How can some people eat so much junk and gain no weight?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
RollTideTri wrote: »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?
Or not having breakfast/dinner, or only eating like that once in a while, or...1 -
Without knowing the heights, weights, body fat percentages, etc of both OP and his friend, how could we possibly account for any type of difference?
The fact that the friend sends pictures of his takeaway seems to mean he doesn't eat it often. It would be weird if every day or two he's sending meal pics to a coworker. And even if it were often, how do we know he eats it all at one sitting?
There's just not enough information here to figure out the truth.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »RollTideTri wrote: »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?
Or not having breakfast/dinner, or only eating like that once in a while, or...
or OP is eating more than he thinks and/or isn't as active as he thinks...2 -
Some people are "OUTLIERS" and we are talking millions of ppl population wise ( US/high population western nations/UK)........ whom this could be true of....easily millions who will not gain weight exactly according to CICO.1
-
Some people are "OUTLIERS" and we are talking millions of ppl population wise ( US/high population western nations/UK)........ whom this could be true of....easily millions who will not gain weight exactly according to CICO.
You mean exactly according to an estimated calculation based off an equation derived from data from a portion of the population included in a study?
Yeah, the estimation is an estimation. Go figure.1 -
Some people are "OUTLIERS" and we are talking millions of ppl population wise ( US/high population western nations/UK)........ whom this could be true of....easily millions who will not gain weight exactly according to CICO.
According to someone else's CICO, no, but according to their own, yes.
You make the point that each person is unique, but fail to understand that CICO is also unique for each individual.
Being an outlier would only mean that those nifty sites that calculate TDEE and such aren't going to apply to you, not that CICO doesn't apply.0 -
Some people just burn calories at a much higher rate when at rest. It has to do with genetics.1
-
Part of my fatlogic was projection. I would project my eating habits on to others. I thought the way I ate, everyone ate. If I saw someone eating two Big Macs and a large fry and a shake, it wouldn't even occur to me that that may have been their only meal. I automatically assumed that they were eating the same kind of breakfast and lunch I did and somehow were eating that 1500+ cal meal on top of it and were still magically not fat.
One of the biggest favors I ever did for myself was sitting down and binge watching Supersize vs. Superskinny. It flat out destroyed that piece of fatlogic. The fact is that normal/underweight people were not eating like I did. Some would only have one or two meals a day. A few might skip a day of eating altogether if they just weren't feeling hungry (FAT ME WOULD NEVER DO THIS). Some would eat candy and chips all day, but ultimately, the total number of calories barely reached 1200-1500. Some of the underweight participants on the show were physically active, but an equal number were not. It was simply a problem of them not eating enough overall that they were underweight, no matter how it may have looked like in glimpses that they could have been overeating or eating like crap and still mysteriously thin.9 -
RollTideTri wrote: »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?
Well, I can eat a fast food burger and fries and still eat takeout for dinner for 1500 cals, which is my maintenance - pretty much dead-on the calculated estimate for my height and weight and sedentary lifestyle. I can even go significantly over a couple of times a week and still maintain because I compensate for it the rest of the week.
So, yes, I'm telling you it's more than possible even if we assume 'little skinny guy' has a TDEE of 2000-2300.3 -
When I'm working (I'm a teacher so I'm on my feet all day), I burn between 2600 and 3000 calories a day. I'm not at an aggressive deficit right now because I'm only about ten pounds overweight at this point, so I try to get between 2000 and 2500 calories a day on days that I work or hit the gym. A lot of my friends and family are shocked that I can eat what looks like significantly more than they eat and still lose weight/maintain my weight loss.
I probably had a higher TDEE when I was obese (240 at my highest), but I fooled myself into thinking I had a "slow metabolism." No, I just out-ate my metabolism, and now I don't. It might seem to others that I'm eating too much, but it's just a numbers game. I'm eating less than I burn. I don't think 3000 calories a day is that much - that's just what I burn daily teaching six hours a day, without adding in exercise. Now that it's summer vacation, I'm just bumming around at home and I'm only burning between 1800 and 2000 calories a day, so I HAVE to exercise, and even with a full hour of exercise tacked on, I'm nowhere near my burn during the school year.
My point is that daily activity can make a huge difference. I know a lot of teachers who sit at their desk all day, whereas I pretty much never sit down and am always walking around, writing on the board, standing at a podium to lecture. Some people are just naturally more active throughout the day - they don't take the kind of "shortcuts" that others do, whether that's taking the stairs, settling for a parking spot that's farther away from the store they're going into . . . things like that. Unless you follow the person around all day and know how many steps they're taking, their heart rate, their muscle mass, you don't really know how much they're burning. To you, it might seem like they're "eating too much," but they're eating enough to balance what they burn off.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions