What do you think of people who are naturally slim?

Options
1246725

Replies

  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    Options
    crewahl wrote: »
    I think the reality is that we don't know what other people deal with, and we don't know what's going on in their heads. That heavy person could have just lost fifty pounds; that thin person may be struggling to lose three pounds; the person we perceive as naturally thin may just have a different set of priorities than us; the person eating an entire large pizza may make that their only meal of the day.

    Judging is ultimately embarrassing when I'm confronted with reality.

    I think at the end of the day, if you eat more calories than you burn you'll gain weight; eat fewer calories than you burn and you'll lose weight. Everybody finds the balance that works for them.

    I don't think this thread was meant to judge anyone. I think it was just asking about our opinions about the fact that some people can maintain a slim figure effortlessly, as they are blessed with naturally regulating appetite and habits that support staying slim without giving it any conscious thought.

    The OP didn't define "naturally slim" that way, or at all, so it's only natural that we have different opinions about the naturally slim.
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    I think of myself has being naturally slim. It was mentioned earlier that naturally slim people can eat whatever they want but yet their appetite is not high enough for them to be exceeding their TDEE. I would say this describes me. It's not that I have a magical TDEE, but I can just eat to my heart's content and it won't be substantially over my TDEE.
    Also, a lot of people do have a smaller bone structure, which plays a role in one's body weight.
  • SugarySweetheart
    SugarySweetheart Posts: 154 Member
    Options
    Those who are naturally thin make great choices to food selection and portion control. Whether they do it with forethought or not, they still do it.

    Losing weight is about making better choices in our life and eating right.
    Exercise can be in doing everyday movements or in going to the gym.
    Getting enough hydration, WATER, and sleep is undeniably helpful.
  • pattyandthemoos
    pattyandthemoos Posts: 79 Member
    Options
    Well as someone who is an identical twin I can tell you the genetics thing and the concept of being naturally thin annoys me. I've seen the two of us at different weights and when one was thinner it was because she was working at it. Sometimes I feel like people make assumptions about thin people. Not everyone that is thin works at it but the ones that don't are usually active or don't eat alot of calories.
  • ScreeField
    ScreeField Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    brower47 wrote: »
    ScreeField wrote: »
    brower47 wrote: »
    ScreeField wrote: »
    ScreeField wrote: »
    Body weight is the tangential consequence of something we can't yet explain.

    Pretty sure the laws of thermodynamics and the direct relationship between energy and mass are pretty well defined.

    And application of such ( to human bodies ) are based on hypothesis and theory not law.

    You know that gravity is a scientific theory, right?

    Is this a question or troll?

    It's definitely a question and I'm asking that in order to determine where your level understanding is concerning scientific vocabulary. I need to know how you use the words hypothesis, theory and law as they apply to scientific topics. I ask because you used the word theory and, like how some people misuse the word inconceivable, I don't think it means what you think it means.

    I took a picture last month while I was standing on top of a LIGO facility (the concrete tube that covers one of the lasers) just shortly before their second event. I won't be posting any pictures here. While there talking to the resarchers there about theories, one said this: "we can make observations, but we don't yet know" and we don't even know what we don't yet know.

    Have you heard of LIGO?

    Speaking of gravity, it's basically what we use to describe the attraction between two objects, but we cannot use it to describe why they attact each other. And, like most theories, has morphed over time. Currently, some of the best new research on gravity is coming out of the LIGO project.

    Please let me know your own believe of why it's a theory and not a law and how that's relevent to the discussion.
  • KetoneKaren
    KetoneKaren Posts: 6,411 Member
    Options
    @ScreeField with all due respect the side conversation isn't relevant...just sayin'
  • ScreeField
    ScreeField Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    @ScreeField with all due respect the side conversation isn't relevant...just sayin'

    Thank you for pointing that out :)

  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Options
    ScreeField wrote: »
    @ScreeField with all due respect the side conversation isn't relevant...just sayin'

    Thank you for pointing that out :)

    It sure would be swell if you'd post something relevant
  • ScreeField
    ScreeField Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    ScreeField wrote: »
    @ScreeField with all due respect the side conversation isn't relevant...just sayin'

    Thank you for pointing that out :)

    It sure would be swell if you'd post something relevant

    Define relevant? Especially in light of today's message boards.

  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Options
    ScreeField wrote: »
    ScreeField wrote: »
    @ScreeField with all due respect the side conversation isn't relevant...just sayin'

    Thank you for pointing that out :)

    It sure would be swell if you'd post something relevant

    Define relevant? Especially in light of today's message boards.

    I'm almost positive that you know the definition. Believe it not, there are a good number of people on here with advanced degrees. I was hoping you were going to advance the conversation given some of your statements. No worries if not, there are many who don't.
  • ScreeField
    ScreeField Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    ScreeField wrote: »
    ScreeField wrote: »
    @ScreeField with all due respect the side conversation isn't relevant...just sayin'

    Thank you for pointing that out :)

    It sure would be swell if you'd post something relevant

    Define relevant? Especially in light of today's message boards.

    I'm almost positive that you know the definition. Believe it not, there are a good number of people on here with advanced degrees. I was hoping you were going to advance the conversation given some of your statements. No worries if not, there are many who don't.

    Thanks. I gave up on this thread long ago when it digressed to merely entertainment without rhyme or reason.
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    Options
    ScreeField wrote: »
    brower47 wrote: »
    ScreeField wrote: »
    brower47 wrote: »
    ScreeField wrote: »
    ScreeField wrote: »
    Body weight is the tangential consequence of something we can't yet explain.

    Pretty sure the laws of thermodynamics and the direct relationship between energy and mass are pretty well defined.

    And application of such ( to human bodies ) are based on hypothesis and theory not law.

    You know that gravity is a scientific theory, right?

    Is this a question or troll?

    It's definitely a question and I'm asking that in order to determine where your level understanding is concerning scientific vocabulary. I need to know how you use the words hypothesis, theory and law as they apply to scientific topics. I ask because you used the word theory and, like how some people misuse the word inconceivable, I don't think it means what you think it means.

    I took a picture last month while I was standing on top of a LIGO facility (the concrete tube that covers one of the lasers) just shortly before their second event. I won't be posting any pictures here. While there talking to the resarchers there about theories, one said this: "we can make observations, but we don't yet know" and we don't even know what we don't yet know.

    Have you heard of LIGO?

    Speaking of gravity, it's basically what we use to describe the attraction between two objects, but we cannot use it to describe why they attact each other. And, like most theories, has morphed over time. Currently, some of the best new research on gravity is coming out of the LIGO project.

    Please let me know your own believe of why it's a theory and not a law and how that's relevent to the discussion.

    I'm not familiar with LIGO. You appear to know what a theory is. You do not appear interested in expounding on anything relevant. I don't need to ask you anymore questions. I have my answers.