What role does metabolism actually play in weight loss?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
lindsey1979 wrote: »My biggest guess to explain the shift in obesity we're seeing in the last 20 years as opposed to 50 years ago (at least in the US) is the shift in stay-at-home parents. These days we have a lot fewer stay-at-home parents either because both parents are working or it's a single parent household. As a result, less home cooking and more emphasis on convenience foods -- whether bought at the grocery store and reheated (or straight out of the box) or a drive thru. That and the crazy increase in serving sizes -- standare coke bottles used to be what, 8 oz? and now a 'small' coke at a lot of burger joints is 16-22 oz. And the supersizing has happened with a lot of foods across that board.
I'm guessing that there is something in those convenience foods that is altering/affecting people's satiety. There is no doubt that the food industry does TONS of research to find just the right combination of ingredients to hit people's pleasure centers and encourage people to eat more and more of their food. I suspect part of that also reduces satiety. Perhaps it's the added sugar, difference in types of fats, some other additive/preservative, combination of all of the above or something else. But whatever it is, it encourages people to eat more because they're not satisfied -- and then you end up with all the overeating and obesity. Because obviously the overeating isn't a conscious choice -- people aren't saying, "man I really want to be fat!, let's eat more than I need!" You see how many people are really shocked by how much they're eating when they start to diligently count calories. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Again, nothing to do with metabolism. This isnt a theoretical discussion on changes in activity over the past 50 years. Its a discussion of the metabolism.
0 -
There are variations in metabolism but not significantly a lot. But you could have a significantly high tdee which is why you have been slimmer most your life.Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
0 -
honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.0 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.
Those were figures that I got plugging data into a BMR calculator. It's not an exact science of course but it's not incorrect to say that a 'faster metabolism' isn't a real thing. It is, it's just not an excuse for people to use to say they can't lose weight since noone's BMR is so low they can't create a deficit.0 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.
Given all the factors that go into creating a calorie deficit, it's much more likely that your counts are off in the number of calories you're eating, your activity level, and/or your exercise calories than it is that your have a metabolic rate which deviates significantly than the general population.0 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.
The calculators are wrong for me to but i chaulk that up to an increase in activity rather than metabolism. If you want to know for sure, get a metabolic test.
0 -
honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.
Those were figures that I got plugging data into a BMR calculator. It's not an exact science of course but it's not incorrect to say that a 'faster metabolism' isn't a real thing. It is, it's just not an excuse for people to use to say they can't lose weight since noone's BMR is so low they can't create a deficit.
Ah I understand now. Sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to get at.
0 -
OneHundredToLose wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508
Metabolism is the process by which your body converts what you eat and drink into energy. During this complex biochemical process, calories in food and beverages are combined with oxygen to release the energy your body needs to function.
In brief, metabolism plays a role in keeping you alive.
Right, but I guess what I am trying to ask is does having a faster / slower metabolism actually affect weight loss, as many claim?
There is no such thing for healthy individuals. There are a few medical problems that affect metabolism, and if you have reason to suspect thsi is your case, you need to see a dr.
I definitely don't think it's the case for me, which is why it's so surprising for me to learn that it's most likely not the case for 99% of people. We're kind of told all our lives that it's a big deal, and you just either have it or you don't, but I'm now finding that it's bunk.
You'll love this. No topic on metabolism should be missing this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA9AdlhB18o 0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.
Given all the factors that go into creating a calorie deficit, it's much more likely that your counts are off in the number of calories you're eating, your activity level, and/or your exercise calories than it is that your have a metabolic rate which deviates significantly than the general population.
Entirely plausible that I'm off somewhere in my calculations.
With all the issues I see on here with other people logging, weighing, measuring and how easy it is for me to accidentally lose twice as fast as I wanted to... Isn't that entirely plausible to say I MAY have a faster metabolism?
0 -
From what I've read, your metabolism is correlated to how much muscle you have. I looked into this because I was interested in how yo-yo dieting might affect your metabolism (it might, but only for a short period of time), and how age might affect your metabolism. Apparently metabolism is less correlated to age than it is to muscle mass. If you are a muscly septuagenarian, you will still have a fast metabolism. Big "if" though. Hard to keep that muscle as you age.
But personally I'm not certain what advantage there is to the desirable fast metabolism, other than a bigger grocery bill. Surely these people get hungrier than someone with a slow metabolism?0 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.
Given all the factors that go into creating a calorie deficit, it's much more likely that your counts are off in the number of calories you're eating, your activity level, and/or your exercise calories than it is that your have a metabolic rate which deviates significantly than the general population.
Entirely plausible that I'm off somewhere in my calculations.
With all the issues I see on here with other people logging, weighing, measuring and how easy it is for me to accidentally lose twice as fast as I wanted to... Isn't that entirely plausible to say I MAY have a faster metabolism?
I don't think we have enough information to make that determination. I can't even see your diary to check how well you log or if you weigh your food, I don't know what your exercise burns look like or how much of them you eat back, etc. Even without that information, I still think it's more likely your calculations are off than you have a significanty higher metabolic rate. Or maybe you have a tapeworm.
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.
Given all the factors that go into creating a calorie deficit, it's much more likely that your counts are off in the number of calories you're eating, your activity level, and/or your exercise calories than it is that your have a metabolic rate which deviates significantly than the general population.
Entirely plausible that I'm off somewhere in my calculations.
With all the issues I see on here with other people logging, weighing, measuring and how easy it is for me to accidentally lose twice as fast as I wanted to... Isn't that entirely plausible to say I MAY have a faster metabolism?
I don't think we have enough information to make that determination. I can't even see your diary to check how well you log or if you weigh your food, I don't know what your exercise burns look like or how much of them you eat back, etc. Even without that information, I still think it's more likely your calculations are off than you have a significanty higher metabolic rate. Or maybe you have a tapeworm.
Damnit... I probably have a tapeworm.0 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.
Given all the factors that go into creating a calorie deficit, it's much more likely that your counts are off in the number of calories you're eating, your activity level, and/or your exercise calories than it is that your have a metabolic rate which deviates significantly than the general population.
Entirely plausible that I'm off somewhere in my calculations.
With all the issues I see on here with other people logging, weighing, measuring and how easy it is for me to accidentally lose twice as fast as I wanted to... Isn't that entirely plausible to say I MAY have a faster metabolism?
I don't think we have enough information to make that determination. I can't even see your diary to check how well you log or if you weigh your food, I don't know what your exercise burns look like or how much of them you eat back, etc. Even without that information, I still think it's more likely your calculations are off than you have a significanty higher metabolic rate. Or maybe you have a tapeworm.
Damnit... I probably have a tapeworm.
A cleansing is in order I think;)0 -
Well, it would only be 250-ish above what the calculator told her. It was 1 pound per week when she wanted 0.5. That's still worlds more plausible than the constant "I'm eating like 800 calories and exercising 2 hours daily but not losing anything" posts.tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.
Given all the factors that go into creating a calorie deficit, it's much more likely that your counts are off in the number of calories you're eating, your activity level, and/or your exercise calories than it is that your have a metabolic rate which deviates significantly than the general population.
Entirely plausible that I'm off somewhere in my calculations.
With all the issues I see on here with other people logging, weighing, measuring and how easy it is for me to accidentally lose twice as fast as I wanted to... Isn't that entirely plausible to say I MAY have a faster metabolism?
I don't think we have enough information to make that determination. I can't even see your diary to check how well you log or if you weigh your food, I don't know what your exercise burns look like or how much of them you eat back, etc. Even without that information, I still think it's more likely your calculations are off than you have a significanty higher metabolic rate. Or maybe you have a tapeworm.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Well, it would only be 250-ish above what the calculator told her. It was 1 pound per week when she wanted 0.5. That's still worlds more plausible than the constant "I'm eating like 800 calories and exercising 2 hours daily but not losing anything" posts.tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.
Given all the factors that go into creating a calorie deficit, it's much more likely that your counts are off in the number of calories you're eating, your activity level, and/or your exercise calories than it is that your have a metabolic rate which deviates significantly than the general population.
Entirely plausible that I'm off somewhere in my calculations.
With all the issues I see on here with other people logging, weighing, measuring and how easy it is for me to accidentally lose twice as fast as I wanted to... Isn't that entirely plausible to say I MAY have a faster metabolism?
I don't think we have enough information to make that determination. I can't even see your diary to check how well you log or if you weigh your food, I don't know what your exercise burns look like or how much of them you eat back, etc. Even without that information, I still think it's more likely your calculations are off than you have a significanty higher metabolic rate. Or maybe you have a tapeworm.
Good point.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »My biggest guess to explain the shift in obesity we're seeing in the last 20 years as opposed to 50 years ago (at least in the US) is the shift in stay-at-home parents. These days we have a lot fewer stay-at-home parents either because both parents are working or it's a single parent household. As a result, less home cooking and more emphasis on convenience foods -- whether bought at the grocery store and reheated (or straight out of the box) or a drive thru. That and the crazy increase in serving sizes -- standare coke bottles used to be what, 8 oz? and now a 'small' coke at a lot of burger joints is 16-22 oz. And the supersizing has happened with a lot of foods across that board.
I'm guessing that there is something in those convenience foods that is altering/affecting people's satiety. There is no doubt that the food industry does TONS of research to find just the right combination of ingredients to hit people's pleasure centers and encourage people to eat more and more of their food. I suspect part of that also reduces satiety. Perhaps it's the added sugar, difference in types of fats, some other additive/preservative, combination of all of the above or something else. But whatever it is, it encourages people to eat more because they're not satisfied -- and then you end up with all the overeating and obesity. Because obviously the overeating isn't a conscious choice -- people aren't saying, "man I really want to be fat!, let's eat more than I need!" You see how many people are really shocked by how much they're eating when they start to diligently count calories. Coincidence? I doubt it.
I think on a population level activity clearly makes a huge difference and you see differences between countries based largely on activity level (for example the US tends to have structural differences that makes walking less common than in Europe and obesity is less in areas where walking/biking vs. driving is more common). There is a difference in activity over the past 50 years. For myself, activity level tends to drive when I gain weight vs. not, which is not surprising as at a proper weight but sedentary my TDEE is about 1600, which is low.
But certainly I think food is the bigger part, but that's because I think that most humans don't have a natural stop mechanism when it comes to food (which is why I think intuitive eating is the wrong goal). Evolutionarily we ate when food was available and obesity wasn't an issue, so we had no reason to select for intuitive knowledge of when we are full. That's not even sensible if you might face a situation where food would be massively available for a day or so and then scarce. Historically we dealt with this (beyond simply food scarcity) through cultural restrictions on eating -- eating being highly regulated by culture, at specific times, in communal situations, governed by ideas about what should be on the plate. Even when I grew up, in the 80s, you had to eat your veg before getting dessert, fast food was for special occasions, dessert was rarer and at specific times, and soda was a treat, not a regular thing (and in much more reasonable sizes). We ate three meals and an after school snack (usually after being active) -- not constantly.
That cultural restrictions on eating are gone and people eat high cal stuff all day is the difference, not that people are truly hungrier, IMO. Eating has simply gone from being about nutrition to being about recreation or fulfilling other needs. Some people aren't susceptible to this and naturally regulate their eating, but it seems most don't.
The rest of us need to realize the issue and do what we need to do. (For me, it's mostly not snacking and being more active.)0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »Well, I guess one of the differentiations I take into account are what drives people to eat. For example I have two twin nieces -- they're growing up in the same environment and they have vastly different body types. Most people think that they're 2 years apart rather than the exact same age. One is probably in the 80+ percentile for weight and one is probably in the lower 20+ weight. And you started seeing significant differences around age 1.
Undoubtedly the bigger one eats more than the little one. But why? What has driven that? They have the exact same parents, grow up in the same household, eating the same things (though obviously one has always eaten more)?
There is at least one theory out there that it has to do with absorption of nutrients in food and/or the combination of so much of our food not being as nutrient dense as it used to be (at least in comparison to its caloric density). So, some eat more to get more nutrients because their body isn't absorbing/digesting them as effectively and along comes the extra calories. I don't know if there is any truth behind it, but definitely interesting to think about.
I guess I've just seen too many people like my twin nieces in the world to think it is as seeming simple as vismal posits. Yes, the heavier people are eating more -- but why? What is going on to shift to so much on an overall population level? The rates of obesity now are greatly higher than they were 50 years ago but there hasn't been that much change in lifestyles and activity in 50 years. Yes, perhaps some, but not really that much. We have a heck of a LOT more fat kids now than we did even 20-30 years ago. My guess is something is going on in our food chain that is significantly shift this. I know there has been a significant increase in sugar consumption, but it's hard to believe it's just that.
Not really that much difference in activity?
I would strongly disagree.
What do you see as the great difference between now and 50 years ago or even 30 years ago for kids? We've advanced in technology somewhat, but it's not like we didn't have cars, trains and airplane 50 years ago or that everyone was a farmer then and now very few are (200+ years ago, sure, but 50 years ago?).
The amount of kids that walk/cycle to and from school has dropped drastically. Even for those who live close enough, only a small fraction actually do so. Recess is being cut from school. Gym isn't mandatory. Screen time is way up, which means less time for physical activity. http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/1/1.full
Yes, all this.
I'm 45. Obesity for kids was extremely rare when I was a kid. We were forced to be quite active, even when I lived in a city where walking for adults was rare (driving friendly only). We also had our food restricted in various ways.
These days I see a huge disparity between classes. The upper middle class kids in my neighborhood go to a school that always has some outdoor activity going on and they are also commong biking around with their parents or the like. They walk a lot and are taken to planned outdoor activities. The result is much like what I grew up with. In the inner city recess doesn't happen and people might think walking around outdoors is unsafe. And parents probably don't have the resources to take you to various "let the kids run around" programs like are common for young kids here.
The kids in my neighborhood don't seem any fatter than the kids I grew up with (most adults are in decent shape too), but the childhood obesity rate across my city is much higher.0 -
[/b]
Yeah, save your $$$. For weight loss, it's really just calories in vs calories out. Eating less than you burn.
the question is...how much do you burn? (yes I know there are very generic TDEE calculators)
I like this article: (it really explains well that CICO isn't as easy as it sounds)
http://evidencemag.com/eat-less-move-more/
In the end you have to have to do "trial and error" and measure "everything"...
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »But certainly I think food is the bigger part, but that's because I think that most humans don't have a natural stop mechanism when it comes to food
This hasn't been my experience at all - I don't want to eat once I feel full, and I do feel full, once I hit my macros/calorie targets (and did long before I knew what they were, i.e. by eating intuitively. I leave stuff on my plate all the time, always have). My "natural stop mechanism" only fails when what I'm eating is chips. I think it might hard to reach satiety with some ratios or foods. But when I'm eating an even roughly "healthy" diet, I get full at a certain point and stop there.0 -
Maybe I missed it in this thread, but can someone show my a study that says that everyone of a particular age and body weight has the exact same BMR?
I think that the reason results here on MFP vary is not JUST because people are not perfect in their calorie counting or activity calculations but also because their BMRs are different.
I can tell you that I am almost obsessive about weighing food and the MFP calculations do not work for me. I had to adjust for my own body.
R
0 -
These are great articles to skim... especially the "You are not different" article. excellent. Calories in vs Calories burned. the end.0 -
Maybe I missed it in this thread, but can someone show my a study that says that everyone of a particular age and body weight has the exact same BMR?
I think that the reason results here on MFP vary is not JUST because people are not perfect in their calorie counting or activity calculations but also because their BMRs are different.
I can tell you that I am almost obsessive about weighing food and the MFP calculations do not work for me. I had to adjust for my own body.
R
If you look at previous post, you will see rmr will be within a range based on several factors such as body composition and genetics.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »I think a lot of this comes down to genetics and medical issues (if any are present). The classic ectomoph, mesomorph and endomorph people. As strong_curves talked about, there certainly are people that have a MUCH easier time maintaining a healthy weight (naturally thin folks) and those that have MUCH easier time building muscle (usually also gaining fat). It's a spectrum. On the extremes you see the elite athletes -- whether it's a marathon runner on one side or powerlifters on the other. They no doubt are genetic freaks -- just like any elite athlete. That's not to say they don't work hard -- of course, they do -- but they have certain genetics that allow them to reach that level. Not everyone could work as hard and get those same results -- it's just not how the world works.
So, it's all about being the best YOU. Being the best version of your genetic potential. So you may struggle more with weight loss/management or you may struggle more with gaining weight/muscle. Depending on your issues, certain strategies may work better or worse for you --- whether that's adjusting macros (carbs especially), using an intermittent fasting regime like 16:8 or 5:2, calorie cycling, etc. Deficits work for those without medical issues, but how you create that deficit may yield dramatically different results depending on your individual circumstances. A lot of it is trial and error figuring out what works best for you. But, yes, there are undoubtedly differences between people.
While I don't have an issue with the rest of your post, somatotypes have been widely debunked.
Yes and no. Don't you think at the very least they demonstrate the spectrum of genetic predisposition -- that there are some people who are fairly naturally thin and that comes rather easily to them and there are other where gain (muscle and fat) comes fairly easy? I wouldn't get into the rest of the theory, but I think as far as that goes, it's true.
For a large part people arent naturally thin, just like people are naturally fat. For a large part those who are more thin tend to develop or have learned good eating habits and eat the right types of food to enable that. On top of that, some people naturally are more active than others.
OP, @vismal gave a lot of solid information. I would like to add the your bmr tends to account for roughly 75% of the calories you burn. Outside of bmr/rmr there is thermal effect of food (calories burn through digestion), thermal effect of activities (calories burned through exercise), and non exercise adaptive thermogenesis (calories burned from daily activity).
Ultimately people try to put a lot of stake in metabolism but what they should concentrate on more is Total Daily Energy Expenditure as this is your maintenance point. This is the point you either eat at, form a deficit or a surplus based on your goals. You can find it by tracking calories for 4+ weeks.
This, and Vismal's reply.0 -
Ok, so new question relating to metabolism. If it's true that metabolism has very little to do with weight loss / gain, why is it that older people seem to have a much harder time losing weight or getting in shape? Is this just another societal myth, or do they really find it more difficult due to a slowing down metabolism? Or are there other factors of which I'm unaware?0
-
OneHundredToLose wrote: »Ok, so new question relating to metabolism. If it's true that metabolism has very little to do with weight loss / gain, why is it that older people seem to have a much harder time losing weight or getting in shape? Is this just another societal myth, or do they really find it more difficult due to a slowing down metabolism? Or are there other factors of which I'm unaware?
There is some metabolic slow down as you age (most will lose muscle) but the difference is a few hundred calories. On top of that, they dont move as much as many younger people their equivalent size. Due to this, many older people have a harder time creating a deficit from their tdee. You will also see this in those who are fairly lean as precision is required a bit more.
But there are many cases of people on here in their 60s that lose weight effectively. Some of them actually lose at a fairly high calorie range and others at lower ranges.
0 -
OneHundredToLose wrote: »Ok, so new question relating to metabolism. If it's true that metabolism has very little to do with weight loss / gain, why is it that older people seem to have a much harder time losing weight or getting in shape? Is this just another societal myth, or do they really find it more difficult due to a slowing down metabolism? Or are there other factors of which I'm unaware?
There is some metabolic slow down as you age (most will lose muscle) but the difference is a few hundred calories. On top of that, they dont move as much as many younger people their equivalent size. Due to this, many older people have a harder time creating a deficit from their tdee. You will also see this in those who are fairly lean as precision is required a bit more.
But there are many cases of people on here in their 60s that lose weight effectively. Some of them actually lose at a fairly high calorie range and others at lower ranges.
Not to mention the loss of lean muscle mass and changes in bone density that often accompany old age. As the ratio of body tissue changes, I can see how the calorie burning process would be affected, even beyond a lower BMR. For one, the exercise recovery process would burn fewer calories, right, with a lower amount of lean muscle mass?0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »OneHundredToLose wrote: »Ok, so new question relating to metabolism. If it's true that metabolism has very little to do with weight loss / gain, why is it that older people seem to have a much harder time losing weight or getting in shape? Is this just another societal myth, or do they really find it more difficult due to a slowing down metabolism? Or are there other factors of which I'm unaware?
There is some metabolic slow down as you age (most will lose muscle) but the difference is a few hundred calories. On top of that, they dont move as much as many younger people their equivalent size. Due to this, many older people have a harder time creating a deficit from their tdee. You will also see this in those who are fairly lean as precision is required a bit more.
But there are many cases of people on here in their 60s that lose weight effectively. Some of them actually lose at a fairly high calorie range and others at lower ranges.
Not to mention the loss of lean muscle mass and changes in bone density that often accompany old age. As the ratio of body tissue changes, I can see how the calorie burning process would be affected, even beyond a lower BMR. For one, the exercise recovery process would burn fewer calories, right, with a lower amount of lean muscle mass?
You make a solid point with recovery. Long exercise recovery times can also make it harder to work out as someone who is 20 or 30 years younger.... essentially leading to a lower tdee.
But yea lower lbm = slower metabolism = lower starting point in the energy balance equation.
0 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.
Given all the factors that go into creating a calorie deficit, it's much more likely that your counts are off in the number of calories you're eating, your activity level, and/or your exercise calories than it is that your have a metabolic rate which deviates significantly than the general population.
Entirely plausible that I'm off somewhere in my calculations.
With all the issues I see on here with other people logging, weighing, measuring and how easy it is for me to accidentally lose twice as fast as I wanted to... Isn't that entirely plausible to say I MAY have a faster metabolism?
I don't think we have enough information to make that determination. I can't even see your diary to check how well you log or if you weigh your food, I don't know what your exercise burns look like or how much of them you eat back, etc. Even without that information, I still think it's more likely your calculations are off than you have a significanty higher metabolic rate. Or maybe you have a tapeworm.
Damnit... I probably have a tapeworm.
Similar to a tapeworm, if you had an actual metabolic condition that made anywhere near the difference you're coming up with, you'd almost assuredly have other signs of it.
For example, Lizzie Velasquez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_Velásquez) has a genetic condition where she can't gain on a 5,000-8,000 calories a day. She's a 1 in 7 billion kind of metabolism though, and she has numerous other issues that demonstrate her metabolism.
Off the top of my head, I'd say if you had a BMR that was actually around 3,000-4,000 calories, doing any kind of exercise with intensity would leave your body unbearably hot as you probably would go past the ability of a human body to remove heat.0 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »So I'm clear - There is no such thing as fast metabolism/ slow metabolism? I ask because I've always thought I had a pretty fast metabolism. Even before I started CICO I was on the sidelines of, "normal weight/overweight" on the BMI chart and I swear I was eating over 3k calories a day. I started doing CICO and set it to lose .5 pounds a week and I averaged over 1 pound a week for 16 weeks and I always thought it was because I had a faster than usual metabolism.
Some people have a higher or lower BMR which is basically your 'metabolism'. Factors that influence this are lean muscle mass, height, age etc. So if you feel like you have a faster metabolism it may be you're young tall and lean.
Let's look at 2 case studies:
If you are MALE, 175cm, 95 kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 2079 calories
If you are FEMALE, 163cm, 60kg, 25 yrs your BMR is about 1414 calories.
That's a difference of 665 calories. That's a lot more food you can eat.
I don't believe this is correct. You may have misunderstood me. What I'm saying is, I found what calculators said was my BMR or TDEE and what I'm suppose to lose eating 1800 calories (sometimes more) a day and I have lost double more than I was suppose to. I feel I actually do have a fast metabolism than I took advantage of for too many years.
Given all the factors that go into creating a calorie deficit, it's much more likely that your counts are off in the number of calories you're eating, your activity level, and/or your exercise calories than it is that your have a metabolic rate which deviates significantly than the general population.
Entirely plausible that I'm off somewhere in my calculations.
With all the issues I see on here with other people logging, weighing, measuring and how easy it is for me to accidentally lose twice as fast as I wanted to... Isn't that entirely plausible to say I MAY have a faster metabolism?
I don't think we have enough information to make that determination. I can't even see your diary to check how well you log or if you weigh your food, I don't know what your exercise burns look like or how much of them you eat back, etc. Even without that information, I still think it's more likely your calculations are off than you have a significanty higher metabolic rate. Or maybe you have a tapeworm.
Damnit... I probably have a tapeworm.
Similar to a tapeworm, if you had an actual metabolic condition that made anywhere near the difference you're coming up with, you'd almost assuredly have other signs of it.
For example, Lizzie Velasquez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_Velásquez) has a genetic condition where she can't gain on a 5,000-8,000 calories a day. She's a 1 in 7 billion kind of metabolism though, and she has numerous other issues that demonstrate her metabolism.
Off the top of my head, I'd say if you had a BMR that was actually around 3,000-4,000 calories, doing any kind of exercise with intensity would leave your body unbearably hot as you probably would go past the ability of a human body to remove heat.
It's amazing she has taken her life situation and turned into a positive by speaking with other people about it.0
This discussion has been closed.
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