naturally thin people
Options
Replies
-
I used to be able to eat large amounts and not gain weight, but that was when I was a teenager and my thyroid was out of whack. When my thyroid straightened out and I got a little older, I started packing on the pounds very quickly! It took me years to unlearn the bad eating habits I gained from years of being able to eat whatever I wanted.
Now, I count calories carefully and lift weights regularly. Sometimes at work, people see me eating a large quantity of cookies or a big, huge slice of cake and they think I eat that way all the time and am "naturally thin." They don't see me at the gym later that night working off those cookies or cake. Then the next day I go back to my usual 1250-1300 calorie/day diet.0 -
A textbook (Guyton and Hall) is the go-to source for all information that has been proved and accepted by ALL medical experts and researchers throughout the WORLD.
It is not just ONE piece.
It is the MAJOR piece. It is the gold standard.
Lay-people who are just trying to lose weight should not go farther than Guyton's, or any similar medical textbook, for their understanding of physiology and how their bodies work.
All these other theories have to be vetted, and then they WILL become a part of Guyton's and mainstream accepted medicine IF they pass muster.
The vast majority fall by the wayside because they are WRONG.
Hmmm, yet you weren’t interested in the information I posted from another textbook about variability in response to under and overeating showing that it’s not just about metabolic rate, which you continue to claim. It was from a textbook, so according to your assertions, proven and accepted by researchers around the world.
It’s not just about metabolism though. My understanding about this thread is that it’s about some people finding weight regulation easier than others. There are many factors involved in weight regulation and to say it’s only about metabolic rate is extremely short-sighted.Dr. Oz and other TV "professionals" like him should be ashamed of some of the positive spin they put on nonsensical approaches to weight loss they parade out on their shows.
Basic metabolism within humans only varies as the levels of muscle mass changes, and the level of thyroid hormones change over time. The effect these changes have on net calorie balance is small compared the effect of burning calories through exercise or not ingesting calories at all by ACTUALLY SKIPPING A MEAL.
I don’t agree with Dr Oz’s rubbish either, but your simplistic view is just as extreme as Dr Oz’s woo approach.
Who did this? Are you talking about the Agouti gene in mice, which I gave as an extreme example of the impact of genes on obesity phenotype. It’s a typical textbook example of epigenetics and foetal programming which also likely happens in humans….again, read about the Dutch Hunger Winter studies.Putting Guyton's on an equal level with some rat study with a likely flawed design is totally disingenuous.
Anyway, I see now that you’re the ‘no breakfast’ dude so, no doubt, I’m wasting my time here. You’re too fixated on your own agenda.0 -
Really? While there are undoubtedly a range of metabolic rates for humans (how broad is unknown and may or may not be significant), and of course genetics plays a role in that, I don't find these examples to be good ones.
FTO is 'associated' with fat mass. Which doesn't say diddly, really, other than it seems to be correlated. I assume we all know the correlation != causation mantra. Keep it in the forefront of your mind when looking at genetic data - most 'correlated' genes end up being discarded as causative factors when geneticists really try to nail them down. FTO is a DNA and RNA repair enzyme. At best, it'd be several steps removed from the metabolic processes involved in fat mass regulation.
FTO is an RNA demethylase, so it’s likely involved in RNA interference. It’s been shown to alter ghrelin response, which would impact eating behaviour. So in this instance correlation = causation!
Yes, but ability to maintain weight is not just about metabolism.Prader-wili causes unending hunger. Not a change in metabolism, as far as I know.
This study looked at over 20,000 sibs.Heritability of BMI better have been done with separated twin studies or some such if they hope to control for learned behavior. If the recent study was large, then it likely didn't include those types of controls. It's too difficult to find large numbers of people who meet the necessary parameters and are willing to participate in a study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24183453
Yes, there are different methods of analysing heritability but the impact of living conditions are most certainly controlled for.
Yes, it’s early days but there is already some pretty compelling evidence.The role of epigenetics is yet to be seen. I'm sure it'll play a role somewhere, but again, to what extent is unknown.To me, the big question is, how far can one vary from the 'average' metabolically speaking and still be an apparently 'normal' human? Changing any aspect of metabolism has far-reaching effects beyond just changing how many calories you need to perform X function. It would potentially affect your immune system, growth, development, reproduction, nerve conduction, organ and muscle performance, on and on. My completely wild guess is that the viability range for an overall metabolic rate is fairly narrow. But who knows.
In my opinion, control of weight is much more complex and metabolism is just one aspect of it.0 -
. How many times that gene occurs in your genome?
None. Mine's named Jake.
0 -
Another good lecture for those of us who really can't eat just one:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLGoT5gDA0E
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZyGj4eVe8U 0 -
Until all these studies make it into Guyton or some other mainstream physiology textbook as verified concepts, I'm not going to waste time on it.
But you see Steve, this is what makes you unable to have a debate. Because you are going on 2010 material and it is 2013. Plus, who's to say everything important got into Guytons?
*headesk*0 -
My husband is 5'10" and 155 lbs, 51 years old, and he eats an ungodly number of calories in sugar with candy, cookies, and soft drinks! He has always done this and has always stayed at 155 lb. He also has a desk job, so is fairly sedentary. So I think he may be an outlier, lol!0
-
Until all these studies make it into Guyton or some other mainstream physiology textbook as verified concepts, I'm not going to waste time on it.
But you see Steve, this is what makes you unable to have a debate. Because you are going on 2010 material and it is 2013. Plus, who's to say everything important got into Guytons?
*headesk*
Guyton's latest publication date is 2011.
Admittedly, it probably reflects stuff that is a couple years older than that.
But I do not understand how the breakfast works.
Fixed it for you
I
U, Steve! 0 -
This is an interesting topic! I was never a naturally thin person. I put on weight from puberty and never lost, not until this year (15 years post puberty).
Which means that I haven't been this weight since I was 12. Hm. Sounds sick when I put it that way.
Not at all. As soon as puberty hit, I was 135. At 13!
All the rest of my family has never weighed more than this. I've seen what they eat. And I know their lifestyle. Their metabolic rate has to be higher, that's for sure. I must get the other family gene's :-P I'm currently 157. Not too much longer and I'll be back at what I was at the beginning of puberty. That IS insane when you really do think about it...0 -
When I married my husband he was 6' and weighed 138 lbs, Yes you read that right. That man was skinny. He had a metabolism as they say. Well actually he didn't, his family are all thin as well. Here is what I observed:
My mother-in-law made a pound of pasta for 5, and it was more than enough. My mother made a pound of pasta for 4 as a side dish and we ate it all.
My Sister-in-law walked in the house starving, ate 1/2 a sausage and she was full. Me I would have eaten 3 sausages.
My husband would be hungry, not find food he liked to eat and just wouldn't eat. When I am hungry, there is always something that I will eat.
My mother-in-law made a pan of Lasagna and each person ate one square. My house, a pan of Lasagna fed 3 people.
My husband's home, food was not the center of everything. Food was important, but not the center. My house, food was the center of all social gatherings.
My husband was a smoker at that time and he always had Acid Reflux. He found out his stomach produces too much acid, which is what I think contributed to what we thought was a high metabolism. Before he controled the acid he had a very high tolerance to medication, alcohol, etc. Basically if a drug was take every 6 hours, it completely wore off in 4 for him. He also quick smoking. Between both those things he gained about 50 lbs. He also go older and less active.
So based on what I saw, thinner people naturally eat less food, even if it is high calorie. My MIL cooked steak in oil, husband ate 1/2. I cooked same steak, no added oil, he ate the whole steak. My husband does not ENJOY food the same way I do. He likes food, but he could live without it, he eats to live. I eat sometimes cause well its Pizza.
Thin people eat when they are hungry and stop eating when full, they also don't do comfort eating. When stressed they don't eat. It is the opposite for someone like me, I comfort eat, I eat when stressed, I eat when bored, etc. Not true for thin people.
FYI, my daughter is also thin. I have seen her eat 1200 calories in one sitting at age 5 and the next day eat only 120 calories for the day.
THAT was an interesting read :-)0 -
"In my opinion, control of weight is much more complex and metabolism is just one aspect of it."
You are still whistling in the dark. Metabolism variations are absolutely inconsequential for the average otherwise-healthy individual trying to lose weight.
Now you are backing off and saying metabolism is just "one aspect" of it.
I won't even give you that.
Until all these studies make it into Guyton or some other mainstream physiology textbook as verified concepts, I'm not going to waste time on it.
And folks who are obese shouldn't pay any attention to them.
The should pay attention to all these "naturally" thin people, and they will find these people have learned to control their impulse to eat, and appreciate that having an empty stomach is not the end of the world.
You can change how your body and brain react to "hunger".
"Breakfast IS the least important meal of the day" and sets you up for what can only be termed a chronic food addiction state. Dr. Hagan is right.
Backing off? Not at all. Of course metabolism is one aspect of weight control. When did I say that it wasn't? It's not however, the only aspect, which is what you are saying, and I'm certain that you are very, very wrong.
You clearly don't (or aren't able to) comprehend what I'm saying, much of which is accepted in the field, included in a number of textbooks (I gave you one example) and in my professional experience, part of the curriculum for medical students, clinical dietitians and other allied health professionals. If you're not prepared to even attempt to educate yourself beyond your physiology textbook, it's a waste of my time trying to communicate with you.
ETA: Heehee, I just noticed that you contradicted yourself. Chronic food addiction? Oh geez.........0 -
"In my opinion, control of weight is much more complex and metabolism is just one aspect of it."
You are still whistling in the dark. Metabolism variations are absolutely inconsequential for the average otherwise-healthy individual trying to lose weight.
Now you are backing off and saying metabolism is just "one aspect" of it.
I won't even give you that.
Until all these studies make it into Guyton or some other mainstream physiology textbook as verified concepts, I'm not going to waste time on it.
And folks who are obese shouldn't pay any attention to them.
The should pay attention to all these "naturally" thin people, and they will find these people have learned to control their impulse to eat, and appreciate that having an empty stomach is not the end of the world.
You can change how your body and brain react to "hunger".
"Breakfast IS the least important meal of the day" and sets you up for what can only be termed a chronic food addiction state. Dr. Hagan is right.
Backing off? Not at all. Of course metabolism is one aspect of weight control. When did I say that it wasn't? It's not however, the only aspect, which is what you are saying, and I'm certain that you are very, very wrong.
You clearly don't (or aren't able to) comprehend what I'm saying, much of which is accepted in the field, included in a number of textbooks (I gave you one example) and in my professional experience, part of the curriculum for medical students, clinical dietitians and other allied health professionals. If you're not prepared to even attempt to educate yourself beyond your physiology textbook, it's a waste of my time trying to communicate with you.
ETA: Heehee, I just noticed that you contradicted yourself. Chronic food addiction? Oh geez.........
Aha!
A dietitian.
Figures.
Wrong again Steve.
0 -
"In my opinion, control of weight is much more complex and metabolism is just one aspect of it."
You are still whistling in the dark. Metabolism variations are absolutely inconsequential for the average otherwise-healthy individual trying to lose weight.
Now you are backing off and saying metabolism is just "one aspect" of it.
I won't even give you that.
Until all these studies make it into Guyton or some other mainstream physiology textbook as verified concepts, I'm not going to waste time on it.
And folks who are obese shouldn't pay any attention to them.
The should pay attention to all these "naturally" thin people, and they will find these people have learned to control their impulse to eat, and appreciate that having an empty stomach is not the end of the world.
You can change how your body and brain react to "hunger".
"Breakfast IS the least important meal of the day" and sets you up for what can only be termed a chronic food addiction state. Dr. Hagan is right.
Backing off? Not at all. Of course metabolism is one aspect of weight control. When did I say that it wasn't? It's not however, the only aspect, which is what you are saying, and I'm certain that you are very, very wrong.
You clearly don't (or aren't able to) comprehend what I'm saying, much of which is accepted in the field, included in a number of textbooks (I gave you one example) and in my professional experience, part of the curriculum for medical students, clinical dietitians and other allied health professionals. If you're not prepared to even attempt to educate yourself beyond your physiology textbook, it's a waste of my time trying to communicate with you.
ETA: Heehee, I just noticed that you contradicted yourself. Chronic food addiction? Oh geez.........
Aha!
A dietitian.
Figures.
Wrong again Steve.
If you really are a medical professional, you would not contradict what I say, or reduce yourself to straw man arguments and smiley-faces.
If you ARE a medical professional, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
But people who don't get it simply don't know what they don't know.
And I doubt you are obese and trying to lose weight. What is your agenda? Why would you encourage people to think that they are fighting against their own physiology in trying to losing weight?
Those who overweight and sincerely trying to lose weight should read my posts again and learn from them.
I notice whenever we have someone claiming it's all or even partly about metabolism, it never comes with any numbers showing HOW MUCH.
We tend to just get this vague "higher" or "faster", or "slower" and "lower". Well, how much? 20%? 2%? 0.2%? All three of those options could be true, and the truth or untruth of most of the arguments above would be unchanged. What would change though, is whether or not it makes an appreciable difference, which is sort of the ONLY relevant question when you are making a plan.0 -
why0
-
Steve0, do you know anything about genetics? The easiest one you could not even answer?0
-
Ohh, Steve - I often enjoy the mindless back-and-forth you bring to the forums. However:
This is truly priceless. Shine on you crazy diamond! :flowerforyou:If you really are a medical professional, you would not contradict what I say0 -
LOL.
People don't know what they don't know, and those are usually the most aggressive on boards like these, with clever comebacks and straw man arguments.
But there are no genetically determined thin people out there, bottom line.
But there ARE thin people out there- though they are getting harder and harder to find.
They are not NATURALLY thin, be are thin because of how they have LEARNED to eat and how they have LEARNED to deal with the sensation of an empty stomach.
But don't take my word for it.
Find a thin person and ask he or she details about what they eat, why and when they eat, how much they eat, and their exercise routine- if any. Get down to the nitty gritty.
Even if you are not great friends with them, tell them your concerns about your own weight and I bet they will happily give you a half-hour of their time.
Their metabolism is JUST LIKE yours. No significant difference. Metabolism evolved over a billion years- there is no fat gene or skinny gene.
I'm thin. What's my secret? I eat breakfast every morning and I never, ever have any sensations of an empty stomach-I eat when I feel hungry. Period.
As for what I eat- I eat all the foods. I do no cut any food or food group out and I'm partial to fast food, which is why I eat it at least three times a week. I love Big Macs and I love salads. I love Doritos and I love sweet potatoes. Haven't met a food that I haven't loved yet :drinker:
As for how much I eat-I eat until full and then I stop. Repeat as necessary. Some days that's a whole lot of food and other days, not so much. As for exercise I run 4 miles a week, at a slow pace, and I do 90 minutes a week of an at home strength program. That's it.
Oh, and I don't count calories anymore. So why am I thin now? Because I eat when hungry and stop when full. I eat a variety off foods, and eat the foods I enjoy in moderation. I still measure out portion sizes of higher calorie foods (like nuts). I'm not afraid to turn down food if I'm not hungry. I weigh myself every day and keep a chart. I've learned how my body works and I now listen to the cues it gives me.
I'm 35 years old, have had three children, and have a bmi in the 19 range. My body fat estimate is somewhere in the 18-19% range. My last blood test results came back pretty much perfect. I'm healthy and happy (and just in case anyone missed my previous statement-I eat breakfast every day and I never, ever go hungry)
0 -
They are not NATURALLY thin, be are thin because of how they have LEARNED to eat and how they have LEARNED to deal with the sensation of an empty stomach.
I'm one of those thin folks and I ate as much in one sitting (if not more) than my 220 lb 6'4" ex-BIL, who was a notoriously big eater. I ate that way because I had LEARNED I could do so and not gain any weight.
How did I deal with the sensation of an empty stomach? I filled it Outside of regular meal times, that usually meant some sort of sweet treat, like a couple of donuts or a chocolate bar.
Yes, I'm a bit of a genetic anomaly and somebody should probably have studied my DNA to isolate the skinny gene. However, I didn't often consult medical professional in my younger years because I am ridiculously healthy, so no one really paid that much attention to it.
ETA: and I haven't eaten breakfast since I hit puberty, which was oh... about 38 years ago. Lol.0 -
Steve says -But you do not understand how the scientific community works.
Oh really? I've only worked in it my entire career, and as I have previously stated, have 8 research papers with my name on them.
You put your foot in your mouth so often I'm surprised you don't have hoof and mouth disease.0 -
My family is like this. Even those who eat a lot rarely become more than 40 lbs overweight. In other families, it's not uncommon to see people 150 lbs overweight. A lot of it has to do with insulin sensitivity of muscle vs. fat cells. This regulates hunger, and unless you override it and eat way too much, you won't gain much weight. Some of it also has to do with NEAT, which is the small movements that we make that burn energy. Some people just fidget more. Some also has to do with heat production. Some people's bodies try to minimize fat gain, and if body heat is needed, the extra calories can go into heat production. This is what is meant by "faster metabolism". In other words, wasting more calories. A lot also has to do with the eating habits you learned. For example, I was always told to only eat when I was hungry, and the food I ate growing up was very healthy food in general. Carb/fat/protein ratios can also make a huge difference.
Thin people who can eat whatever they want but don't work out aren't eating very much because they're not very hungry. Thin people who eat a lot and still don't gain weight are either exercising or moving a lot. It's that simple. Maintenance is very hard to achieve and maintain. We're usually either in a deficit or a surplus at all times.
I find it funny when some overweight people think it's funny that thin people have to eat a surplus in order to bulk up. Well, they did the same thing in order to gain weight. They just didn't realize they were doing it.
It's really that simple...thyroid or adrenal problems notwithstanding.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions