naturally thin people
Replies
-
No they aren't actually very rare. Its also not uncommon to know someone who does nothing but drink beer, eat fast food and sit around, while not gaining one pound.I dont know, you have people that swear by calorie in and calorie out and there is NO WAY those naturally skinny people are eating 4k of junk a day and just sitting around....Even though, you know, we all know people WHO DO THAT.........
When I was a teenager I went to school half days, I sat in my room smoking weed , drinking nothing but soda and beer, eating hot Cheetos and playing video games 24/7 (when I wasn't barely at school). I stayed 130 pounds from like 14-19 years old im 5'8. Then I proceeded to gain like 60 pounds in one year, so I went to the doctor, they did all these tests and proceeded to tell me I had a nodule on my thyroid that basically tanked my metabolism. I got on meds and lost like 30 pounds in a year. But now I eat 1400 calories a day and stay at 170......
Of course its like "oh you dont log correctly" "oh you aren't with them 24/7 to see what they eat" blah blah blah, they try to throw in variables to deny peoples issues. Calories in calories out is 100% dammit!!! LOL
Not true. Everyone is pretty much aware that thyroid and other hormonal issues can effect metabolism. But these cases are extremely rare.
Yes, it is rare actually. And the person you perceive to be doing nothing but eating pizza, drinking beer and laying around, is obviously not overeating, is young and still growing, fidgets a lot, or, maybe you don't follow them around 24/7 logging their food intake, so you really DON'T know how much they are eating.
And here you go with the 1000 of reasons, oh well they fidget or your not with them 24 hours a day blah blah blah. NO there are just naturally thin people. lol these fitness forums a joke..
You really seem to have anger issues. :flowerforyou:0 -
My husband is near 40 and eats a lot of anything. Soda, chips, candy bars...and he has always been thin. We've joked he must have a tapeworm. But he is just naturally muscular so he must burn more calories. Our one child is like this. As a baby her arms looked like she lifted weights!0
-
My husband is near 40 and eats a lot of anything. Soda, chips, candy bars...and he has always been thin. We've joked he must have a tapeworm. But he is just naturally muscular so he must burn more calories. Our one child is like this. As a baby her arms looked like she lifted weights!
According to this forum, he must fidget 24/70 -
He doesn't have big muscles from a lack of using them,My husband is near 40 and eats a lot of anything. Soda, chips, candy bars...and he has always been thin. We've joked he must have a tapeworm. But he is just naturally muscular so he must burn more calories. Our one child is like this. As a baby her arms looked like she lifted weights!0 -
My husband is near 40 and eats a lot of anything. Soda, chips, candy bars...and he has always been thin. We've joked he must have a tapeworm. But he is just naturally muscular so he must burn more calories. Our one child is like this. As a baby her arms looked like she lifted weights!
According to this forum, he must fidget 24/7
A lot of people think I am naturally thin and I do fidget or move 24/7 (that's why I've always loved dance and fitness and being active). Even when I am sleeping, I generally need to be moving (or rubbing my feet together) while falling asleep.0 -
My husband and my oldest are very thin (but my husband got a belly around 40, still skinny though)
They eat plenty, but they move a lot. My oldest paces non stop and my husband is an extreme leg twitcher. I bet all those little movements add up.
Yup, but not much increased burn as you seem to think. Try bouncing your leg when you sit as a weight loss method, they are probably doing something else too or have another factor going on.
However, I think all the people denying it exists are missing two points: 99.9% of people who are supposedly in this category are probably not eating as much unobserved /more active /put into that category by others with "ulterior motives" to excuse themselves. And #2: I don't think people here disagree that the great majority of time its an excuse used by overweight labeling someone who doesn't weigh as much. But, to say NOBODY has circumstances that enable them to eat more than the "average" without gaining as much weight however, is just wrong, sorry. That DOESN'T mean that 99.9% of the time this statement is pretty on target and Average Joe probably doesn't know such an animal (yeah who knows exactly, but very small percent).
Just as you probably don't know anyone with a condition like this (again, on average), you probably have no real world examples on average that you can put your finger on (which also explains the doubt). They are rare, but I happen to know several with a genetic condition which is the probable reason (same family/inherited trait), and one who fits the category when he was young, but lost the "effect" as he aged...this guy could also be in the "doing something I dont know about" category (since of course I did not take a scientific survey of his activities), but the first two are definitely unicorns, according to half the quasi scientific arguers.
First off, Hypermetabolism does exist, and it is also strongly associated with certain diseases and hormonal changes. The calorie expenditure can be pretty significant. Elevated body temperature is also sometimes a symptom that can be tracked. Hyperthyroidism is of course one of the primary causes, increased energy expenditure throughout the day and with every activity.
Insomnia...if you cannot sleep and are awake (not laying in bed), you burn more calories while awake than while sleeping, so basic math tells you where this increased burn comes from. Now, this can also cause the REVERSE effect if you are feeling "too tired" to do anything active all day and forego a walk and working out and you see a net weight gain over time. But some people can just function almost normally under these conditions even though tired and burn more due to more hours active.
Varying sleep necessary nightly. Just like the above, if you dont sleep as much, you burn more. Some people however need as little as 4hrs/day, this means 4 more hours ACTIVE and AWAKE, which burns ALOT more calories over time. Even 6hr sleepers burn more.
Hereditary sphereocytosis is such a disease. Red blood cells are constantly being destroyed and re made in these people, so much so that a red blood cell may have 1/4 to 1/12 the regular life span. If you don't think this is energy demanding, try donating more blood than regular at your local Red Cross: the fatigue is also do to decreased oxygen transport, but the donation doesnt let you get even near reducing your average red blood cell life to 1/4 normal...the low end of the reduced expectancy in these people.
Low level infections and auto immune diseases also can cause significantly increased metabolic expenditure. Many times they are not detected readily and can go on for years. Most of the time auto immune diseases also cause some increased inflammation however, which can make it an imperceptible loss, or increased experienced weight.
Not a complete list, but too much time spent already responding to whatnot on the internet in distraction time for myself now.
Yes, MOST called 'naturally thin' are not. But, some people do have underlying mechanisms we understand that can cause them to burn more daily and be thinner than others eating the same diet get fat on. Mostly its used as an excuse of the overweight, of course its not even reasonably involved in the fattening of modern society (the conditions have always been around), it should never ever be used as an excuse, fat people don't "have bad genes", and there is no "magic unfair advantage" (most of these conditions are really disadvantages), but why invent unicorns and say it cant exist when there are plenty of possible documented reasons? Maybe we have a bunch of closet Bronies here who secretly want unicorns declared.
0 -
My husband is near 40 and eats a lot of anything. Soda, chips, candy bars...and he has always been thin. We've joked he must have a tapeworm. But he is just naturally muscular so he must burn more calories. Our one child is like this. As a baby her arms looked like she lifted weights!
According to this forum, he must fidget 24/7
*sniff0 -
And I just learned you can't delete a post! :laugh: 0 -
Just wait until he's actually 40.
When we were dating, my husband would have to stop in the McD's drive-thru for a couple of cheeseburgers to tide him over until we were served at the restaurant. He also had a job where he walked miles per day (wore out two pair of Redwing boots per year). He was almost painfully thin.
At 38 he lost his job and went back to school. He suddenly found that sitting all day in classes and writing papers doesn't burn calories like working on your feet!!
When he hit 40, like myself, he hit a wall with his metabolism. That was 11 years ago. He has been highly successful in controlling his weight but still would like to (and could stand to) lose 20 lbs. But it is lots of work and self-restraint!!
Even if your husband continues to move a lot, his metabolism will likely slow down. This is not universal, though-- I know a man nearly 70 who can't keep weight on (and is not muscular and has been that way all his life).0 -
No they aren't actually very rare. Its also not uncommon to know someone who does nothing but drink beer, eat fast food and sit around, while not gaining one pound.I dont know, you have people that swear by calorie in and calorie out and there is NO WAY those naturally skinny people are eating 4k of junk a day and just sitting around....Even though, you know, we all know people WHO DO THAT.........
When I was a teenager I went to school half days, I sat in my room smoking weed , drinking nothing but soda and beer, eating hot Cheetos and playing video games 24/7 (when I wasn't barely at school). I stayed 130 pounds from like 14-19 years old im 5'8. Then I proceeded to gain like 60 pounds in one year, so I went to the doctor, they did all these tests and proceeded to tell me I had a nodule on my thyroid that basically tanked my metabolism. I got on meds and lost like 30 pounds in a year. But now I eat 1400 calories a day and stay at 170......
Of course its like "oh you dont log correctly" "oh you aren't with them 24/7 to see what they eat" blah blah blah, they try to throw in variables to deny peoples issues. Calories in calories out is 100% dammit!!! LOL
Not true. Everyone is pretty much aware that thyroid and other hormonal issues can effect metabolism. But these cases are extremely rare.
This is all so familiar.0 -
No they aren't actually very rare. Its also not uncommon to know someone who does nothing but drink beer, eat fast food and sit around, while not gaining one pound.I dont know, you have people that swear by calorie in and calorie out and there is NO WAY those naturally skinny people are eating 4k of junk a day and just sitting around....Even though, you know, we all know people WHO DO THAT.........
When I was a teenager I went to school half days, I sat in my room smoking weed , drinking nothing but soda and beer, eating hot Cheetos and playing video games 24/7 (when I wasn't barely at school). I stayed 130 pounds from like 14-19 years old im 5'8. Then I proceeded to gain like 60 pounds in one year, so I went to the doctor, they did all these tests and proceeded to tell me I had a nodule on my thyroid that basically tanked my metabolism. I got on meds and lost like 30 pounds in a year. But now I eat 1400 calories a day and stay at 170......
Of course its like "oh you dont log correctly" "oh you aren't with them 24/7 to see what they eat" blah blah blah, they try to throw in variables to deny peoples issues. Calories in calories out is 100% dammit!!! LOL
Not true. Everyone is pretty much aware that thyroid and other hormonal issues can effect metabolism. But these cases are extremely rare.
This is all so familiar.
Sho is, isn't it?0 -
Fo Shosho...
No they aren't actually very rare. Its also not uncommon to know someone who does nothing but drink beer, eat fast food and sit around, while not gaining one pound.I dont know, you have people that swear by calorie in and calorie out and there is NO WAY those naturally skinny people are eating 4k of junk a day and just sitting around....Even though, you know, we all know people WHO DO THAT.........
When I was a teenager I went to school half days, I sat in my room smoking weed , drinking nothing but soda and beer, eating hot Cheetos and playing video games 24/7 (when I wasn't barely at school). I stayed 130 pounds from like 14-19 years old im 5'8. Then I proceeded to gain like 60 pounds in one year, so I went to the doctor, they did all these tests and proceeded to tell me I had a nodule on my thyroid that basically tanked my metabolism. I got on meds and lost like 30 pounds in a year. But now I eat 1400 calories a day and stay at 170......
Of course its like "oh you dont log correctly" "oh you aren't with them 24/7 to see what they eat" blah blah blah, they try to throw in variables to deny peoples issues. Calories in calories out is 100% dammit!!! LOL
Not true. Everyone is pretty much aware that thyroid and other hormonal issues can effect metabolism. But these cases are extremely rare.
This is all so familiar.
Sho is, isn't it?0 -
As usual, wrong again. As an example, evolution of the salivary amylase gene occurred as recently as 20K years ago. Anyway, as I said earlier, it's pointless arguing with you about genetics because you clearly have no clue.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 interested in hearing more about your 'food addiction' idea which apparently occurs only in some people who eat breakfast and not others. Can you explain your reasoning behind this individual variability?
BTW Steve, physiology and metabolic biochemistry, along with advanced genetics were an integral part of my education (I taught all of them at undergraduate level early on in my career) so perhaps my 'aggression' is because I'm irritated with your claims of superior knowledge.
Wrong and as an educated man you should know better than to use straw men.
My claim is that GUYTON'S is a superior source for the needs of the VAST MAJORITY of overweight people who use this board as a source of information as a way to lose weight.
My background should have nothing to do with it. I can make up credentials in order try to impress someone. People do it on the internet every day.
You could have made yours up in an attempt to impress me and those on the board.
But you CAN'T make up what is in Guyton and Hall.
Show me it in Guyton's and I will believe it.
The perception of hunger and satiety are complex, but it is obvious (in Guyton's) that the stomach and the level of blood nutrients play a significant role.
But it is JUST as obvious that some people can deal with "hunger" and not immediately rush off to eat, or suffer an anxiety reaction when they can't.
And it is just as obvious in the normal healthy person that they have enough calories on board to last for days. "Hunger" does NOT mean that the body needs more calories.
People can adapt over time to almost any condition, and hunger is one of them. "Naturally" thin people have.
Once you review Guyton's, read Dr. Hagan's "Breakfast is the least important meal of the day." Absolutely spot on, and the only way to lose weight and keep it off. And it is FREE.
Learned behavior.
That's it, I can't take your dribble nonsense anymore. Congrats, you're the first person to go on my ignore list. You have a serious ED and probably some mental issues, and I really hope you get help.0 -
When I read the subject, I thought of three people right away that I know personally that have been thin their entire lives. My Dad, an uncle and my son( who is 21, maybe he shouldn't count). But they eat what they want and a generous amount of whatever they want. My Dad is in his sixties and he has never been on a diet and eats healthy and junk foods as well, drinks beer too. Not saying he is the healthiest person, but he has been the same size for as long as I can remember, thin. He does exercise when the mood strikes him. Pretty much everyone on my Dad's side of the family is that way, thin. I have seen what they eat and they are not starving themselves in anyway.0
-
My accounting "bible" is $200 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1118147294/) but no accountant would dream of saying that this book is definitive and sufficient for all cases...
...but the physiology "bible" is only $39 (http://www.amazon.com/Textbook-Medical-Physiology-10th-Edition/dp/B000NAVJ5W) and is, at least according to some, definitive and sufficient for all cases?
Apparently, accounting is more nuanced than doctoring.
LOL.
There is an 11th edition out there.
Frankly, considering what overweight people pay for bogus interventions and solutions that prove only temporary, an investment in Guyton's is recommended.
39 dollars should be peanuts comparatively speaking.
With only a college background, someone can roughly understand things, as they cover basic concepts in the first few chapters, and then move on to the more specialized areas.
And even if you don;t understand it, a specific topic can be easily found through the index, and then you can quote it and ask whatever guru is popular to explain his/her theory in light of what Guyton's says.
I believe you misunderstood my post.
(Perhaps because analogies aren't covered in Guyton's.)0 -
When I read the subject, I thought of three people right away that I know personally that have been thin their entire lives. My Dad, an uncle and my son( who is 21, maybe he shouldn't count). But they eat what they want and a generous amount of whatever they want. My Dad is in his sixties and he has never been on a diet and eats healthy and junk foods as well, drinks beer too. Not saying he is the healthiest person, but he has been the same size for as long as I can remember, thin. He does exercise when the mood strikes him. Pretty much everyone on my Dad's side of the family is that way, thin. I have seen what they eat and they are not starving themselves in anyway.
I bet he eats all sorts of junk foods. But I bet he doesn't eat a LOT of them at one sitting.
Junk foods have plenty of calories and folks can do just fine weight-wise if they limit themselves to a neutral calorie eating junk foods.
He does eat alot at one time, but he eats slow too, takes his time almost like he is savouring every bite. That's what I have observed over the years.0 -
wow this thread is still going huh? lol I just felt like I should add something else to this because my neighbor is a dietician and fitness trainer and I actually had a talk with him about this last week. He told me about reverse dieting where basically you build your metabolism up. He said it wrecks it after years and years of binging, fad dieting, lack of exercise and too many calories, too much exercise with not enough calories, etc. Basically what he said is to start at like 1500 a week with no exercise with .8 times your body weight for protein, 30% from fat, and half your calories from carbs. Each week you increase your calories by 100 by eating 25 more carbs than the week before. You do that for a few weeks until you reach your maintenance calories, then you add in exercise. If you don't lose weight, you lower by 100 each week again never going below 1500. You do that up and down and apparently by round 2 or 3 you should be able to eat your maintenance calories with 30 minutes of exercise twice or three times a week and your body should naturally take you down to your natural weight and maintain it. If you get below your natural weight, you raise your calories. He said he eats about 3500 calories a day and works out 3-4 times a week. That is just input that I got from him, I don't really know what to think about it but the way he explained it made a lot of sense. Haven't tried it though.
So I guess what he was saying is people who seem to eat a lot and not gain weight have usually consistently eaten like that their whole life and may have bigger portions more often, but they haven't screwed that system up with crash dieting or anything. Dunno...thoughts?0 -
As usual, wrong again. As an example, evolution of the salivary amylase gene occurred as recently as 20K years ago. Anyway, as I said earlier, it's pointless arguing with you about genetics because you clearly have no clue.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 interested in hearing more about your 'food addiction' idea which apparently occurs only in some people who eat breakfast and not others. Can you explain your reasoning behind this individual variability?
BTW Steve, physiology and metabolic biochemistry, along with advanced genetics were an integral part of my education (I taught all of them at undergraduate level early on in my career) so perhaps my 'aggression' is because I'm irritated with your claims of superior knowledge.
Wrong and as an educated man you should know better than to use straw men.
