughout your life.

The balance of calories stored and burned depends on your genetic makeup, your level of physical activity, and your resting energy expenditure (the number of calories your body burns while at rest).

The strength of the genetic influence on weight disorders varies quite a bit from person to person. Research suggests that for some people, genes account for just 25% of the predisposition to be overweight, while for others the genetic influence is as high as 70% to 80%. Having a rough idea of how large a role genes play in your weight may be helpful in terms of treating your weight problems.

QUOTE:
The strength of the genetic influence on weight disorders varies quite a bit from person to person. Research suggests that for some people, genes account for just 25% of the predisposition to be overweight, while for others the genetic influence is as high as 70% to 80%. Having a rough idea of how large a role genes play in your weight may be helpful in terms of treating your weight problems.



Excellent, Hornsby.

To date, more than 400 different genes have been implicated in the development of overweight or obesity, although only a handful appear to be major players. Genes contribute to obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.

Above is another quote form the Harvard link.

There is NO causality. Look at the waffle words. "implicated", "appear", "suggest", "may".

There has NEVER been a gene identified that directly causes obesity.

Genes have nothing to do with being overweight, just as they have nothing to do with being underweight.

Genes define a mechanism for metabolism that responds to the calorie load presented to it.

Learned behavior and social cues are the culprits.

Again, NO causality can be found in ANY study.

Characterization of cytochrome P450 and glutathione S-transferase activity and expression in male and female ob/ob mice.
Roe AL, Howard G, Blouin R, Snawder JE.
Author information

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To characterize the effect(s) of gender, age (glycemic status) and obese state, on hepatic biotransformation activities, expression of cytochrome P450 (CYP450) mRNAs and glutathione transferase activity in the ob/ob mouse.

DESIGN:
Male and female, ob/ob or ob/+ mice were killed at 3-4 months or 7-8 months of age. Hepatic microsomes, cytosol and RNA were prepared from each animal.

ANIMALS:
Male and female ob/ob and ob/+ mice, 3-4 or 7-8 months of age.

MEASUREMENTS:
CYP450 form-specific activities of CYP1A1/1A2, CYP3A and CYP2B were estimated by determining the 0-dealkylation of alkoxyresorufin substrates (ethoxy-EROD, benzoxy-BROD and pentoxy-resorufin, PROD, respectively). CYP2E1-dependent, 4-nitrophenol hydroxylase (PNP-OH) and CYP3A-dependent erythromycin N-demethylase (ERY-DM) were also measured in hepatic microsomes. CYP1A2, CYP2E1 and CYP3A protein in microsomal fractions was determined by ELISA. Glutathione transferase activity (GST) was determined in hepatic cytosol and CYP1A2 and CYP2E1 mRNA was estimated by Northern blot analysis.

RESULTS:
Female mice, regardless of glycemic status, showed an obesity enhanced level of CYP2E1-dependent PNP-OH activity and CYP2E1 protein as shown by ELISA. These increases were observed to be independent of the diabetic state, since 7-8 month-old mice had blood glucose levels identical to lean mice. The mRNA level of CYP2E1 in female mice also exhibited age-and obesity-influenced decreases in expression. No significant differences in CYP2E1 activity or expression were observed in male mice. CYP3A-dependent ERY-DM activity was significantly higher in young males, regardless of phenotype. CYP3A and CYP2B activities did not differ among any animals; however, CYP1A activity, while depressed in obese animals of both genders, was significantly different in old animals. Glutathione S-transferase activity was lower in obese male mice, whereas no difference was observed between lean and obese females

CONCLUSION:
This study supports earlier observations in man and rats that the obese state produces alterations in the expression of important oxidation and conjugation pathways. In addition, this report more thoroughly examines the role of gender and glycemic status on biotransformation activities in the ob/ob mouse as demonstrated by increased CYP2E1 protein and CYP2E1-dependent activity in obese females, decreased CYP1A2 protein and CYP1A2-dependent activity in obese animals, and obesity had no effect of glutathione transferase in female mice, in contrast with the previously reported obesity-dependent decrease of this activity in male mice.

For the sake of the general public (not anomalies or the rarest percentage of people who may be "naturally thin" due to some genetic or physiological oddity) thin people who can "eat whatever they want and not exercise" still are obviously eating at or under what they burn. Let's not make this out to be some envious position of genetics.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition