How can some people eat so much junk and gain no weight?
Replies
-
1
-
I'm not trying to be mean or anything but since we can all agree that metabolisms vary based on a multitude of factors, what exactly is the discussion here at this point?
... Some people fidget, some people don't. Some people workout, some people don't. Some people have higher body temperatures, other people don't. Half of these things are things we cannot change, so I would think that the ultimate take away from this should be that we should focus on ourselves, no?
...You can't sit on the couch and get upset that someone else sitting on the couch can eat more than you. You can't workout for 30 minutes or even an hour per day and get upset that someone sitting on the couch can eat more than you. All you can do is do the best you can for yourself because your own body is all you have to work with.
...I would never, ever disregard someone's opinion due to their weight. It's callous and inane. I was overweight myself, many people here were/are; why in the hell would we treat someone like that? I swear discussions like this, while thought provoking, get muddled by certain individuals who have zero grasp on reality. Nobody is perfect, but if actual discussions are to be had, let's stick to what facts we do know instead of acting like statistical outliers are actually the norm. It defeats the purpose of topics like this.
Why are there always people in the MFP Community who like to squelch conversations just because they don't like what others converse about? I think that OP wrote a very thought provoking question that has generated interest.
We know that people have varying ages, metabolisms, health, and activity levels that impact CICO. Be happy and enjoy your health, youth, and whatever else you have going for you. If anyone compliments your physique do them a favor, perhaps, and nicely tell them that you burn off lots of calories with extra workouts so that you can eat more. I am enjoying reading about this topic.
I don't see where the conversation is being squelched more realigned to where it started...
[/b]
... by people who self-appoint themselves as thread monitors. I've only been around the MFP community a month, but have noticed this. It is disheartening at times.
I haven't read the comments as trying to squelch conversation so much as pointing out that the OP focusing on how others are luckier in their metabolism (he assumes, without having the ability to know the full story) and therefore it's unfair is likely to be unhelpful. Focusing on how others have natural advantages that we don't usually tends to be something that gets in the way of success, IME. Obviously, you may disagree and I'm happy to talk about this -- not trying to squelch conversation!
When it comes to metabolism, though, I do think some people are hard gainers or otherwise have difficulty gaining weight even on the number of calories and overall intentional activity that others would gain easily on. Alan Aragon cites some studies in the Lean Muscle Diet (decent book with a terrible name) that show how some people's bodies seem to respond more to protect against losing weight (slowing metabolism more, hormonal changes), whereas others seem to do the reverse when trying to gain weight. Depending on goals, both can be bummers.
What I've always found a really negative influence is when I start thinking about how it isn't fair that someone is more naturally attractive or good at certain things or so on and so forth (something I mercifully don't do much anymore, but as a teen I did it all the time). I read OP's post as basically that, and it's especially problematic in that while the other person MIGHT be fortunate with a good metabolism (but maybe that's not fortunate, since he will have less incentive to eat a healthful diet or learn about weight management, something that might be necessary later in life), he also might just move more or eat less in some other ways, something I think we often cannot know. Most people I've considered naturally lean have turned out to work more at it than I realized or simply to be extremely active or uninterested in food when I learned more (this is as I've gotten older -- lots of young people can just eat whatever, including me back in the day).1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm not trying to be mean or anything but since we can all agree that metabolisms vary based on a multitude of factors, what exactly is the discussion here at this point?
... Some people fidget, some people don't. Some people workout, some people don't. Some people have higher body temperatures, other people don't. Half of these things are things we cannot change, so I would think that the ultimate take away from this should be that we should focus on ourselves, no?
...You can't sit on the couch and get upset that someone else sitting on the couch can eat more than you. You can't workout for 30 minutes or even an hour per day and get upset that someone sitting on the couch can eat more than you. All you can do is do the best you can for yourself because your own body is all you have to work with.
...I would never, ever disregard someone's opinion due to their weight. It's callous and inane. I was overweight myself, many people here were/are; why in the hell would we treat someone like that? I swear discussions like this, while thought provoking, get muddled by certain individuals who have zero grasp on reality. Nobody is perfect, but if actual discussions are to be had, let's stick to what facts we do know instead of acting like statistical outliers are actually the norm. It defeats the purpose of topics like this.
Why are there always people in the MFP Community who like to squelch conversations just because they don't like what others converse about? I think that OP wrote a very thought provoking question that has generated interest.
We know that people have varying ages, metabolisms, health, and activity levels that impact CICO. Be happy and enjoy your health, youth, and whatever else you have going for you. If anyone compliments your physique do them a favor, perhaps, and nicely tell them that you burn off lots of calories with extra workouts so that you can eat more. I am enjoying reading about this topic.
I don't see where the conversation is being squelched more realigned to where it started...
[/b]
... by people who self-appoint themselves as thread monitors. I've only been around the MFP community a month, but have noticed this. It is disheartening at times.
I haven't read the comments as trying to squelch conversation so much as pointing out that the OP focusing on how others are luckier in their metabolism (he assumes, without having the ability to know the full story) and therefore it's unfair is likely to be unhelpful. Focusing on how others have natural advantages that we don't usually tends to be something that gets in the way of success, IME. Obviously, you may disagree and I'm happy to talk about this -- not trying to squelch conversation!
...What I've always found a really negative influence is when I start thinking about how it isn't fair that someone is more naturally attractive or good at certain things or so on and so forth (something I mercifully don't do much anymore, but as a teen I did it all the time). I read OP's post as basically that, and it's especially problematic in that while the other person MIGHT be fortunate with a good metabolism (but maybe that's not fortunate, since he will have less incentive to eat a healthful diet or learn about weight management, something that might be necessary later in life), he also might just move more or eat less in some other ways, something I think we often cannot know. Most people I've considered naturally lean have turned out to work more at it than I realized or simply to be extremely active or uninterested in food when I learned more (this is as I've gotten older -- lots of young people can just eat whatever, including me back in the day).
The OP has the right to say how he feels and what he wonders about. I am happy with who I am even though I wish that my metabolism was a little faster. We all marvel at the diversity and abilities of athletes or artists etc. That doesn't mean that we are self loathing.3 -
1
-
RollTideTri wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »Yes all calories are burned by some kind of heat generation, but you don't believe people can burn variable amounts of calories given identical activity levels? People can't just have bodies that burn more calories than average? There are lots of processes that burn calories in the body that don't involve movement. Some people will burn more calories than you while sitting perfectly still or sleeping, some less.
Yes, that can happen, but only by generating excess heat. The energy must go somewhere. Movement and heat are the only net energy outputs the human body is capable of (and sound, but that's pretty negligible in our case compared to, say, a car) . All body processes which don't result in movement generate heat.
Obviously there is only so much hotter a body can run, unless you're talking about the human torch, so if the discrepancy is large, fidgeting and spontaneous activity probably account for most of it and extra heat only for a small proportion. But you can see the effect in the fact that a fair few "naturally skinny" people don't feel the cold and wear t-shirts in chilly weather.
I'm an engineer. This is very much my area of expertise. Energy in equals energy out in ANY system. It is not a matter of opinion, and in the human body there is limited variation in energy out unless there's big difference in activity level. Imo, those rare cases where someone genuinely eats hugely with little activity and fails to gain weight are more likely a digestive problem reducing the amount of energy going in.
Obviously energy in = energy out. Nobody is saying calories magically vanish somewhere. But people can and do have variations in their Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) that are independent of activity level. It's affected by many things like age, genetics, glandular activity, etc. That is also not a matter of opinion.
All these teenagers who eat huge amounts of food without gaining weight aren't all super active or have digestive problems, be realistic. Yes CICO is a real thing, but sometimes people see it as more black and white than it really is.
Teenagers are still growing. Growth rates differ, but even those that are growing slowly at a particular point in time have increased intake requirements without even considering that teens are generally more active than adults. Many people continue growing into their 20's (I grew another inch or so in my early 20's), so their intake requirements would be increased as well.
CICO is about as black and white as it gets. The estimates for CI and CO not so much. Getting a 'good enough' estimate for CO, in particular, can be pretty far off of general estimates for some. CI is usually easier to pin down, but if you've got major digestive/absorption issues it can be as big a problem as CO, though at least you can establish an upper limit.2 -
I hope OP asks his friend and lets us know.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm not trying to be mean or anything but since we can all agree that metabolisms vary based on a multitude of factors, what exactly is the discussion here at this point?
... Some people fidget, some people don't. Some people workout, some people don't. Some people have higher body temperatures, other people don't. Half of these things are things we cannot change, so I would think that the ultimate take away from this should be that we should focus on ourselves, no?
...You can't sit on the couch and get upset that someone else sitting on the couch can eat more than you. You can't workout for 30 minutes or even an hour per day and get upset that someone sitting on the couch can eat more than you. All you can do is do the best you can for yourself because your own body is all you have to work with.
...I would never, ever disregard someone's opinion due to their weight. It's callous and inane. I was overweight myself, many people here were/are; why in the hell would we treat someone like that? I swear discussions like this, while thought provoking, get muddled by certain individuals who have zero grasp on reality. Nobody is perfect, but if actual discussions are to be had, let's stick to what facts we do know instead of acting like statistical outliers are actually the norm. It defeats the purpose of topics like this.
Why are there always people in the MFP Community who like to squelch conversations just because they don't like what others converse about? I think that OP wrote a very thought provoking question that has generated interest.
We know that people have varying ages, metabolisms, health, and activity levels that impact CICO. Be happy and enjoy your health, youth, and whatever else you have going for you. If anyone compliments your physique do them a favor, perhaps, and nicely tell them that you burn off lots of calories with extra workouts so that you can eat more. I am enjoying reading about this topic.
I don't see where the conversation is being squelched more realigned to where it started...
[/b]
... by people who self-appoint themselves as thread monitors. I've only been around the MFP community a month, but have noticed this. It is disheartening at times.
I haven't read the comments as trying to squelch conversation so much as pointing out that the OP focusing on how others are luckier in their metabolism (he assumes, without having the ability to know the full story) and therefore it's unfair is likely to be unhelpful. Focusing on how others have natural advantages that we don't usually tends to be something that gets in the way of success, IME. Obviously, you may disagree and I'm happy to talk about this -- not trying to squelch conversation!
...What I've always found a really negative influence is when I start thinking about how it isn't fair that someone is more naturally attractive or good at certain things or so on and so forth (something I mercifully don't do much anymore, but as a teen I did it all the time). I read OP's post as basically that, and it's especially problematic in that while the other person MIGHT be fortunate with a good metabolism (but maybe that's not fortunate, since he will have less incentive to eat a healthful diet or learn about weight management, something that might be necessary later in life), he also might just move more or eat less in some other ways, something I think we often cannot know. Most people I've considered naturally lean have turned out to work more at it than I realized or simply to be extremely active or uninterested in food when I learned more (this is as I've gotten older -- lots of young people can just eat whatever, including me back in the day).
The OP has the right to say how he feels and what he wonders about.
Sure. I am curious why you say that in response to my post, however, as I rather obviously did not say he did not. I do see warning signs that he is focusing too much on how others supposedly are luckier and that that's not fair, which I think is unhelpful and likely to hurt him and his likelihood of success and cause resentment, a really unpleasant emotion that can sabotage people. Maybe I and others who read the post that way are wrong, but adding our thoughts and allowing for response is part of having a conversation, is it not?I am happy with who I am even though I wish that my metabolism was a little faster. We all marvel at the diversity and abilities of athletes or artists etc. That doesn't mean that we are self loathing.
I agree with this and feel the same way. Being jealous of the Williams sisters for being better athletes than we are or obsessing about how I will never be able to come close to the performance of, say, Chrissie Wellington at triathlon would not be helpful, and similarly thinking "it's not fair I have to watch my weight when other people don't have to and eat more than me" seems unhelpful. I don't think what you have said suggests that you are doing this, but I did (again) see that in OP's comments and it's extremely common and, IMO, self-defeating. We are all who we are and have to work with that, and while someone else (maybe) may have it easier with weight issues or athletic things, I have my own advantages too. Life is like that.2 -
I'm going to take a break from writing on MFP (community) for a little while. This is tiring.9
-
Hyperthyroidism, maybe.2
-
Sometimes I think people never want hear the word "no" or anything negative, they want everything to be rainbows, unicorns and patted on back and be told you can do whatever you want. Sorry folks we don't live in fantasy land. In life there are negatives things and you will hear the word no, sorry that's way life is.8
-
1
-
dave_in_ni wrote: »How exactly does this work? I have lost quite a lot of weight in this past 6 months, over 3 stone. But even when at my fattest I never ate as much as 1 little skinny guy I work with.
I am eating 1500 cals per day at the moment, this is one meal I count over 1000 cals roughly in 1 meal. For lunch he a burger and several bars of chocolate, chips/crips washed down with a bottle of coke, and this is every day. I'm sure the guy easily eats double what I do. French fries and burgers are a daily thing for him. Even at my fattest I never ate anywhere near that amount.
How exactly can he do this? He's not active at all, never does any exercise either.
Depends on a lot of things: his age, his metabolism, how much he eats overall in an entire day, etc.
Best thing you can do is not compare yourself to others. Your body isn't the same as theirs and each body has something different going on inside it.0 -
Re the question about gut bacteria, what was the question? They're important to digestion, so I guess if they're messed up it could give you problems absorbing energy and so make you lose weight.
Re lipogenesis and anabolic reactions, these are about building tissue, so the energy is stored in the tissue and has not left the system. When it does leave, it will be in the form of either heat or motion (or a mix of heat and chemical energy after you die).
The books always balance. Always.0 -
OP, I really don't think your coworker is eating all of that food. He may be eating half and then pitching the rest or grazing throughout the day or doing intermittent fasting without trying to/knowing he is. Whatever he's doing is making him maintain his weight, so he's eating enough food to not lose or gain.0
-
When I was in college I thought I had a fast metabolism. I spent an entire semester eating virtually nothing but pizza and drinking Dr. Pepper and I did no deliberate exercise. It wasn't until a few years ago that I actually ran the numbers.
Two slices of pepperoni pizza ~ 600 calories
Dr. Pepper - 20 ounce with lots of ice ~150 calories
Eaten twice a day it's still just 1500 calories. I also drank beer almost every night. Ah-ha! Oh, wait. I was such a lightweight that I couldn't have more than 2-3 light beers without getting sick. So, that's another 220-330 calories. We're still only at 1830 for the day. And I walked all over campus. And I lived on the fourth floor of a dorm with no elevator. And we went dancing every weekend. So, sure, I was eating pizza, drinking soda and beer, and getting very little (deliberate) exercise. But I still wasn't consuming more than I burned.11 -
Yeah.....not buying this.violajunerose wrote: »I experimented with not eating at all, and ate zero calories a day for two weeks. Nothing.
So, you drank only water in that time, huh?
Mhhm.
This:violajunerose wrote: »I can go on any restrictive diet I want, and so far, I haven't lost an ounce on most of them. I experimented with not eating at all, and ate zero calories a day for two weeks. Nothing. I've adjusted my calories from 2000 to 1500 to 800 and never lost one pound. I've eaten paleo and atkins and everything else on the planet, and zip. I feel your pain.
None of this happened, especially the part in bold. There is no possible way on this planet- I don't care what medical conditions you have or what medications you may be taking or whatever- that any human being can go two weeks without any food whatsoever and not lose one single pound.
There are definitely variations in basal energy expenditure for everyone. Your height, weight, gender, and age are all factors to varying degrees- that's why they're variables in equations to estimate BEE, and that's ignoring movement and activity throughout the day. Barring serious medical conditions, no- other people are not magically eating insane amounts above their maintenance levels and not gaining a pound. Calories needed for weight LOSS are going to be much lower than people eating at maintenance- so yes, there may be a huge gap between the amount of calories one is able to eat to lose weight and what another can eat to maintain depending on what two people you're comparing. That's why it's not good to compare yourself to what others eat.
I know a lot of people who say they used to be able to eat whatever they wanted and not gain weight- I'm willing to bet not much changed about their metabolism (maybe a little bit with age) but with a variety of other factors- activity level for one. Also, they may have been more easily full or satisfied with smaller portions of food but they recall feeling like that was much more than it was. I know I went out to a couple of restaurants this weekend and ate until I was uncomfortably full- I felt like I must have consumed 3,000 calories. Then I realized I only ate like 1/3-1/2 of my meal, and the calories added up to be much less than they felt. I have been so used to restricting my calories that much less food feels like a lot more to me now. In the past I would have cleared my plate and felt comfortable. The stomach can be deceiving.
I think there's a lot of reasonable explanations for why one person can eat (or appear to eat) much more than another, many of which have been discussed in this thread. I do, however, caution anyone to not be too hung up on the idea of "there's DEFINITELY people who NEVER move and eat SO MUCH and it's not fair". In a way, it's another excuse or way of thinking that can only hurt your weight loss efforts. I've been there- I'm still there- I'm still obese but losing steadily- and I know all of the excuses and harmful things we tell ourselves to explain away why we are at a disadvantage in the weight game of life does nothing to help us.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »
When I was in college - Almost 6' 1", 145 lbs., no exercise other than walking to class, ate like a horse, and could not put on a pound. I even bought a product called "Weight On." It didn't work.
When I hit my late 20's, I ate less, but started gaining weight.
There is only one answer - metabolism. With a super-fast metabolism, calories out seems to have no limit. At least that's how it worked for me.
Still CICO, dude.
You were a college student... possibly still more active and fidgety than you were in your late 20s.
And you still cannot explain how I managed to gain on a clean vegetarian diet or lose weight eating foods you claim obesity.
Hahahahaha! You're making me laugh.
0 -
Mouse_Potato wrote: »When I was in college I thought I had a fast metabolism. I spent an entire semester eating virtually nothing but pizza and drinking Dr. Pepper and I did no deliberate exercise. It wasn't until a few years ago that I actually ran the numbers.
Two slices of pepperoni pizza ~ 600 calories
Dr. Pepper - 20 ounce with lots of ice ~150 calories
Eaten twice a day it's still just 1500 calories. I also drank beer almost every night. Ah-ha! Oh, wait. I was such a lightweight that I couldn't have more than 2-3 light beers without getting sick. So, that's another 220-330 calories. We're still only at 1830 for the day. And I walked all over campus. And I lived on the fourth floor of a dorm with no elevator. And we went dancing every weekend. So, sure, I was eating pizza, drinking soda and beer, and getting very little (deliberate) exercise. But I still wasn't consuming more than I burned.
Thank you for this. The human memory is so provably unreliable. All these claims "I could eat what I wanted and it was so much because fast metabolism" can be attributed to things just like your post. Many of us kept increasing our portions and slowed our activity. When I was a teen I danced four to six hours per day. As soon as I was injured I kept eating like an athlete, and the weight gain was fast and epic with no activity. Not everyone had something change so suddenly so that it was noticeable.
On human memory: http://www.healthline.com/health-news/mental-memory-is-unreliable-and-it-could-be-worse-091313#24 -
TMI: When I was 11, I had an undiagnosed parasite. I vomited and had diahrea every day for a month. Instead of testing me, people made assumptions that i was developing an ED and sent me to counselors. I got marginally better after a month, but still was losing weight. Turns out I had giardia. But I tell you, for that 4 months until I got treatment I sure could eat whatever I wanted and didn't gain weight.2
-
RollTideTri wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »Yes all calories are burned by some kind of heat generation, but you don't believe people can burn variable amounts of calories given identical activity levels? People can't just have bodies that burn more calories than average? There are lots of processes that burn calories in the body that don't involve movement. Some people will burn more calories than you while sitting perfectly still or sleeping, some less.
Yes, that can happen, but only by generating excess heat. The energy must go somewhere. Movement and heat are the only net energy outputs the human body is capable of (and sound, but that's pretty negligible in our case compared to, say, a car) . All body processes which don't result in movement generate heat.
Obviously there is only so much hotter a body can run, unless you're talking about the human torch, so if the discrepancy is large, fidgeting and spontaneous activity probably account for most of it and extra heat only for a small proportion. But you can see the effect in the fact that a fair few "naturally skinny" people don't feel the cold and wear t-shirts in chilly weather.
I'm an engineer. This is very much my area of expertise. Energy in equals energy out in ANY system. It is not a matter of opinion, and in the human body there is limited variation in energy out unless there's big difference in activity level. Imo, those rare cases where someone genuinely eats hugely with little activity and fails to gain weight are more likely a digestive problem reducing the amount of energy going in.
Obviously energy in = energy out. Nobody is saying calories magically vanish somewhere. But people can and do have variations in their Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) that are independent of activity level. It's affected by many things like age, genetics, glandular activity, etc. That is also not a matter of opinion.
All these teenagers who eat huge amounts of food without gaining weight aren't all super active or have digestive problems, be realistic. Yes CICO is a real thing, but sometimes people see it as more black and white than it really is.
Teenagers are still growing. Growth rates differ, but even those that are growing slowly at a particular point in time have increased intake requirements without even considering that teens are generally more active than adults. Many people continue growing into their 20's (I grew another inch or so in my early 20's), so their intake requirements would be increased as well.
CICO is about as black and white as it gets. The estimates for CI and CO not so much. Getting a 'good enough' estimate for CO, in particular, can be pretty far off of general estimates for some. CI is usually easier to pin down, but if you've got major digestive/absorption issues it can be as big a problem as CO, though at least you can establish an upper limit.
Some teenagers are still growing, sure. I should have said "young people". And plenty of non-young people as well have above average BMRs. My son is 20. He hasn't grown since he was 17, and I assure you he's not more active than me. I train for triathlons and burn 600-1000 calories per day in exercise. Yet he eats much more food than me and has not one ounce of fat on him. Unless he has a tapeworm his body simply burns more calories than mine during his every day, non active functions.
Have people just abandoned the notion that Basal Metabolic Rates can differ between different humans? Are there studies disproving this commonly known aspect of human function that I'm not aware of?0 -
Wait, when did people say that individuals of vastly different ages have the same metabolism?2
-
Do I need to post the same link the third time? There's differences but they're tiny in the vast majority of people. The chance someone randomly has a hugely higher or lower metabolism than you, especially if it's a direct relative of you, are vanishingly small.4
-
RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »Yes all calories are burned by some kind of heat generation, but you don't believe people can burn variable amounts of calories given identical activity levels? People can't just have bodies that burn more calories than average? There are lots of processes that burn calories in the body that don't involve movement. Some people will burn more calories than you while sitting perfectly still or sleeping, some less.
Yes, that can happen, but only by generating excess heat. The energy must go somewhere. Movement and heat are the only net energy outputs the human body is capable of (and sound, but that's pretty negligible in our case compared to, say, a car) . All body processes which don't result in movement generate heat.
Obviously there is only so much hotter a body can run, unless you're talking about the human torch, so if the discrepancy is large, fidgeting and spontaneous activity probably account for most of it and extra heat only for a small proportion. But you can see the effect in the fact that a fair few "naturally skinny" people don't feel the cold and wear t-shirts in chilly weather.
I'm an engineer. This is very much my area of expertise. Energy in equals energy out in ANY system. It is not a matter of opinion, and in the human body there is limited variation in energy out unless there's big difference in activity level. Imo, those rare cases where someone genuinely eats hugely with little activity and fails to gain weight are more likely a digestive problem reducing the amount of energy going in.
Obviously energy in = energy out. Nobody is saying calories magically vanish somewhere. But people can and do have variations in their Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) that are independent of activity level. It's affected by many things like age, genetics, glandular activity, etc. That is also not a matter of opinion.
All these teenagers who eat huge amounts of food without gaining weight aren't all super active or have digestive problems, be realistic. Yes CICO is a real thing, but sometimes people see it as more black and white than it really is.
Teenagers are still growing. Growth rates differ, but even those that are growing slowly at a particular point in time have increased intake requirements without even considering that teens are generally more active than adults. Many people continue growing into their 20's (I grew another inch or so in my early 20's), so their intake requirements would be increased as well.
CICO is about as black and white as it gets. The estimates for CI and CO not so much. Getting a 'good enough' estimate for CO, in particular, can be pretty far off of general estimates for some. CI is usually easier to pin down, but if you've got major digestive/absorption issues it can be as big a problem as CO, though at least you can establish an upper limit.
Some teenagers are still growing, sure. I should have said "young people". And plenty of non-young people as well have above average BMRs. My son is 20. He hasn't grown since he was 17, and I assure you he's not more active than me. I train for triathlons and burn 600-1000 calories per day in exercise. Yet he eats much more food than me and has not one ounce of fat on him. Unless he has a tapeworm his body simply burns more calories than mine during his every day, non active functions.
Have people just abandoned the notion that Basal Metabolic Rates can differ between different humans? Are there studies disproving this commonly known aspect of human function that I'm not aware of?
Of course they differ. Not by a tremendous amount given individuals of the same age, weight, height, and body composition, but that is why BMR calculations are estimates and not absolutes.
This was mentioned several times up thread.3 -
RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »Yes all calories are burned by some kind of heat generation, but you don't believe people can burn variable amounts of calories given identical activity levels? People can't just have bodies that burn more calories than average? There are lots of processes that burn calories in the body that don't involve movement. Some people will burn more calories than you while sitting perfectly still or sleeping, some less.
Yes, that can happen, but only by generating excess heat. The energy must go somewhere. Movement and heat are the only net energy outputs the human body is capable of (and sound, but that's pretty negligible in our case compared to, say, a car) . All body processes which don't result in movement generate heat.
Obviously there is only so much hotter a body can run, unless you're talking about the human torch, so if the discrepancy is large, fidgeting and spontaneous activity probably account for most of it and extra heat only for a small proportion. But you can see the effect in the fact that a fair few "naturally skinny" people don't feel the cold and wear t-shirts in chilly weather.
I'm an engineer. This is very much my area of expertise. Energy in equals energy out in ANY system. It is not a matter of opinion, and in the human body there is limited variation in energy out unless there's big difference in activity level. Imo, those rare cases where someone genuinely eats hugely with little activity and fails to gain weight are more likely a digestive problem reducing the amount of energy going in.
Obviously energy in = energy out. Nobody is saying calories magically vanish somewhere. But people can and do have variations in their Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) that are independent of activity level. It's affected by many things like age, genetics, glandular activity, etc. That is also not a matter of opinion.
All these teenagers who eat huge amounts of food without gaining weight aren't all super active or have digestive problems, be realistic. Yes CICO is a real thing, but sometimes people see it as more black and white than it really is.
Teenagers are still growing. Growth rates differ, but even those that are growing slowly at a particular point in time have increased intake requirements without even considering that teens are generally more active than adults. Many people continue growing into their 20's (I grew another inch or so in my early 20's), so their intake requirements would be increased as well.
CICO is about as black and white as it gets. The estimates for CI and CO not so much. Getting a 'good enough' estimate for CO, in particular, can be pretty far off of general estimates for some. CI is usually easier to pin down, but if you've got major digestive/absorption issues it can be as big a problem as CO, though at least you can establish an upper limit.
Some teenagers are still growing, sure. I should have said "young people". And plenty of non-young people as well have above average BMRs. My son is 20. He hasn't grown since he was 17, and I assure you he's not more active than me. I train for triathlons and burn 600-1000 calories per day in exercise. Yet he eats much more food than me and has not one ounce of fat on him. Unless he has a tapeworm his body simply burns more calories than mine during his every day, non active functions.
Have people just abandoned the notion that Basal Metabolic Rates can differ between different humans? Are there studies disproving this commonly known aspect of human function that I'm not aware of?
Of course they differ. Not by a tremendous amount given individuals of the same age, weight, height, and body composition, but that is why BMR calculations are estimates and not absolutes.
This was mentioned several times up thread.
Right but also several times up thread people seem to be under the impression that if someone eats more than me and doesn't gain weight, they must simply somehow be more active than me, or not be eating as much as I think they are. As if there aren't any variations based on age, body composition, etc.
"This guy at work eats way more than me yet doesn't gain weight" is the premise of the thread, and many seem to want to assume he really doesn't eat that much, or he's secretly super active, or some other explanation other than a faster than average metabolism.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Do I need to post the same link the third time? There's differences but they're tiny in the vast majority of people. The chance someone randomly has a hugely higher or lower metabolism than you, especially if it's a direct relative of you, are vanishingly small.
My son should weigh much more than me then, since he and I have basically the same metabolism and he eats MUCH more than me and is less active. He must be magic.0 -
WOW well this thread has become popular. It was more a vent than anything. I'm sure we all know that one person who eats nothing but crap and is scrawny. As I said previously I can't be sure exactly what he eats at home but he does send my pictures of his takeaways very regularly and of course I watch him eat at work. On the menu today a full packet of pork sausages in 1 sitting. Thats 8 sausages, approx 200 cals each, accompanied by crisps/chips and a cup cake.
Interestingly I asked him about this today, how come you can eat so much crap and not get fat, he told me he only got fat once and that was when he tried to get into weight lifting, he took protein powder and blew up like a balloon however that happened, stopped the powder and lifting and dropped back down.1 -
RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »Yes all calories are burned by some kind of heat generation, but you don't believe people can burn variable amounts of calories given identical activity levels? People can't just have bodies that burn more calories than average? There are lots of processes that burn calories in the body that don't involve movement. Some people will burn more calories than you while sitting perfectly still or sleeping, some less.
Yes, that can happen, but only by generating excess heat. The energy must go somewhere. Movement and heat are the only net energy outputs the human body is capable of (and sound, but that's pretty negligible in our case compared to, say, a car) . All body processes which don't result in movement generate heat.
Obviously there is only so much hotter a body can run, unless you're talking about the human torch, so if the discrepancy is large, fidgeting and spontaneous activity probably account for most of it and extra heat only for a small proportion. But you can see the effect in the fact that a fair few "naturally skinny" people don't feel the cold and wear t-shirts in chilly weather.
I'm an engineer. This is very much my area of expertise. Energy in equals energy out in ANY system. It is not a matter of opinion, and in the human body there is limited variation in energy out unless there's big difference in activity level. Imo, those rare cases where someone genuinely eats hugely with little activity and fails to gain weight are more likely a digestive problem reducing the amount of energy going in.
Obviously energy in = energy out. Nobody is saying calories magically vanish somewhere. But people can and do have variations in their Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) that are independent of activity level. It's affected by many things like age, genetics, glandular activity, etc. That is also not a matter of opinion.
All these teenagers who eat huge amounts of food without gaining weight aren't all super active or have digestive problems, be realistic. Yes CICO is a real thing, but sometimes people see it as more black and white than it really is.
Teenagers are still growing. Growth rates differ, but even those that are growing slowly at a particular point in time have increased intake requirements without even considering that teens are generally more active than adults. Many people continue growing into their 20's (I grew another inch or so in my early 20's), so their intake requirements would be increased as well.
CICO is about as black and white as it gets. The estimates for CI and CO not so much. Getting a 'good enough' estimate for CO, in particular, can be pretty far off of general estimates for some. CI is usually easier to pin down, but if you've got major digestive/absorption issues it can be as big a problem as CO, though at least you can establish an upper limit.
Some teenagers are still growing, sure. I should have said "young people". And plenty of non-young people as well have above average BMRs. My son is 20. He hasn't grown since he was 17, and I assure you he's not more active than me. I train for triathlons and burn 600-1000 calories per day in exercise. Yet he eats much more food than me and has not one ounce of fat on him. Unless he has a tapeworm his body simply burns more calories than mine during his every day, non active functions.
Have people just abandoned the notion that Basal Metabolic Rates can differ between different humans? Are there studies disproving this commonly known aspect of human function that I'm not aware of?
Of course they differ. Not by a tremendous amount given individuals of the same age, weight, height, and body composition, but that is why BMR calculations are estimates and not absolutes.
This was mentioned several times up thread.
Right but also several times up thread people seem to be under the impression that if someone eats more than me and doesn't gain weight, they must simply somehow be more active than me, or not be eating as much as I think they are. As if there aren't any variations based on age, body composition, etc.
"This guy at work eats way more than me yet doesn't gain weight" is the premise of the thread, and many seem to want to assume he really doesn't eat that much, or he's secretly super active, or some other explanation other than a faster than average metabolism.
