Discover what's new & improved in the MyFitnessPal app!
We’re dedicated to helping you achieve your health and nutrition goals. And our newest features and updates? They do just that. Learn how we're making tracking your progress easier, faster, and more motivating than ever.

What do you think of people who are naturally slim?

Options
1235725

Replies

  • ScreeField
    ScreeField Posts: 180 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    Slim Pickens of Dr. Strangelove fame was actually kinda fat.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    Link no longer works
  • lozerrfaceXOmommy
    lozerrfaceXOmommy Posts: 18 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    They are aliens, just kidding.
  • GirlonBliss
    GirlonBliss Posts: 38 Member
    Options
    These are all amazing takes!

    The reason why I asked is I find that with my clients, most women fear that if they get slim/attractive, people won't want to get to know them for who they are on the inside.

    They could think something like "Gosh, that pretty girl can eat whatever she wants and still look good. But me? I can't do that, I have to work at it."

    Or it could be something like, "Oh she looks so pretty!....b***h"
    Then, when they start losing weight, subconsciously they think "Yay, I'm losing weight! Wait...will people also think I'm a b***h?"

    It's not something you think of on a conscious level, but it's important to ask yourself what you really think of people who have the body you're going for because if there are any negative thoughts there (like admiration followed by jealously), you'll likely self-sabotage!

  • fatfudgery
    fatfudgery Posts: 449 Member
    Options
    I think they're in league with the devil.
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    Options
    An RL friend of mine is "naturally" slim. He survived an automobile accident as a teenager and lost several internal organs. He's unable to gain weight, unable to do menial labor for all of 8 hours in a day. I haven't asked him directly, but I have no doubt he's on SSDI because he is what the program is for.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    I was naturally slim for the first 40 years of my life, i was very sedentary on top of that and ate whatever and how much i wanted.
    Now, I'm more active than I've ever been and have to watch and account for every little calorie. The days of being a couch potato and not even knowing what a calorie is are long gone..
  • vingogly
    vingogly Posts: 1,785 Member
    Options
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    Options
    trjjoy wrote: »
    No-one is "naturally slim". Some people eat less than others. Other people have a higher NEAT than others. It's a question of CI < CO

    No it's not. When I was in college I out-ate all my friends, didn't exercise, and was skin and bones.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »
    There is no such thing as naturally thin people.

    Well I was one until I was 25. Ate like a horse, did not exercise, could not gain weight. Just short of 6' 1", and was under 150 lbs. Both my parents were bean-poles in their 20's, as was my uncle, and my first cousins. To flat-out state that there are not naturally skinny people flies in the face of reality.

    Oh, and as we all got older, we all got heavier. And it wasn't because we were eating more and exercising less. Guess there is this thing called metabolism.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    vingogly wrote: »

    scoffing down their food like a wild boar.

    Hahaha This one has always applied to me whether i was overweight or thin!! My husband sits in wonder when he's watching me and my brother and sister eat (it must be in our genes). He eats so slowly that I've finished my meal and just about made and finished my dessert by the time he's finished!