'Why you can't blame your slow metabolism for piling on the pounds'

its a convenient excuse though...

There's a few cases where one may not actually be able to lose weight easily at all. For example, Prader Willi Syndrome. It's a disorder where one never actually feels full and there's more to it than that but that's the gist of it. I watched a documentary and a kid had to be kept on an 800 cal diet along with exercise to lose even a little bit of weight from the disease. But that is rare.

There is also Cushing's, which can be treated but until then, weight gain occurs initially. There are also antipsychotics, which cause fatigue and increased hunger.

But for the majority of people, weight loss is possible. No one defies the laws of thermodynamics.

PhoenyxRose wrote: »

realityfades wrote: »

There's a few cases where one may not actually be able to lose weight easily at all. For example, Prader Willi Syndrome. It's a disorder where one never actually feels full and there's more to it than that but that's the gist of it. I watched a documentary and a kid had to be kept on an 800 cal diet along with exercise to lose even a little bit of weight from the disease. But that is rare.

There is also Cushing's, which can be treated but until then, weight gain occurs initially. There are also antipsychotics, which cause fatigue and increased hunger.

But for the majority of people, weight loss is possible. No one defies the laws of thermodynamics.

Yeah but most of those disorders don't apply to the majority of the population (I.e. Prader willi (and other metabolic disorders) causes mental retardation among other things most people don't have).

Which is why I said it is rare and comes with other problems. And then at the end I said that one defies the law of thermodynamics.

The issue is that people would rather find something to blame for their weight gain instead of admitting it's because they eat too much. Denial is a big problem.

my slow metabolism blames my lazy @$$ and I agree with it completely lol

I found the article, and the test, very interesting, but I would be curious to see the results if they tested two women (one serial dieter, one not), and two men (one serial dieter, one not), against each other.

I think it's incredibly depressing that so many people will accept a study with n=2 of non random participants purely because it is telling them something they know to be true / really sounds like it should be true to them.

If this was a study claiming that eating cake made you slimmer if you were at maintenance and had the sample size of two, people here would be utterly eviscerating the 'research'.

Standards of proof go both ways people. You can''t have a lower threshold for evidence that supports things you like, that's confirmation bias, and it's how things that are not true in any way shape or form get repeated so often that others believe them to be fact.

(e.g the fact that most people still believe that your hair and nails continue to grow after you die despite it being utterly shredded over and over, all because the first couple of bits of 'research' were not done correctly, but people thought it was cool, so they spread the word.)

DISCLAIMER: The following is in no way an apologetic for obesity.

Difference Between Metabolism and Catabolism

The chamber in the tabloid article (not study) attempted to measure catabolism, not the full metabolism of each individual. Even in the tabloid article, they clearly stated that metabolic rate was estimated using body tissue analysis estimations, which are blanket and constant for all.

Individual differences in metabolism (not catabolism) do exist, they are well-documented. This in no way invalidates CICO theory. What it means is that for some people, attaining a specific weight will require either fewer calories in or more calories out than for other people. It doesn't take dramatic shifts between individuals to create a difference that's readily apparent; a mere 50 calorie a day difference could account for over 50 lbs in 10 years. Our ability to establish homeostasis with weight is also not well-understood, and its entirely conceivable some individuals find this balance much easier to maintain than others. Certainly the disruptive effects of corticosteroids and antipsychotic medications in this respect are well-established.

These variations are related to variations in enzyme function, microbiome, and other factors that we are only beginning to understand. These metabolic differences affect everything from when people experience puberty or menopause to cancer to heart disease to resistance to infectious diseases to autoimmune disease. Metabolic variations also include variations in insulin sensitivity and the production of hormones such as leptin which regulate the experience of hunger and satiety; a person who biochemically feels hungry more will almost always eat more.

Why weight is somehow "exempt" from the same controls that have variations between individuals (as in people believe metabolism doesn't influence it at all) is really quite baffling.

I had over a dozen references, but honestly I'm a little tired now (and I accidentally closed the window). So I suggest a visit to Google Scholar and the following search terms: "metabolic variation in humans obesity" "homeostasis weight gain" and "homeostasis metabolism variation weight human". Also, you may want to spend some time looking at "insulin resistance weight human". Many of the best articles are behind paywalls. If you are truly curious about them, most can be accessed through institutional subscriptions via a university library. However, merely the abstracts are illuminating in the wide variations that occur between people.

It is a lot harder to lose weight at 45 than at 25, metabolism is slower and the magic exercise and intake numbers are harder to achieve. Doesn't make it impossible but does make it harder