Thoughts on people who eat so much yet stay skinny

People who seem to eat what they want without gaining are either:
1. Very, very active
2. Not eating as much as you think

Example for #1 - my dad eats tons. But he never sits down. He has a physical job, is constantly moving, working on projects until it's bedtime, etc. He can eat a lot because his TDEE is high.

Example for #2 - A friend that packs away the food when we are out to dinner. But what I don't see is that she eats salad for lunch and yogurt for breakfast and very rarely snacks. She can eat what she wants in certain situations because she eats in moderation the rest of the time.

I agree with this one especially example #2. When I was fat, I used to envy these people but then what I didn't realized is that while they can eat every junk food they want, they don't overeat them. My mom & sister are both skinny although for the most part is due to their small frame (I'm medium frame) but also I observe that they don't eat as much especially my sister who always eat leaving some unfinished plate on the table.

Add to that, when you do heavy weight training & focus on maintaining or building muscle mass, your BMR will increase which means you can eat more without gaining fat as we all know muscles require calories just to maintain itself & after every weight lifting session, your metabolism also increases for up to 72 hours even without exercising after. I'm currently in this situation & I will never stop it coz I also love eating more food.

I have said this before and will say it again - skinny people eat as much as THEY want, not as much as YOU want. They may eat cookies, chips, etc. but not in crazy quantities, and even if in crazy quantities, they stop when they are full.

A poster above posted that she is trying to gain and struggles to eat 2000 calories - when I wasn't paying attention to my diet, I could easily eat double that in a day. I've seen the way my skinny friends and my overweight friends eat - it's usually the same food, but in MUCH different quantities.

There is no hocus-pocus that goes on in skinny people's bodies that makes them that way. If you feed someone whose TDEE is 2000 calories, 4000 calories, they will gain weight.

but do you feel jealous of them? Do you wish you can just eat and eat and eat without gaining a single pound (which, of course, does not translate to being healthy)?

SO jealous haha but I'll never be them so....

I'm not active at all. Might be because I've never dieted for weight loss?

I'd like to share the results of an interesting study I did on my husband. So my husband is fairly muscular and does not attend the gym (ever). 5 foot 11 and about 170lbs. 26 year old man who according to his doctor is in perfect health. He spends half his work day walking around and some lifting, the other half in a car driving. I have struggled with weight since we moved in together because he eats approximately 2500-4000 calories per day and mostly burgers, pizza, chips and cheese and things of that nature. So we did a two week vacation and I decided that in addition to tracking all of MY calories, I was going to track all of his. What I discovered was pretty damn amazing. In a single meal he would often eat well over 2000 calories. Here is an example of one day:

Breakfast 1480 Calories
2 sausage Egg McMuffins
2 Hash Browns
1 Large Coke

Lunch 800 Calories
No Lunch but he did drink an entire 2-liter of coke.

Dinner (the fun part) 2240 Calories
1 Bacon Double Cheese Burger
1 Large Fry
1 Large Malt

4520 in a single day... this was a bit high, most of the days I tracked were around 3000 but several times he got over 4000, a few times only 2500. The average of the two weeks was about 3600. This vacation we had was somewhat active, we walked around the Las Vegas strip but it was also marked with lots of shows and gamble time sitting. There were a few days I had to throw out of calorie counting as outliers because he'd go to the damn buffets and eat 4-5 plates of food, it was just too hard to try and measure. Anyway at the end of my little experiment we weighed in to see how we had done. I of course managed to gain a few lbs and I expected he gained maybe 5lbs that he would quickly lose.. no of course not. He was almost exactly 1lbs lighter than when he started.

I'd also like to add that he brushes his teeth in the morning only 2-4 times per week. Never before bed and rarely do I see him floss unless there's a demanding reason like something is stuck. Hes never had a cavity in his life and his dentist commends him for his health teeth and gums. I myself brush, floss, and oil pull 2x per day... but I've had two cavities. Can someone explain me this ****?!

Genetics, different levels of activity. Not sure why I would be jealous though. Everyones different. The bottom line is if you put in the time, you can eat whatever you want. Calories in calories out.

People who seem to eat what they want without gaining are either:
1. Very, very active
2. Not eating as much as you think

Example for #1 - my dad eats tons. But he never sits down. He has a physical job, is constantly moving, working on projects until it's bedtime, etc. He can eat a lot because his TDEE is high.

Example for #2 - A friend that packs away the food when we are out to dinner. But what I don't see is that she eats salad for lunch and yogurt for breakfast and very rarely snacks. She can eat what she wants in certain situations because she eats in moderation the rest of the time.

thats my husband. 6'2", 170 pounds, and not an ounce of fat on him.(drool) same size he was in high school, and hes over 40. eats everything. i've seen him eat 1000 calories a night for the ten years we've been together/married. BUT he works in a grocery store, and literally doesnt stop moving for 40+ hours a week. he wore a pedomoeter at work for a month last year (some kind of work program i think) and he walked something like 8 miles a day around the store. plus the lifting all day.
i told him he's going to have to scale his eating WAY back when he retires.

Does anyone have food records and expenditure records of your relatives who eat all this food and don't gain weight? Are you tracking their intake?

^This. Unless you're strategically following them around day in and day out, you don't know their habits.

I was 125 lbs in high school, I wasn't athletic but just active enough to look like I could eat all the things without ill consequence. Well, after I got sedentary, ate a bit more and boom! 170 lbs was the heaviest I got not pregnant because I ate too much. I'm 119 lbs now and fairly lean because I picked up my activity level and started religiously tracking everything that hit my mouth. My sister still says I look like I eat all the foods because at gatherings like Thanksgiving and Christmas I load the food up.

Yeah, on occasion when I want just a pig out, I am jealous of people who don't need to concern about the weight gain from it.

http://www.youreatopia.com/blog/2013/12/4/basic-weight-and-obesity-facts.html

"WEIGHT SET POINT THEORY IS NOT A THEORY

Does everyone understand that weight set point theory does not mean "theory" in an English language sense, but in a scientific sense?

It is a fact our bodies do maintain an optimal weight very closely [L Girardier, 1994; DJ Millward, NG Wijesinghe, 1998; JJG Hillebrand et al., 2002; H-R Berhtoud, 2002; CB Saper et al., 2002]. Human height, weight and body mass index are highly heritable. Classic twin studies indicate heritability of 0.80, 0.81 and 0.84 respectively [AJ Stunkard et al., 1986].

However it is scientifically undefined at this point how our bodies actually manage to achieve that feat and not that our bodies may or may not have an optimal weight set point.

Our bodies have an undisputed optimal weight set point. But until we know how the body does that, then in science we have a working hypothesis against which we can test the theory’s accuracy. The theory being, the body has mechanisms by which it maintains its weight within a very close range.

Here is the actual scientific weight set point theory defined:

“In adult individuals body weight is maintained at a relatively stable level for long periods. The set-point theory suggests that body weight is regulated at a predetermined, or preferred, level by a feedback control mechanism.

Information from the periphery is carried by an affector to a central controller located in the hypothalamus.

The controller integrates and transduces the information into an effector signal that modulates food intake or energy expenditure to correct any deviations in body weight from set-point.

Evidence for involvement of various factors and physiological systems in the control of food intake and regulation of body weight and fat are reviewed within the context of a control model.

Current working hypotheses include roles for nutrients, dietary composition and organoleptic properties, hormones, neural pathways, various brain nuclei, and many neurotransmitters in the regulation of food intake. It is concluded that regulation of body weight in relation to one specific parameter related to energy balance is unrealistic. It seems appropriate to assume that the level at which body weight and body fat content are maintained represents the equilibria achieved by regulation of many parameters.” [RBS Harris, 1990].

To reinforce the concept:

That human beings have an inherited optimal weight set point = FACT.

How biological systems maintain that inherited optimal weight set point = NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

CAN YOU CHANGE YOUR OPTIMAL WEIGHT SET POINT?

No. You can most certainly stay on a permanent restrictive diet but you have not lowered your inherited optimal weight set point. Notice how I so easily assume that by “change” everyone means “lower” their optimal weight set point? But in fact, you cannot raise your optimal weight set point permanently either.

Permanent restriction slowly catabolizes your body’s cells to make up the energy deficits you are creating through restriction. It’s a good way to generate progressive ill health but not a way to shift your inherited optimal weight set point. And think again if you want to assume that “maintaining” your weight below that which is your inherited optimal weight set point will mean cessation of catabolism and optimal health. In fact the catabolic pathways are most likely a contributory factor for the return to an optimal weight set point [MW Schwartz, RJ Seeley; 1995; MW Schwartz et al., 2003; RL Leibel et al., 1995]. And don’t discount that your entire living system is suppressed when you are below your optimal weight set point. Those biological shutdowns are short-term survival mechanisms that are not sustainable long-term [DM Garner, 1991; MJ Kretch 1997; BA Kauffman et al., 2002; DP Krowchuk et al., 1998].

Virtually everyone who attempts to adjust an optimal weight set point downwards (i.e. lose weight) will fail utterly within 2 years [NIH Technology Assessment Panel, 1993]. And so, in an attempt to suggest better outcomes, the clinical definition used in the National Weight Control Registry for long-term weight reduction success is an intentional loss of 10% of total weight that is maintained for 18 months [RR Wing, JO Hill, 2001].

Another solid meta-analysis showed that the best-case outcomes for sustained weight loss (no matter the program involved) was to regain 77% of initial kilograms lost by year 4 or 5. And less than 50% of those enrolled were able to achieve that underwhelming result; the rest regained more than 77% of initial weight lost [JW Anderson et al., 2009].

But wait, the National Weight Control Registry contained 2500 names of individuals who had lost an average of 33 kg and maintained that loss for five years [RW Jeffrey et al., 2000]. Given that at least 90 million people would have been dieting in the US in 1995 (34% of its population* five years before the 2500 successful people were included in that registry), then actual long-term weight loss was successful for 0.003% of the population in the US at that time. [*that is the lowest percentage in the assessment range of somewhere between 34-50% of the population is dieting in any given year, source MarketData 2012].

Even when you use a diet drug such as orlistat, the weight regain is only half as much those using placebo in the two years following the restrictive attempt to lower optimal weight set point (randomized controlled trial-RCT) [L Sjörström et al., 1998]. And of course the FDA issued a health warning about orlistat (brand names Xenical and Alli) in 2010 regarding incidents of severe liver injury [FDA Drug Safety Announcement: Orlistat]. A thorough review of RCTs on weight loss maintenance had this weak endorsement to offer up:

“The results of the reviewed trials revealed that treatment with orlistat or sibutramine combined with dietary modification, caffeine or protein supplementation, consuming a diet lower in fat, adherence to physical activity routines, prolonged contact with participants, problem-solving therapy and the alternative treatment acupressure were efficacious in reducing weight regain after weight-loss treatment.” (emphasis mine) [M Warsiski Turk et al., 2010]

Keep in mind that any weight set point adjustment is not biologically achieved here. You can run, you can diet, you can run and diet and you must keep that up in perpetuity to suppress your optimal weight set point by a spectacular 3-4 kg (6.6-8.8 lbs.) [FF Samaha et al., 2003; GD Foster et al., 2003].

About the only way in which a weight set point might permanently be changed without these pathetically unsuccessful, physically and mentally damaging ‘permanent lifestyle changes’ (and certainly has not been attempted with humans) is to create lesions in the hypothalamus (destroy brain tissue) [RE Keesey, MD Hirvonen, 1997]. Still, given that we are already happy to mutilate stomachs, I cannot rule out the possibility that partial hypothalectomies might not become all the rage.

Your optimal weight set point is fairly static through adulthood, however it shifts naturally upwards between the ages (approximately) of 50-65 and then shifts naturally downwards into old age. And, very interestingly, this might be due to bone and muscle density changes associated with the natural aging process that signal the necessity of a shift upwards in fat mass, nudging the optimal set point, as a health protective process to ensure overall vitality into advanced old age [HM Frost, 1987; AB Newman et al., 2005; F Fantin et al., 2007; VA Hughes et al., 2002]."

http://www.youreatopia.com/blog/2013/12/4/basic-weight-and-obesity-facts.html

"WEIGHT SET POINT THEORY IS NOT A THEORY

Does everyone understand that weight set point theory does not mean "theory" in an English language sense, but in a scientific sense?

It is a fact our bodies do maintain an optimal weight very closely [L Girardier, 1994; DJ Millward, NG Wijesinghe, 1998; JJG Hillebrand et al., 2002; H-R Berhtoud, 2002; CB Saper et al., 2002]. Human height, weight and body mass index are highly heritable. Classic twin studies indicate heritability of 0.80, 0.81 and 0.84 respectively [AJ Stunkard et al., 1986].

However it is scientifically undefined at this point how our bodies actually manage to achieve that feat and not that our bodies may or may not have an optimal weight set point.

Our bodies have an undisputed optimal weight set point. But until we know how the body does that, then in science we have a working hypothesis against which we can test the theory’s accuracy. The theory being, the body has mechanisms by which it maintains its weight within a very close range.

Here is the actual scientific weight set point theory defined:

“In adult individuals body weight is maintained at a relatively stable level for long periods. The set-point theory suggests that body weight is regulated at a predetermined, or preferred, level by a feedback control mechanism.

Information from the periphery is carried by an affector to a central controller located in the hypothalamus.

The controller integrates and transduces the information into an effector signal that modulates food intake or energy expenditure to correct any deviations in body weight from set-point.

Evidence for involvement of various factors and physiological systems in the control of food intake and regulation of body weight and fat are reviewed within the context of a control model.

Current working hypotheses include roles for nutrients, dietary composition and organoleptic properties, hormones, neural pathways, various brain nuclei, and many neurotransmitters in the regulation of food intake. It is concluded that regulation of body weight in relation to one specific parameter related to energy balance is unrealistic. It seems appropriate to assume that the level at which body weight and body fat content are maintained represents the equilibria achieved by regulation of many parameters.” [RBS Harris, 1990].

To reinforce the concept:

That human beings have an inherited optimal weight set point = FACT.

How biological systems maintain that inherited optimal weight set point = NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

CAN YOU CHANGE YOUR OPTIMAL WEIGHT SET POINT?

No. You can most certainly stay on a permanent restrictive diet but you have not lowered your inherited optimal weight set point. Notice how I so easily assume that by “change” everyone means “lower” their optimal weight set point? But in fact, you cannot raise your optimal weight set point permanently either.

Permanent restriction slowly catabolizes your body’s cells to make up the energy deficits you are creating through restriction. It’s a good way to generate progressive ill health but not a way to shift your inherited optimal weight set point. And think again if you want to assume that “maintaining” your weight below that which is your inherited optimal weight set point will mean cessation of catabolism and optimal health. In fact the catabolic pathways are most likely a contributory factor for the return to an optimal weight set point [MW Schwartz, RJ Seeley; 1995; MW Schwartz et al., 2003; RL Leibel et al., 1995]. And don’t discount that your entire living system is suppressed when you are below your optimal weight set point. Those biological shutdowns are short-term survival mechanisms that are not sustainable long-term [DM Garner, 1991; MJ Kretch 1997; BA Kauffman et al., 2002; DP Krowchuk et al., 1998].

Virtually everyone who attempts to adjust an optimal weight set point downwards (i.e. lose weight) will fail utterly within 2 years [NIH Technology Assessment Panel, 1993]. And so, in an attempt to suggest better outcomes, the clinical definition used in the National Weight Control Registry for long-term weight reduction success is an intentional loss of 10% of total weight that is maintained for 18 months [RR Wing, JO Hill, 2001].

Another solid meta-analysis showed that the best-case outcomes for sustained weight loss (no matter the program involved) was to regain 77% of initial kilograms lost by year 4 or 5. And less than 50% of those enrolled were able to achieve that underwhelming result; the rest regained more than 77% of initial weight lost [JW Anderson et al., 2009].

But wait, the National Weight Control Registry contained 2500 names of individuals who had lost an average of 33 kg and maintained that loss for five years [RW Jeffrey et al., 2000]. Given that at least 90 million people would have been dieting in the US in 1995 (34% of its population* five years before the 2500 successful people were included in that registry), then actual long-term weight loss was successful for 0.003% of the population in the US at that time. [*that is the lowest percentage in the assessment range of somewhere between 34-50% of the population is dieting in any given year, source MarketData 2012].

Even when you use a diet drug such as orlistat, the weight regain is only half as much those using placebo in the two years following the restrictive attempt to lower optimal weight set point (randomized controlled trial-RCT) [L Sjörström et al., 1998]. And of course the FDA issued a health warning about orlistat (brand names Xenical and Alli) in 2010 regarding incidents of severe liver injury [FDA Drug Safety Announcement: Orlistat]. A thorough review of RCTs on weight loss maintenance had this weak endorsement to offer up:

“The results of the reviewed trials revealed that treatment with orlistat or sibutramine combined with dietary modification, caffeine or protein supplementation, consuming a diet lower in fat, adherence to physical activity routines, prolonged contact with participants, problem-solving therapy and the alternative treatment acupressure were efficacious in reducing weight regain after weight-loss treatment.” (emphasis mine) [M Warsiski Turk et al., 2010]

Keep in mind that any weight set point adjustment is not biologically achieved here. You can run, you can diet, you can run and diet and you must keep that up in perpetuity to suppress your optimal weight set point by a spectacular 3-4 kg (6.6-8.8 lbs.) [FF Samaha et al., 2003; GD Foster et al., 2003].

About the only way in which a weight set point might permanently be changed without these pathetically unsuccessful, physically and mentally damaging ‘permanent lifestyle changes’ (and certainly has not been attempted with humans) is to create lesions in the hypothalamus (destroy brain tissue) [RE Keesey, MD Hirvonen, 1997]. Still, given that we are already happy to mutilate stomachs, I cannot rule out the possibility that partial hypothalectomies might not become all the rage.

Your optimal weight set point is fairly static through adulthood, however it shifts naturally upwards between the ages (approximately) of 50-65 and then shifts naturally downwards into old age. And, very interestingly, this might be due to bone and muscle density changes associated with the natural aging process that signal the necessity of a shift upwards in fat mass, nudging the optimal set point, as a health protective process to ensure overall vitality into advanced old age [HM Frost, 1987; AB Newman et al., 2005; F Fantin et al., 2007; VA Hughes et al., 2002]."

Strong third post and thanks for citing references but I tend to disagree strongly with this post...as in the premise of the theory you posted.

K...but what about my husband, who can easily eat McDonald's (or similar) every day (and sometimes does), snacks like crazy on chips, chocolate and at LEAST a can of Coke a day....and has a sit down at a desk/in his car job......but is still super skinny! I KNOW he eats plenty, and that it's not healthy (because he is so boring to cook for...hates almost all veggies and he's so stubborn he won't try new study). I wish I had his metabolism or whatever it is....but I would still take care of myself and keep healthy.

Have him track his intake every day for a month. Until then, you don't know his caloric intake.

Just a thought on this. Since he is skinny he can eat at maintenence and that's probably 2500-3000 calories, I dunno what his maintence level is. Also, are people in his family thin? A lot of it has to do with genetics too I think.

This is how I gained weight:
Breakfast: big bowl of cereal
snack: doritos, a lot of doritoes
Lunch: sandwich, chips, coke
snack: chips, nutty buddy bar, coke
Dinner: 2 plates of home cooking or fast food (big mac, large fry, large coke)
bedtime: donuts, coke, more chips

does he eat THAT much?

I used to be one of those people. I can pinpoint exactly when it changed, too.

I used to put away food in decent quantities, eat fast food a few times a week and was thin as a rake. How? I had no car, so I relied on public transport and lots of walking to get places. Needed groceries? Walk to the supermarket and carry them home. Going out? Walk there (or get a bus), walk between venues and then home again. I was also in a strict budget, so I couldn't afford piles of food. I bought what I needed and then only ate at meal times. Snack foods were a luxury I'd have sometimes. The fast food was my eating out because I couldn't afford to go to nice restaurants.

But I was always moving - walking mostly.

That changed when I moved in with my ex. By that time I had a better paying job (as did he) and he had a car. While I still used some public transport, more and more often we'd drive places. We got takeaway food more often, had more groceries (including snack items) thanks to more money and a car to transport them. (Yes, even the better-paying job didn't cause me weight gain when I still relied on walking and public transport! Hard to buy lots of extra food if you have to carry it home by yourself.) I started snacking because the food was there. I started eating more at meal times because the food was there. I was moving a lot less.

So there was no witchcraft in my weight gain. It was more food, less movement.

I lost the weight by tracking food and exercising. I then started adding more NEAT into my days too - parking further away and walking a bit to get to my destination, using public transport (so I'd have to move and walk), using stairs even when there was a lift or escalator. Even when my food intake increased a bit, this extra activity kept me pretty stable for a while, even after I had to stop running and doing other exercise thanks to an injury. (Post injury, I found it hard to get motivated again. So exercise dropped off til it was pretty much nil.)

It wasn't til I stopped doing those extras and started snacking and eating more and more (and more takeaway) again that the weight came back in earnest. No witchcraft again. More food, less movement.

This time I'm armed with a fitbit in addition to the food log and exercise... Hehe.

Edit: I just wanted to add that, for the most part, this change in behaviour was gradual and almost subconscious and imperceptible. Every week my activity would lower a bit, and food intake would increase. It might be an extra snack here, or a little more at meal time here. The big thing was I didn't notice the change in my behaviour (or I just ignored it) until it got to a point where it was so obvious that even my doctor commented on my gain. It wasn't til I sat down and really thought about it that I realised how it happened.

Unless I'm feeling bitter, I do not envy these people. Not all, but the majority of them hit puberty and ther metabolism slows. Then, many don't know how to adjust their intake and deal with the effects of putting on weight due to their bad eating habits. As a child who grew a lot faster than my friends, I used to wonder why they were rail thin and I looked more like a teenager. I started making healthy choices early. Now as an adult, I see that I learned healthy habits that are valuable. It helps me not be so jealous of those fast metabolisms!

Oh, I thought it was when I stopped being so active in my mid-30's was why I gained 40-50 pounds. I guess it was just puberty. And I thought it was because I started getting active and eating at a deficit that I lost weight, but apparently I just unpubertied.

I hope I don't go through puberty again, I'd like to stay around this weight.

No one's metabolism is 1000 calories faster than an average person of equivalent body composition, age, and weight. Even someone whose BMR is 500 calories above average would be incredibly rare, if they exist at all (which I doubt).

As mentioned, these people simply eat much less total every day than you think or they are much more active than you think.