The bolded is the real issue. It's highly unlikely that the other person is eating "way" more than OP. A little more? Maybe. But not "way" more.2 -
RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »Yes all calories are burned by some kind of heat generation, but you don't believe people can burn variable amounts of calories given identical activity levels? People can't just have bodies that burn more calories than average? There are lots of processes that burn calories in the body that don't involve movement. Some people will burn more calories than you while sitting perfectly still or sleeping, some less.
Yes, that can happen, but only by generating excess heat. The energy must go somewhere. Movement and heat are the only net energy outputs the human body is capable of (and sound, but that's pretty negligible in our case compared to, say, a car) . All body processes which don't result in movement generate heat.
Obviously there is only so much hotter a body can run, unless you're talking about the human torch, so if the discrepancy is large, fidgeting and spontaneous activity probably account for most of it and extra heat only for a small proportion. But you can see the effect in the fact that a fair few "naturally skinny" people don't feel the cold and wear t-shirts in chilly weather.
I'm an engineer. This is very much my area of expertise. Energy in equals energy out in ANY system. It is not a matter of opinion, and in the human body there is limited variation in energy out unless there's big difference in activity level. Imo, those rare cases where someone genuinely eats hugely with little activity and fails to gain weight are more likely a digestive problem reducing the amount of energy going in.
Obviously energy in = energy out. Nobody is saying calories magically vanish somewhere. But people can and do have variations in their Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) that are independent of activity level. It's affected by many things like age, genetics, glandular activity, etc. That is also not a matter of opinion.
All these teenagers who eat huge amounts of food without gaining weight aren't all super active or have digestive problems, be realistic. Yes CICO is a real thing, but sometimes people see it as more black and white than it really is.
Teenagers are still growing. Growth rates differ, but even those that are growing slowly at a particular point in time have increased intake requirements without even considering that teens are generally more active than adults. Many people continue growing into their 20's (I grew another inch or so in my early 20's), so their intake requirements would be increased as well.
CICO is about as black and white as it gets. The estimates for CI and CO not so much. Getting a 'good enough' estimate for CO, in particular, can be pretty far off of general estimates for some. CI is usually easier to pin down, but if you've got major digestive/absorption issues it can be as big a problem as CO, though at least you can establish an upper limit.
Some teenagers are still growing, sure. I should have said "young people". And plenty of non-young people as well have above average BMRs. My son is 20. He hasn't grown since he was 17, and I assure you he's not more active than me. I train for triathlons and burn 600-1000 calories per day in exercise. Yet he eats much more food than me and has not one ounce of fat on him. Unless he has a tapeworm his body simply burns more calories than mine during his every day, non active functions.
Have people just abandoned the notion that Basal Metabolic Rates can differ between different humans? Are there studies disproving this commonly known aspect of human function that I'm not aware of?
Of course they differ. Not by a tremendous amount given individuals of the same age, weight, height, and body composition, but that is why BMR calculations are estimates and not absolutes.
This was mentioned several times up thread.
Right but also several times up thread people seem to be under the impression that if someone eats more than me and doesn't gain weight, they must simply somehow be more active than me, or not be eating as much as I think they are. As if there aren't any variations based on age, body composition, etc.
"This guy at work eats way more than me yet doesn't gain weight" is the premise of the thread, and many seem to want to assume he really doesn't eat that much, or he's secretly super active, or some other explanation other than a faster than average metabolism.
The bolded is the real issue. It's highly unlikely that the other person is eating "way" more than OP. A little more? Maybe. But not "way" more.
Really? Why do you find that unlikely?0 -
Did you not look at the info in the link @stevencloser has posted? That's why.0
-
RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »Yes all calories are burned by some kind of heat generation, but you don't believe people can burn variable amounts of calories given identical activity levels? People can't just have bodies that burn more calories than average? There are lots of processes that burn calories in the body that don't involve movement. Some people will burn more calories than you while sitting perfectly still or sleeping, some less.
Yes, that can happen, but only by generating excess heat. The energy must go somewhere. Movement and heat are the only net energy outputs the human body is capable of (and sound, but that's pretty negligible in our case compared to, say, a car) . All body processes which don't result in movement generate heat.
Obviously there is only so much hotter a body can run, unless you're talking about the human torch, so if the discrepancy is large, fidgeting and spontaneous activity probably account for most of it and extra heat only for a small proportion. But you can see the effect in the fact that a fair few "naturally skinny" people don't feel the cold and wear t-shirts in chilly weather.
I'm an engineer. This is very much my area of expertise. Energy in equals energy out in ANY system. It is not a matter of opinion, and in the human body there is limited variation in energy out unless there's big difference in activity level. Imo, those rare cases where someone genuinely eats hugely with little activity and fails to gain weight are more likely a digestive problem reducing the amount of energy going in.
Obviously energy in = energy out. Nobody is saying calories magically vanish somewhere. But people can and do have variations in their Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) that are independent of activity level. It's affected by many things like age, genetics, glandular activity, etc. That is also not a matter of opinion.
All these teenagers who eat huge amounts of food without gaining weight aren't all super active or have digestive problems, be realistic. Yes CICO is a real thing, but sometimes people see it as more black and white than it really is.
Teenagers are still growing. Growth rates differ, but even those that are growing slowly at a particular point in time have increased intake requirements without even considering that teens are generally more active than adults. Many people continue growing into their 20's (I grew another inch or so in my early 20's), so their intake requirements would be increased as well.
CICO is about as black and white as it gets. The estimates for CI and CO not so much. Getting a 'good enough' estimate for CO, in particular, can be pretty far off of general estimates for some. CI is usually easier to pin down, but if you've got major digestive/absorption issues it can be as big a problem as CO, though at least you can establish an upper limit.
Some teenagers are still growing, sure. I should have said "young people". And plenty of non-young people as well have above average BMRs. My son is 20. He hasn't grown since he was 17, and I assure you he's not more active than me. I train for triathlons and burn 600-1000 calories per day in exercise. Yet he eats much more food than me and has not one ounce of fat on him. Unless he has a tapeworm his body simply burns more calories than mine during his every day, non active functions.
Have people just abandoned the notion that Basal Metabolic Rates can differ between different humans? Are there studies disproving this commonly known aspect of human function that I'm not aware of?
Of course they differ. Not by a tremendous amount given individuals of the same age, weight, height, and body composition, but that is why BMR calculations are estimates and not absolutes.
This was mentioned several times up thread.
Right but also several times up thread people seem to be under the impression that if someone eats more than me and doesn't gain weight, they must simply somehow be more active than me, or not be eating as much as I think they are. As if there aren't any variations based on age, body composition, etc.
"This guy at work eats way more than me yet doesn't gain weight" is the premise of the thread, and many seem to want to assume he really doesn't eat that much, or he's secretly super active, or some other explanation other than a faster than average metabolism.
Because all a faster than average metabolism would gain 'little skinny' guy is a couple of hundred calories per day. Not anywhere near enough to account for the difference OP believes exists.
People probably presume that 'little skinny' guy is not significantly taller than OP, or he'd be described differently. For the same reason, people probably assume he's not particularly muscular. Age is a question, but it's also a small effect if OP and the guy are mature adults and not elderly.2 -
RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »Yes all calories are burned by some kind of heat generation, but you don't believe people can burn variable amounts of calories given identical activity levels? People can't just have bodies that burn more calories than average? There are lots of processes that burn calories in the body that don't involve movement. Some people will burn more calories than you while sitting perfectly still or sleeping, some less.
Yes, that can happen, but only by generating excess heat. The energy must go somewhere. Movement and heat are the only net energy outputs the human body is capable of (and sound, but that's pretty negligible in our case compared to, say, a car) . All body processes which don't result in movement generate heat.
Obviously there is only so much hotter a body can run, unless you're talking about the human torch, so if the discrepancy is large, fidgeting and spontaneous activity probably account for most of it and extra heat only for a small proportion. But you can see the effect in the fact that a fair few "naturally skinny" people don't feel the cold and wear t-shirts in chilly weather.
I'm an engineer. This is very much my area of expertise. Energy in equals energy out in ANY system. It is not a matter of opinion, and in the human body there is limited variation in energy out unless there's big difference in activity level. Imo, those rare cases where someone genuinely eats hugely with little activity and fails to gain weight are more likely a digestive problem reducing the amount of energy going in.
Obviously energy in = energy out. Nobody is saying calories magically vanish somewhere. But people can and do have variations in their Basal Metabolism Rate (BMR) that are independent of activity level. It's affected by many things like age, genetics, glandular activity, etc. That is also not a matter of opinion.
All these teenagers who eat huge amounts of food without gaining weight aren't all super active or have digestive problems, be realistic. Yes CICO is a real thing, but sometimes people see it as more black and white than it really is.
Teenagers are still growing. Growth rates differ, but even those that are growing slowly at a particular point in time have increased intake requirements without even considering that teens are generally more active than adults. Many people continue growing into their 20's (I grew another inch or so in my early 20's), so their intake requirements would be increased as well.
CICO is about as black and white as it gets. The estimates for CI and CO not so much. Getting a 'good enough' estimate for CO, in particular, can be pretty far off of general estimates for some. CI is usually easier to pin down, but if you've got major digestive/absorption issues it can be as big a problem as CO, though at least you can establish an upper limit.
Some teenagers are still growing, sure. I should have said "young people". And plenty of non-young people as well have above average BMRs. My son is 20. He hasn't grown since he was 17, and I assure you he's not more active than me. I train for triathlons and burn 600-1000 calories per day in exercise. Yet he eats much more food than me and has not one ounce of fat on him. Unless he has a tapeworm his body simply burns more calories than mine during his every day, non active functions.
Have people just abandoned the notion that Basal Metabolic Rates can differ between different humans? Are there studies disproving this commonly known aspect of human function that I'm not aware of?
Of course they differ. Not by a tremendous amount given individuals of the same age, weight, height, and body composition, but that is why BMR calculations are estimates and not absolutes.
This was mentioned several times up thread.
Right but also several times up thread people seem to be under the impression that if someone eats more than me and doesn't gain weight, they must simply somehow be more active than me, or not be eating as much as I think they are. As if there aren't any variations based on age, body composition, etc.
"This guy at work eats way more than me yet doesn't gain weight" is the premise of the thread, and many seem to want to assume he really doesn't eat that much, or he's secretly super active, or some other explanation other than a faster than average metabolism.
Because all a faster than average metabolism would gain 'little skinny' guy is a couple of hundred calories per day. Not anywhere near enough to account for the difference OP believes exists.
People probably presume that 'little skinny' guy is not significantly taller than OP, or he'd be described differently. For the same reason, people probably assume he's not particularly muscular. Age is a question, but it's also a small effect if OP and the guy are mature adults and not elderly.
So super skinny guy is pounding these huge meals at work and fast food take out on the way home, but somehow staying within the average maintenance intake of 2000-2300 or whatever. Either that or he's secretly super active. Is that what you're telling me?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions