What do you think of people who are naturally slim?
Replies
-
I used to think that my naturally skinny friends were just lucky too but now that I think about it, they really don't eat much. Whenever I'm with my friend, she only finishes half of her food. She's always walking around too. She only ever brings granola bars and some fruit with her places. My other friend sometimes goes forever without eating and I'm always like aren't you starving? and she says she forgot to eat or something. I'm not "naturally" big but I definitely wouldn't call myself naturally skinny. I started making more and more of a habit of eating fast food everyday and eating just because I'm bored or feel like it. But I am jealous of those people who just aren't that interested in food and find it easy to only eat half of their food. I usually have to force myself to stop eating because I could just keep eating whether I'm hungry or not
9 -
ScreeField wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »MichelleLei1 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.19 -
ScreeField wrote: »Here's some interesting reading -- researchers are correlating something other than genetics to body weight with the theme along the lines of " diets (caloric restriction) promote long-term obesity ":
Mann, T. et al. (2007).Medicare’s search for effective obesity treatments: Diets are not the answer. American Psychologist, 62(3): 220-233.
Field, A,E. et al (2003). Relation Between Dieting and Weight Change Among Preadolescents and Adolescents. Pediatrics,112:900-906.
Haines, J. & Neumark-Sztainer D (2006). Prevention of obesity and eating disorders: a consideration of shared risk factors. Health Education Research, 21(6):770–782.
Kwoh, L. (January 9, 2012).Weight Watchers Chief Looks to Men, China for Growth. Wall Street Journal.
Neumark-Sztainer, D. et al (2006). Obesity, disordered eating, and eating disorders in a longitudinal study of adolescents: how do dieters fare five years later? J Am Diet Assoc,106(4):559-568.
Patton, G. C., et al. (1999). Onset of adolescent eating disorders: population based cohort study over 3 years. British Medical Journal, 318:765-768.
Pietiläinen, K.H. et al. (2011). Does dieting make you fat? A twin study. International Journal of Obesity, | doi:10.1038/ijo.2011.160
Saarni, S. E. et al (2006). Weight cycling of athletes and subsequent weight gain in middleage. International J Obesity, 30: 1639–1644.
Tribole E. & Resch E. (2012-in press). Intuitive Eating (3rd edition). St.Martin’s Press: NY,NY.
Tylka, T. L. (2006). Development and psychometric evaluation of a measure of intuitive eating. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 226-240.
What does all this mean: we don't have a black and white (or even grey) answer to the question posted.
All taken from this website.
https://www.intuitiveeating.com/content/warning-dieting-increases-your-risk-gaining-more-weight-update
8 -
amusedmonkey 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.0 -
Things like hyperthyroid and other medical conditions aside, "naturally slim" is largely a matter of perception. I used to get this all of the time when I was in college...a lot of my buddies were putting on weight with all of the keg parties and whatnot while I seemingly ate what I wanted (and I pretty much did) and attended those same parties but maintained a pretty lean physique and even had trouble keeping weight on at times.
There really wasn't any magic though...I didn't have some super BMR that just torched calories and allowed me to do whatever I wanted to do. The fact of the matter was that when school was out (summers) I worked 10-12 hour days doing landscape construction...so I was on my feet pretty much all day and I was moving wheel barrows full of gravel and digging holes and installing flagstone patios, etc...my favorite meal when I got home was about 1 Lb or more of grilled chicken wings and a six pack of beer.
When I was in school I worked in a package liquor store...so on my feet at work and stocking this or that and moving cases of this or that around the store...it also had a large attached warehouse that I often worked in moving massive amounts of merchandise in and out.
Beyond that, I didn't own a car so I generally walked or road my bike everywhere unless I could hitch a ride with a friend. I've also never been one for sitting around and watching a lot of t.v. or playing video games or whatever...in my free time I preferred to be hiking in the mountains or playing ultimate frisbee with friends or frisbee golf or whatever...I have always like being out and about doing stuff. I never "worked out" or trained or anything like that...I just moved a lot.
And finally, I'm a really fidgety person...which is why I probably don't like just sitting around too much...I always fidgeting...tapping my fingers or my legs and feet, etc.
I didn't put on weight until I was in my 30s after I graduated and started working at an accounting firm and basically went from moving a lot to sitting around at a desk 10-12 hours per day...to boot I was starting a new family and juggling all of that didn't leave me a whole lot of free time to go do the things I used to enjoy doing.
So see...it's all about perception...when I was in school my friends just commented on the fact that I could eat like a horse (and I did) without consequence...but they ignored the fact that I was overall a really active guy even though I didn't "workout"
Even now, I maintain on around 3,000+ calories...but like I said, I'm fidgety and outside of work, I really don't like sitting around...I'm always working in the yard or cleaning or cooking or taking the kids to the trampoline park or the zoo or whatever...never mind that on average I cycle about 80-100 miles per week and hit the gym a few days per week...I still get the whole, "it must be nice to have been able to lose weight so easily" or "it must be nice to be 41 and so easily be able to manage your weight." type of comments...but again, it's perception...they don't see the work I put in on the bike or the gym or the fact that when I get home at night I don't park my *kitten* in front of the t.v. for entertainment.14 -
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.1 -
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.4 -
When I hear the phrase 'naturally slim' I don't think of people who can eat whatever they like in the quantities they like and not put on weight. I understand CICO and that those slim people are generally eating at maintenance.
Rather I think of those who don't have the same urge to comfort eat like I do. People who, when they are full, don't feel like eating any more and put down their fork.
I wish I was more like that 'naturally'.
Totally agree. I just had a conversation with my best friend who is very thin. I told her the whole time I work out, I'm thinking about what I get to eat when I'm done working out. She laughed and said she doesn't even think about dinner until about 5 p.m. when she has to make it for her family.7 -
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.4
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »I still get the whole, "it must be nice to have been able to lose weight so easily" or "it must be nice to be 41 and so easily be able to manage your weight." type of comments...but again, it's perception...they don't see the work I put in on the bike or the gym or the fact that when I get home at night I don't park my *kitten* in front of the t.v. for entertainment.
Exactly this. When I was 18, my highest weight was 190 pounds. Once I ventured off on my own, I got down to 115 pounds and have been between that and 140 for most of my twenties. Now I'm 31 and I weigh 108 pounds. I get so many comments about how I must not eat, how I just have a fast metabolism, how I'm so lucky I can manage to lose weight, how I must workout like a maniac, how I'm lucky I never had children, etc. The negative comments I get far outweigh the positives. In fact, almost every positive comment I've received about going from 139 last June to my weight now is "Well you did lose weight but..." There is always a but and it's followed by a "don't lose too much/you should stop now/a woman needs to look like a woman." I'm not going to apologize for choosing to exercise for an hour every morning before work, I'm not going to stop myself from getting 18K+ steps per day either. That's my lifestyle and that's what I get enjoyment out of. If I told other people to stop sitting on the couch or stuffing their faces while they watch hours of television, they wouldn't be pleased. I'm a fidgeter, I enjoy long walks in the park, and it's only when I go to bed at night at 8pm, that I maybe watch one episode of something on Netflix, then I sleep. I don't even have cable, regular television or anything beyond my Amazon Fire TV and I barely use it. For some people, getting regular exercise/activity is seen as an obsessive habit, but hours in front of a tv or computer somehow isn't; go figure.16 -
ScreeField wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »MichelleLei1 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.2 -
@ScreeField with all due respect the side conversation isn't relevant...just sayin'4
-
KetoneKaren wrote: »@ScreeField with all due respect the side conversation isn't relevant...just sayin'
Thank you for pointing that out
1 -
I used to think I had "skinny genes". I could eat whatever I wanted and not gain weight. What I didn't think about was the fact that I skip breakfast a lot and ran cross country and track. Then I got an office job and traded running for Netflix and gained 40lbs in a 3 year period. Skinny genes can't save you if you sit on your butt all day.15
-
ScreeField wrote: »KetoneKaren 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 relevant1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »KetoneKaren 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.
1 -
ScreeField wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »KetoneKaren 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.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »KetoneKaren 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.0 -
ScreeField wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »MichelleLei1 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.1 -
ScreeField wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »KetoneKaren 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.
Interesting. A list of irrelevant articles from a single site from a single Google search, a reference to standing on someone else's achievements, a personal attack, and this. Bravo.11 -
ScreeField wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »KetoneKaren 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.
Yes I'm aware of LIGO. I don't mean to be a jerk, but what exactly is your relationship to LIGO? It's one thing to work at Caltech, it's another thing to speak to someone who works at Caltech. And as someone else said, many people on the boards have advanced degrees in the math and sciences, so feel free to enlighten us with some actual science. No need to dumb down the theory of gravity on my behalf.10 -
from something I posted this time last year. There are errors tho. Maybe you can point them out--that is without going back to the oringal post to check first.ScreeField wrote: »Sciencey Answer:
“Calories” are a measurement of energy — it’s just a unit of energy, like Watts or Joules. Or even like: gallons or cups or teaspoons. It's just a unit of measurement. In this case, energy.
Generally, determining how many calories are in food is done by burning the food and calculating the released heat in something called a Bomb Calorimeter. Think of using a hamburger instead of charcoal in your barbecue and calculating how many hamburgers it takes to heat up a cup of water.
1 Calorie = energy it takes to heat up 1 liter (kg) of water by 1 degree Celsius
The math:
Q = mcp^T
= (1kg)(4.18 J/g*C)(1C)
= 4.18 kilojoules
= 1 calorie
So, calories are just energy. However, what your body does with that energy is a whole different story. We started with physics and now we have to shift into chemistry.
When you eat a molecule of sucrose (sugar) what your body does first to it is to break all of the sucrose molecule’s bonds to release energy, but breaking molecular bonds takes energy.
Sucrose has lots of bonds:
C-C bonds: 10
O-H bonds: 8
C-H bonds: 14
C-O bonds: 14
Each of these bonds has different energies:
C-C = 346 kJ/mol
C-H = 411 kJ/mol
O-H = 459 kJ/mol
C-O = 358 kJ/mol
So, you simply add up the bonds and sum the energy per bond.
C-C = 346 kJ/mol x 10 bonds = 3,460 kJ/mol
C-H = 411 kJ/mol x 14 bonds = 5,754 kJ/mol
O-H = 459 kJ/mol x 8 bonds = 3,672 kJ/mol
C-O = 358 kJ/mol x 14 bonds = 5,012 kJ/mol
Total energy it takes to break apart a sucrose molecule is the sum of the above: 17,898 kJ/mol
The next step is to reform those broken bonds into carbon dioxide and water. This also takes energy. And, you have to apply the Principle of Stoichiometric Balance which means, when you are transforming one thing to another with a chemical reaction, you can't destroy its fundamental atoms. You have to end up with the same number of each atom.
The sucrose molecule looks like this:
C12 H22 C11
After digestion, there must be 12 carbons in the final product(s). They can’t go anywhere else. So, to convert the above to carbon dioxide and oxygen, you have to add 12 oxygen molecules to balance both sides of the equation:
C12 H22 O11 + 12O2 = 12CO2 + 11H2O
Then, there’s also the released energy to account for. There are a number of charts online that map metabolic pathways. There are maps for glucose alone that could be printed in 10 pt font and take up entire walls. One of the more well known maps was created by Dr. Donald Nicholson and I believe his map is online. None of the metabolic pathways charts are complete. They are all still works in progress.
If you have access to a glucose metabolic pathway chart, you can see the many many different processes just to use up a glucose molecule — and you can see why there are differences in metabolism of different foods into calories. A calorie is always a calorie (that’s like saying a gallon is always a gallon). However, its the: 1) energy availability of different foods and 2) metabolic processes cause a large variation in results.0 -
ScreeField wrote: »Body weight is the tangential consequence of something we can't yet explain.
And, the above is part of the basis for my above opinion.
0 -
If you don't count all the people who are naturally slim, then they don't exist. If you do count them, though, they exist.cwolfman13 wrote: »Things like hyperthyroid and other medical conditions aside, "naturally slim" is largely a matter of perception.0 -
Never mind. I just figured out who you are. Smells a lot like PU.8
-
GirlonBliss wrote: »I used to think they were just genetically blessed whereas I would have to work at it for the rest of my life. What about you?
I always thought I was lucky I'm not tiny but most would have always called me slim and I've always eaten lots of big meals, sweets etc.However living in halls and communal living showed me that actually I just have better lifestyle habits than other girls I live with. Nothing huge but little things like sweetener in tea and always low calorie hot chocolate, spread not butter, always cooking properly not getting takeaway regularly or fast/convenience foods. I guess those things all really add up over days and weeks.0 -
Slim Pickens of Dr. Strangelove fame was actually kinda fat.1
-
ScreeField wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »Body weight is the tangential consequence of something we can't yet explain.
And, the above is part of the basis for my above opinion.
May I suggest that you're trying to explain it like a scientist and not an engineer? What we need for weight loss and gain is an engineering formula.2 -
-
Link no longer works0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub747pprmJ8This 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