What do you think of people who are naturally slim?

13567…17

Replies

  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    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
    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
    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
    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
    brower47 wrote: »
    ScreeField wrote: »
    brower47 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.
  • KetoneKaren
    KetoneKaren Posts: 6,412 Member
    @ScreeField with all due respect the side conversation isn't relevant...just sayin'
  • ScreeField
    ScreeField Posts: 180 Member
    KetoneKaren wrote: »
    @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
    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
  • ScreeField
    ScreeField Posts: 180 Member
    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.

  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    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.
  • ScreeField
    ScreeField Posts: 180 Member
    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.
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    ScreeField wrote: »
    brower47 wrote: »
    ScreeField wrote: »
    brower47 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.
  • ScreeField
    ScreeField Posts: 180 Member
    edited July 2016
    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.
  • ScreeField
    ScreeField Posts: 180 Member
    edited July 2016
    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.
  • Zipp237
    Zipp237 Posts: 255 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Things like hyperthyroid and other medical conditions aside, "naturally slim" is largely a matter of perception.
    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.
  • emmadonaldson95
    emmadonaldson95 Posts: 179 Member
    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.
  • 85Cardinals
    85Cardinals Posts: 733 Member
    Slim Pickens of Dr. Strangelove fame was actually kinda fat.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    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.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub747pprmJ8
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    edited July 2016
    Link no longer works

Categories