Calorie requirements for a thin person vs someone who lost weight to become thin.

Options
ChiliPepperLifter
ChiliPepperLifter Posts: 279 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hello all. I've heard multiple times, from reputable sources, that a thin woman who has all the same height, weight, and activity metrics will be able to eat more than another thin woman who had to lose weight to become thin. For example, a 120 pound woman that never had to lose weight will be able to eat more than a woman who lost 40 pounds to be 120.

I guess I am just curious, why would there be a caloric difference if all the other variables were the same, other than one maintained thinness and the other gained then lost weight? Someone more knowledgeable than me, please inform me :smile:
«1345

Replies

  • slaite1
    slaite1 Posts: 1,307 Member
    Options
    Curious as I've heard the same. In for answers from those more knowledgeable than myself
  • ChiliPepperLifter
    ChiliPepperLifter Posts: 279 Member
    Options
    HappyCampr1 wrote: »
    I'm not sure, but I suspect it has to do with the loss of muscle mass as you lose weight. Low muscle mass would lower your BMR. That's one of the reasons I've been doing resistance training since I started losing weight...trying to minimize my losses.

    that makes sense, and was my first thought, but wonder why the authors did'nt state it so clearly (since it seems relatively easy to mitigate!). I started lifting at the beginning of my weight loss journey, and have calculated that I've lost 21 lbs of fat, and only 1 pound of LBM. My calculations aren't perfect, but I wear a size or two smaller at this weight than I have before.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    Differences in muscle mass may make a difference, but the difference is likely of little significance. Everyone is different anyway, so you have to figure out your own calorie needs.
  • zoeysasha37
    zoeysasha37 Posts: 7,089 Member
    Options
    Ive never been the naturally thin person so have no idea , when im thin its because i have to constantly work at it.
  • juliebowman4
    juliebowman4 Posts: 784 Member
    Options
    Up until my 30's I was naturally thin. (5ft 5' and anywhere from 110-120lbs)
    I was not really active and I ate....and ate....and ate.
    I just always assumed that my metabolism and genetics was responsible.

    Sigh

    Welcome to my 40's, where I've quit smoking and my metabolism is having a nap
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    Options
    It's not just women. Formerly obese people burn fewer calories than otherwise physically similar people who were never obese. Apparently, the effect lasts for years, perhaps forever.

    I believe there is some evidence that more relatively strenuous exercise can offset this, since it seems to be caused by more efficient low level/effort muscle use. I may be misstating that bit, though.
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    Options
    Could be metabolism, muscle mass, whatever. If the writers aren't backing up their claims though I'd be dubious.

    I have heard the same thing though, but that it "evens out" over time. Again, never saw references so I just assumed it was made up.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    It's not just women. Formerly obese people burn fewer calories than otherwise physically similar people who were never obese. Apparently, the effect lasts for years, perhaps forever.

    I believe there is some evidence that more relatively strenuous exercise can offset this, since it seems to be caused by more efficient low level/effort muscle use. I may be misstating that bit, though.

    Exercise may explain the whole thing. People who are "naturally thin" probably move more than people who are obese. When an obese person loses weight, they don't necessarily pick up a habit of moving more, especially if they lost weight by cutting calories rather than through additional exercise. The "naturally thin" person will still burn more calories because they are still exercising while the formerly obese person is still sitting on the couch.
  • xcalygrl
    xcalygrl Posts: 1,897 Member
    Options
    It could be because naturally thin people move more, but it could also be metabolic adaptation. (Your body basically gets used to running on fewer calories, so you need fewer calories to keep it running.) Since a naturally thin person would not be reducing their calories, their body never adjusts to running on fewer calories.
  • barbecuesauce
    barbecuesauce Posts: 1,779 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    It's not just women. Formerly obese people burn fewer calories than otherwise physically similar people who were never obese. Apparently, the effect lasts for years, perhaps forever.

    I believe there is some evidence that more relatively strenuous exercise can offset this, since it seems to be caused by more efficient low level/effort muscle use. I may be misstating that bit, though.

    Exercise may explain the whole thing. People who are "naturally thin" probably move more than people who are obese. When an obese person loses weight, they don't necessarily pick up a habit of moving more, especially if they lost weight by cutting calories rather than through additional exercise. The "naturally thin" person will still burn more calories because they are still exercising while the formerly obese person is still sitting on the couch.

    I sincerely hope this is the answer. Because I know I have picked up the habit of building more movement into my day. (Now if only I could start replacing some of this fat with muscle)
  • ChiliPepperLifter
    ChiliPepperLifter Posts: 279 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    It's not just women. Formerly obese people burn fewer calories than otherwise physically similar people who were never obese. Apparently, the effect lasts for years, perhaps forever.

    I believe there is some evidence that more relatively strenuous exercise can offset this, since it seems to be caused by more efficient low level/effort muscle use. I may be misstating that bit, though.

    Yeah, I just used women as an example. This issue I'd universal regardless of biological sex.

  • eclenden01
    eclenden01 Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    It is based on a study that found that weight loss stimulates changes in hormones regulating hunger and metabolism, and that these changes are still seen at least a year later. Your body is constantly bringing you back to a set point, and scientists are unsure when or if your set point can be adjusted downwards.
  • jak1958
    jak1958 Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    eclenden01 wrote: »
    It is based on a study that found that weight loss stimulates changes in hormones regulating hunger and metabolism, and that these changes are still seen at least a year later. Your body is constantly bringing you back to a set point, and scientists are unsure when or if your set point can be adjusted downwards.

    HBO had a 4 part documentary called The Weight of the Nation where this is discussed. You should be able to find the video on youtube.

  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,150 Member
    Options
    I'm pretty sure it has to do with metabolic adaptation for people who have dieted for long periods of time. http://www.biolayne.com/tag/metabolic-adaptation/
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    HappyCampr1 wrote: »
    eclenden01 wrote: »
    It is based on a study that found that weight loss stimulates changes in hormones regulating hunger and metabolism, and that these changes are still seen at least a year later. Your body is constantly bringing you back to a set point, and scientists are unsure when or if your set point can be adjusted downwards.

    Well, a year isn't very long in the scheme of things. I'll have been in maintenance for a year next month. Not sure I believe in set points though. I think people just have a certain amount of food they like to eat and whatever calories that is is where they naturally end up unless they're specifically paying attention.

    That seems like the simplest way to explain it. The simple answer is usually the right answer.
  • pumpkinpocalypse
    pumpkinpocalypse Posts: 104 Member
    Options
    I guess since you're putting a lot of stress on your body by creating a somewhat large calorie deficit for an extened period of time, it responds by slowing down your metabolism a notch. Permanently ? maybe.
    Also since your weight is always moving, up and down or even just down, your body doesn't know its ''natural'', stable weight anymore so it doesn't get adjusted to anything, and will try to make you go back to where you started from because that was its ''settings'' for a majority of your life. (in opposite of a naturally thin person whose original settings already were ''thin'' for long,, the body can take more because it will balance out in orderr to keep the weight off at that ''setting'').
    Damn those people I know who grew up in families with a good sense of nutrition, good food and cooked meals etc, they never developped any kind of eating disorder and now they can eat hatever they want on occasion without ever neither thinking of guilt, or putting a single pound on after days of partying :')
  • eclenden01
    eclenden01 Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    For anyone curious..http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1105816
    HappyCampr1 wrote: »
    eclenden01 wrote: »
    It is based on a study that found that weight loss stimulates changes in hormones regulating hunger and metabolism, and that these changes are still seen at least a year later. Your body is constantly bringing you back to a set point, and scientists are unsure when or if your set point can be adjusted downwards.

    Well, a year isn't very long in the scheme of things. I'll have been in maintenance for a year next month. Not sure I believe in set points though. I think people just have a certain amount of food they like to eat and whatever calories that is is where they naturally end up unless they're specifically paying attention.

    I agree that a year isn't that long but it is certainly more time than a lot of people would hope. I don't really like the term set point because it sort of implies people have no control over weight regain, when obviously they do. That being said I don't think it makes sense to discount hormonal adaptations, I think they clearly play a role as the reason so many people regain lost weight...i dont really think it's fair to imply that it just results from a lack of motivation or willpower.
  • barbecuesauce
    barbecuesauce Posts: 1,779 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    HappyCampr1 wrote: »
    eclenden01 wrote: »
    It is based on a study that found that weight loss stimulates changes in hormones regulating hunger and metabolism, and that these changes are still seen at least a year later. Your body is constantly bringing you back to a set point, and scientists are unsure when or if your set point can be adjusted downwards.

    Well, a year isn't very long in the scheme of things. I'll have been in maintenance for a year next month. Not sure I believe in set points though. I think people just have a certain amount of food they like to eat and whatever calories that is is where they naturally end up unless they're specifically paying attention.

    I think you're right. A challenge for me has definitely been behavioral triggers--I like to eat at certain times, and doing 16:8 caused me to miss out on some of those times, and I maintained/lost .5 lb a week when I slacked on IF. I can see how I would start to gain if I started in on calorie-dense foods during those triggers.
  • DancingMoosie
    DancingMoosie Posts: 8,613 Member
    Options
    I lost 40lb to get to 112. I don't consider myself a naturally thin person, as I was hovering around 150lb for around 10 years. I eat a lot. I ate a lot then, too. However, I do workout a lot and do strength training, and I think that helps me to eat what I want:)
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    I would think this would have to do with the amount of lean mass the two people have. All things equal the one with the lower BF% would have higher caloric requirements. Other than that, there could be genetic reasons for the difference, though the amount should not be large, unless there is a medical/hormonal issue going on.

Categories