My claim is that GUYTON'S is a superior source for the needs of the VAST MAJORITY of overweight people who use this board as a source of information as a way to lose weight.
My background should have nothing to do with it. I can make up credentials in order try to impress someone. People do it on the internet every day.
You could have made yours up in an attempt to impress me and those on the board.
But you CAN'T make up what is in Guyton and Hall.
Show me it in Guyton's and I will believe it.
The perception of hunger and satiety are complex, but it is obvious (in Guyton's) that the stomach and the level of blood nutrients play a significant role.
But it is JUST as obvious that some people can deal with "hunger" and not immediately rush off to eat, or suffer an anxiety reaction when they can't.
And it is just as obvious in the normal healthy person that they have enough calories on board to last for days. "Hunger" does NOT mean that the body needs more calories.
People can adapt over time to almost any condition, and hunger is one of them. "Naturally" thin people have.
Once you review Guyton's, read Dr. Hagan's "Breakfast is the least important meal of the day." Absolutely spot on, and the only way to lose weight and keep it off. And it is FREE.
Learned behavior.
That's it, I can't take your dribble nonsense anymore. Congrats, you're the first person to go on my ignore list. You have a serious ED and probably some mental issues, and I really hope you get help.
Bye-bye.
Hope you find a method of weight loss that works for you long term.
But with your attitude, I doubt you will.
Unless you are fitness trainer or someone who makes money selling diet pills and supplements, then good riddance.
Harsh.0 -
This thread has it all. It's hilarious.0
-
I know I should know better than to continue with this but I’m on a break from work and I have time on my hands, so….Wrong and as an educated man you should know better than to use straw men.
Although irrelevant to the discussion, I’m a woman. I don’t believe I used straw man. You told a poster that his dr was an idiot for saying that genetics can play a role in weight maintenance or something similar. I told you that you were incorrect and that genetics most certainly can play a role for some people. I provided a few classic ‘textbook’ examples, you discounted them and so it went on.
How was it straw man?My claim is that GUYTON'S is a superior source for the needs of the VAST MAJORITY of overweight people who use this board as a source of information as a way to lose weight.
Guytons focuses on one discipline, physiology. Physiology alone does not fully explain human health, including weight management. Guytons may be a start and one perspective, but it is by no means the only one.
Yes, my absolute frustration with your inability to accept anything beyond your limited “Guytons” blurb led me to say more about my education and professional role than I would have preferred. My point was to explain from first hand experience that health professionals are educated in a range of areas including, but by no means limited to, physiology.My background should have nothing to do with it. I can make up credentials in order try to impress someone. People do it on the internet every day.
You could have made yours up in an attempt to impress me and those on the board.
Nevertheless, correct, I could have made it up, although not for the intention of trying to impress. There are plenty of smart/educated people on MFP who impress me without any prior knowledge of 'their credentials".But you CAN'T make up what is in Guyton and Hall.
Show me it in Guyton's and I will believe it.
So basically you are saying that knowledge from any other discipline that is not in Guytons is under question.
How can you expect to gain any credibility when you talk this way?The perception of hunger and satiety are complex, but it is obvious (in Guyton's) that the stomach and the level of blood nutrients play a significant role.
Yes, extremely complex. For example, the serotonin and dopamine systems are involved, which have receptors in various brain regions including the reward pathway. Individual (dare I say genetic?) differences in certain receptors are seen in some people with disordered eating. This is just one example to illustrate the complexity and the impact of individual variability.But it is JUST as obvious that some people can deal with "hunger" and not immediately rush off to eat, or suffer an anxiety reaction when they can't.
Yes, but is this learned behaviour, or is it influenced by individual variability…something biological?And it is just as obvious in the normal healthy person that they have enough calories on board to last for days. "Hunger" does NOT mean that the body needs more calories.
People can adapt over time to almost any condition, and hunger is one of them. "Naturally" thin people have.
Why should people have to experience hunger to lose/maintain weight? Some people find hunger almost intolerable.
How do you know that “Naturally” thin people experience hunger like someone who is overweight? Perhaps there is something in their biology (ie. not learned) that causes them to have a blunted hunger response.Once you review Guyton's, read Dr. Hagan's "Breakfast is the least important meal of the day." Absolutely spot on, and the only way to lose weight and keep it off. And it is FREE.
Learned behavior.
I don’t feel the need to review Guytons. I have a pretty good handle on physiology from other well known bench-marked physiology textbooks I studied during my undergrad years. I also studied other areas to give me a hopefully well-rounded perspective on human health. I am not trying to impress, just responding to your suggestion that I review Guytons.
I have never heard of Hagan’s book and I’m already cynical about it from the title alone. Many people maintain a healthy weight or lose weight consuming breakfast every day. Some people would find giving up breakfast extremely difficult to adhere to for any length of time, resulting in a weight loss plan that is not sustainable.
I do not believe in a one-size fits all approach, as you do. I believe that everyone is an individual and needs to find his or her own way to manage energy balance.
You even acknowledge individual variation with regards to hunger response. You argue that it is learned, I argue that in some people it is due to individual biology that is not learned.0 -
Are you responding to me Steveo? You did quote my post but now I have no idea because you didn't actually reply to anything I questioned, instead, you just provided another Guytons advertisement.I know I should know better than to continue with this but I’m on a break from work and I have time on my hands, so….Wrong and as an educated man you should know better than to use straw men.
Although irrelevant to the discussion, I’m a woman. I don’t believe I used straw man. You told a poster that his dr was an idiot for saying that genetics can play a role in weight maintenance or something similar. I told you that you were incorrect and that genetics most certainly can play a role for some people. I provided a few classic ‘textbook’ examples, you discounted them and so it went on.
How was it straw man?My claim is that GUYTON'S is a superior source for the needs of the VAST MAJORITY of overweight people who use this board as a source of information as a way to lose weight.
Guytons focuses on one discipline, physiology. Physiology alone does not fully explain human health, including weight management. Guytons may be a start and one perspective, but it is by no means the only one.
Yes, my absolute frustration with your inability to accept anything beyond your limited “Guytons” blurb led me to say more about my education and professional role than I would have preferred. My point was to explain from first hand experience that health professionals are educated in a range of areas including, but by no means limited to, physiology.My background should have nothing to do with it. I can make up credentials in order try to impress someone. People do it on the internet every day.
You could have made yours up in an attempt to impress me and those on the board.
Nevertheless, correct, I could have made it up, although not for the intention of trying to impress. There are plenty of smart/educated people on MFP who impress me without any prior knowledge of 'their credentials".But you CAN'T make up what is in Guyton and Hall.
Show me it in Guyton's and I will believe it.
So basically you are saying that knowledge from any other discipline that is not in Guytons is under question.
How can you expect to gain any credibility when you talk this way?The perception of hunger and satiety are complex, but it is obvious (in Guyton's) that the stomach and the level of blood nutrients play a significant role.
Yes, extremely complex. For example, the serotonin and dopamine systems are involved, which have receptors in various brain regions including the reward pathway. Individual (dare I say genetic?) differences in certain receptors are seen in some people with disordered eating. This is just one example to illustrate the complexity and the impact of individual variability.But it is JUST as obvious that some people can deal with "hunger" and not immediately rush off to eat, or suffer an anxiety reaction when they can't.
Yes, but is this learned behaviour, or is it influenced by individual variability…something biological?And it is just as obvious in the normal healthy person that they have enough calories on board to last for days. "Hunger" does NOT mean that the body needs more calories.
People can adapt over time to almost any condition, and hunger is one of them. "Naturally" thin people have.
Why should people have to experience hunger to lose/maintain weight? Some people find hunger almost intolerable.
How do you know that “Naturally” thin people experience hunger like someone who is overweight? Perhaps there is something in their biology (ie. not learned) that causes them to have a blunted hunger response.Once you review Guyton's, read Dr. Hagan's "Breakfast is the least important meal of the day." Absolutely spot on, and the only way to lose weight and keep it off. And it is FREE.
Learned behavior.
I don’t feel the need to review Guytons. I have a pretty good handle on physiology from other well known bench-marked physiology textbooks I studied during my undergrad years. I also studied other areas to give me a hopefully well-rounded perspective on human health. I am not trying to impress, just responding to your suggestion that I review Guytons.
I have never heard of Hagan’s book and I’m already cynical about it from the title alone. Many people maintain a healthy weight or lose weight consuming breakfast every day. Some people would find giving up breakfast extremely difficult to adhere to for any length of time, resulting in a weight loss plan that is not sustainable.
I do not believe in a one-size fits all approach, as you do. I believe that everyone is an individual and needs to find his or her own way to manage energy balance.
You even acknowledge individual variation with regards to hunger response. You argue that it is learned, I argue that in some people it is due to individual biology that is not learned.
This illustrates the problem.
I harp on Guyton's because whatever your approach to weight loss is, the physiology should be consistent with Guyton's, which is the bible of physiology.
Your body follows the principles in Guyton's whether you believe in what Guyton's says or not.
Guyton's represents the combined results of generations of thousands dedicated professional people who sought to solve the same problems you are facing about the human body and how it works, carefully evaluating and testing theories and finding out which ones work and which ones don't.
The ones that WORK and have been proven are in Guyton's.
So everyone should START with Guyton's.
Or else you might be replicating mistakes that people have made before you.
Certainly, if you have been on a weight loss program and it is not working, or you are not satisfied with it, then you should stop and reassess things.
If it is working, fine. But is it something you can keep up your entire life?
If you haven't looked closely at how the human body works, or have been getting your information scattershot on the internet or the Dr. Oz show, then you owe it to yourself to check out Guyton's.
Guyton's is a medical textbook, but written in as understandable fashion as it can be, and takes time to examine modern topics of interest.
It should be in your library.
Parts are free online.
As far as hunger goes, people don't realize that the brain changes when the stimuli it is exposed to changes. Neural circuitry re-wires. That's how we learn. That's how we get used to things.
There is a huge psych overlay to the sensation of hunger.
Talk to any "naturally" thin person you know and ask he or she about how they deal with hunger and an empty stomach. I will almost guarantee that they will all say that they are not driven by hunger, and that if they miss a meal it is no big deal.
And their genetics and metabolic setup is just like everyone else.
I can't do this anymore. It's as if I'm trying to reason with an automated response system. Perhaps I am.
I give up.
:yawn:0 -
I think very few people have naturally 'fast' metabolisms as an adult.
From my observation of skinny people(not muscular), they usually get full fast after eating small meals and binge less.
Even the ones that like snacks probably don't eat entire huge bags of chips and if they do, they usually stay 'full' and skip lunch, dinner, etc.
Also, people eat giant meals at dinner and don't eat breakfast/lunch the next day(or eat very few calories). This may look like they have high metabolisms because their dinner meal's around 2500kcal or 3kcal.
Is it healthy? no. Are these 'skinny' people muscular or fit? most of the time, no.0 -
It occured to me a while ago that there are a few people in my life who consider me a "naturally thin" person who "can eat" anything and all day long and not gain a gram.
~ My obese coworker sees me grazing all day long at the office. Some days it's an apple, carrot sticks and nuts, other days it's chocolate and/or crackers. What she doesn't know is that I don't eat a huge three-course high-fat meal for dinner on top of all that – like she clearly does. She herself eats nothing all day in the office, therefore she has to aggressively wage war on her pantry each night or she wouldn't be as obese as she is. Now if you assume that I do the same…
~ My obese sister and my godfather only see me a few times a year at family gatherings – where I indulge boundlessly. They saw me pack a whole baguette with oily dips on Christmas Eve, and that was just the side dish. They asked how I remained so slim. Umm, by not eating like this every day in spite of my active lifestyle??
~ A guy I've known for a few months (who is really skinny himself) recently looked at me when we had dinner at a restaurant after a shopping trip during which I bought about ten pounds of chocolate and candy (not exaggerating) and remarked that apparently my body is very bad at metabolising food. lol, no! That huge meal was an absolute exception, but he doesn't know that, because we've only met in person a handful of times. And also I hadn't eaten more than an apple and a banana all day prior to that (vegan!) dinner, and about eight of those ten pounds of sweets are still uneaten now, ten days and one Christmas later. I don't metabolise my food badly: I don't eat it in the first place. But he wouldn't know that, because every time we've met we had a huge dinner or kept snacking all day, and he assumes I'm always like that.
Seeing myself from their perspective almost gives me vertigo, because, in my usual contradictory fashion, I am simultaneously satisfied with my pretty active lifestyle (the real reason why I don't weigh 500 lbs) and appalled by what I consider to be atrocious habits and fat thighs. In no way do I think of myself as remarkably thin or a metabolistic miracle. You see? Other peoples' views are distorted by ignorance, my own is distorted because I might be overly self-critical. And what is the truth?
Just your gratuitous ten cents from somebody who sometimes gets mistaken for a naturally thin person. 0 -
I can't do this anymore. It's as if I'm trying to reason with an automated response system.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Excellent description of 'Talking to Steve'.0 -
Thin people are not fit? Wrong. my blood pressure is 90/60. Nothing but some broken bones, bad car accident.0
-
In removing calories in vs calories out from the picture, I think it's clear that there are people who have a genetic tendency to be thin. These people are called ectomorphs, and a lot of that has to do with bone structure. You won't see too many people who have large bones but are very thin. A lot of thin people may be eating around maintenance calories, but their weight is below the typical weight for someone else of their height. Several people have already posted anecdotal accounts of this, and I can speak from personal experience. To gain weight up to the average weight, they would have to greatly exceed their TDEE, whereas someone else may already be at that weight eating at maintenance.0
-
Maybe we have different definitions of "thin". By thin, I don't necessarily mean people who are at a normal weight, but rather those who tend to be skinny/scrawny. I am currently 25-35 pounds below the normal weight for a guy my height, and my weight has remained steady for years. I don't have any known medical issues causing my low weight. Let me ask you this: Why is this the case? Considering that I'm consistently eating around maintenance calories, why I am not at least 25 pounds heavier? I would literally have to stuff myself all day (or do extensive weight training) to suddenly push my weight up that far. In other words, it's simply not 'natural' for me to be at the ideal/average weight for my height.In removing calories in vs calories out from the picture, I think it's clear that there are people who have a genetic tendency to be thin. These people are called ectomorphs, and a lot of that has to do with bone structure. You won't see too many people who have large bones but are very thin. A lot of thin people may be eating around maintenance calories, but their weight is below the typical weight for someone else of their height. Several people have already posted anecdotal accounts of this, and I can speak from personal experience. To gain weight up to the average weight, they would have to greatly exceed their TDEE, whereas someone else may already be at that weight eating at maintenance.
So wrong.
Show me a study that supports this.
Better still, download a copy of Guyton's Textbook of Medicine and show me where that is.
There may not be any scientific studies that prove that genetics has a role in these cases, but it's not like scientists who everything there is to know. What other explanation can there be that explains how this tends to run in families? As some people have pointed out in this thread, it's not that all thin people have good food habits.0 -
My girlfriends family always shocked me. Her, and all of her brothers and sisters seemed to eat so much, but stayed skinny. Then, I noticed that all of them were ALWAYS moving, always being active. Hiking, gardening, biking, and making up for all of the calories they ate. My girlfriend will eat a ton in a meal, and I'll be like "where do you put it", Well, the next day she'll go canoeing, and only eat like 500 calories in the day. She swears she has a high metabolism, but it's only high because of her activity level. However, I am 6 feet tall, and 135 pounds.... And I am by no means naturally skinny. I am always moving, and eat about 2,500 calories in one day, but naturally, I'll eat significantly less the next day. It's just how my body works. THERE IS NO THING AS NATURALLY SKINNY. SORRY. YOUR SKINNY BECAUSE YOU EAT LESS, EXERCISE MORE. ITS SCIENCE, NOT MAGIC.0
-
I have a girlfriend like that. I've known her since school and she's always been so skinny and ate soo much. She's about 5.7 and about 100 pounds. We used to make fun of her at school, she had breakfast at home, breakfast at school, another breakfast at school, some chocolate bars, another sandwich just to get to lunch. Than she had lunch, usually 2 portions, a desert, and another Snickers chocolate bar. Then she would run home to eat because she was hungry, and we would meet up later to hang out and shed always run to the fast food places to get burgers and French fries.
She never did any sports, was active but not too much. Now we do yoga together but she's got to eat before and after the class.
I used to be so jealous of her. But she was jealous of my curves. We are 33 now and she still doesn't have boobs or butt, her body is very teenager like but it makes her look very young and fresh.0 -
I guess, if I had to "weigh in" on this topic, I'd say that I tend to believe there are some persons whose metabolism runs a bit higher than others, and others whose runs lower. Metabolisms seem to change with age, for example, so I think there's a range there. Thus, the calorie intake still plays the biggest role, but some persons might just have a bit more to play with than others do.
Then again, I could be completely wrong. I'll admit up front that I haven't spent much time researching the subject and I really don't plan on doing so.
For me, the point is - Who cares? I now know what it takes for ME to lose weight. If my neighbor has a slightly easier time through genetics or whatever, it doesn't affect me one way or the other. Good for them (and, if that's not true - well, good for them anyway. I've been wrong before and will be again). Being jealous won't burn calories for me. I just have to continue to focus on my own situation, and learn to deal with my own body and how it reacts to diet and exercise.
Just my .02 cents.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions