What do you think of people who are naturally slim?
Options
Replies
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »When asked why her son was so skinny, the mother responded, "I don't understand. He's eating me out of house and home, and he can't put on a pound." The other mother said, "He eats like a horse. I've never seen anything like it. Can't figure it out."
It is beyond my comprehension that most of the posters here cannot acknowledge the obvious - there are naturally skinny people, particularly those under the age of 25. The word metabolism is in the dictionary for a reason. And for most of us, our metabolism slows as we get older.
You just can't consume the same number of calories at 50 that you consumed at 21 (assuming similar amounts of exercise) without the consequence of weight gain. This is sky is blue and grass is green stuff.
It's beyond my comprehension as well that people can't acknowledge that young adults are often much more active than adults even if they aren't doing intentional exercise.
And as mentioned many times in this thread, yes, metabolism slows as you age, but not to the degree that people here seem to think. The far bigger factor is becoming less active as you age.
Yep. Also, if they are growing, they will have higher metabolisms. Nothing surprising. And there's some degree of muscle loss on average -- that's why the calculators that estimate TDEE without BF% ask age, and the one that uses BF% doesn't need age.
In the late 70's and early 80's, the only people that went to gyms were muscle heads. Running/jogging was not common. Bicycles were for kids.
My assumption is the average 55-year-old does more exercise today than he or she did when they were 20. Been to a gym lately and see the older people?
And they don't eat more at 55 than they ate at 20. Yet, if you ask most of them, they probably say they can't eat what they ate when they were 20.
And we are talking about activity level beyond just intentional exercise.3 -
I spent my late teens/early 20s working jobs that had me in my feet, walking across campus all day, and dancing all night at the clubs. I was naturally skinny.
My current lifestyle is not nearly that active although I do much more intentional exercise than I did back the I did go to the gym then but I do much more cardio now.3 -
Children tend to race around, bike, and play a lot more than adults do. If we had as much energy, just imagine what we could do!4
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »I spent my late teens/early 20s working jobs that had me in my feet, walking across campus all day, and dancing all night at the clubs. I was naturally skinny.
My current lifestyle is not nearly that active although I do much more intentional exercise than I did back the I did go to the gym then but I do much more cardio now.
I walked fast back and forth to classes on campus during the day and walked fast back snd forth on the floor at a part time job in the afternoons. Go go go. I only ate one meal a day and had a couple small snacks. No wonder I was thin. I had no time to eat while putting myself through college. --no debt when I got out either, so it was worth it.3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »When asked why her son was so skinny, the mother responded, "I don't understand. He's eating me out of house and home, and he can't put on a pound." The other mother said, "He eats like a horse. I've never seen anything like it. Can't figure it out."
It is beyond my comprehension that most of the posters here cannot acknowledge the obvious - there are naturally skinny people, particularly those under the age of 25. The word metabolism is in the dictionary for a reason. And for most of us, our metabolism slows as we get older.
You just can't consume the same number of calories at 50 that you consumed at 21 (assuming similar amounts of exercise) without the consequence of weight gain. This is sky is blue and grass is green stuff.
It's beyond my comprehension as well that people can't acknowledge that young adults are often much more active than adults even if they aren't doing intentional exercise.
And as mentioned many times in this thread, yes, metabolism slows as you age, but not to the degree that people here seem to think. The far bigger factor is becoming less active as you age.
Yep. Also, if they are growing, they will have higher metabolisms. Nothing surprising. And there's some degree of muscle loss on average -- that's why the calculators that estimate TDEE without BF% ask age, and the one that uses BF% doesn't need age.
In the late 70's and early 80's, the only people that went to gyms were muscle heads. Running/jogging was not common. Bicycles were for kids.
This isn't actually true (I'm 46, I remember), but it is 100% irrelevant to anything I said. If you don't make an effort to maintain muscle mass (either because of an active job or intentional exercise), you will lose muscle mass as you age. How much exercise people did in the '80s has nothing to do with anything.My assumption is the average 55-year-old does more exercise today than he or she did when they were 20. Been to a gym lately and see the older people?
Most activity is daily activity. Most 55-year-olds aren't at the gym, regardless of the demographic make-up of any specific gym. I never went to the gym at 20, but I was very active, much more so than at 30 (until I decided to make an effort at 32--at 22 it didn't require an effort, it was just life).And they don't eat more at 55 than they ate at 20. Yet, if you ask most of them, they probably say they can't eat what they ate when they were 20.
They probably do eat more at 55 than 20, since people now eat more than 35 years ago, on average.
I know I personally ate more at 30 and 40 than at 20. At 20 I had meals restricted to dining hall options and rarely ate anything beyond that. I thought I ate a lot, but I really didn't. At 30 I had a job where food was around all the time, endless opportunities to eat whatever I wanted, and a job where I'd have to eat out with clients quite often (or which involved travel where eating out at good restaurants was the perk that made it less unpleasant).5 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »When asked why her son was so skinny, the mother responded, "I don't understand. He's eating me out of house and home, and he can't put on a pound." The other mother said, "He eats like a horse. I've never seen anything like it. Can't figure it out."
It is beyond my comprehension that most of the posters here cannot acknowledge the obvious - there are naturally skinny people, particularly those under the age of 25. The word metabolism is in the dictionary for a reason. And for most of us, our metabolism slows as we get older.
You just can't consume the same number of calories at 50 that you consumed at 21 (assuming similar amounts of exercise) without the consequence of weight gain. This is sky is blue and grass is green stuff.
It's beyond my comprehension as well that people can't acknowledge that young adults are often much more active than adults even if they aren't doing intentional exercise.
And as mentioned many times in this thread, yes, metabolism slows as you age, but not to the degree that people here seem to think. The far bigger factor is becoming less active as you age.
Yep. Also, if they are growing, they will have higher metabolisms. Nothing surprising. And there's some degree of muscle loss on average -- that's why the calculators that estimate TDEE without BF% ask age, and the one that uses BF% doesn't need age.
In the late 70's and early 80's, the only people that went to gyms were muscle heads. Running/jogging was not common. Bicycles were for kids.
My assumption is the average 55-year-old does more exercise today than he or she did when they were 20. Been to a gym lately and see the older people?
And they don't eat more at 55 than they ate at 20. Yet, if you ask most of them, they probably say they can't eat what they ate when they were 20.
You're failing to recognize that the younger version of your self is more active outside of exercise. A lot more walking and other actives that increase caloric expenditure.
When I was young, I could eat large pizzas, 3 big macs in one sitting (yes, I did this often, especially when they were 2 for $2.22), drank lots of soda, and much more. I was also an ice hockey and soccer player. On top of that, i was always outside. I was never able to gain weight in high school. Now that I have a desk job and exercise 5-6 hours a week, i comfortably maintain at 3000 calories.1 -
MichelleLei1 wrote: »chrisssiex23x wrote: »
If they aren't getting buff, it's because they aren't consuming the calories needed to do it. And while many may have a higher metabolic rate, math still applies. Eat more than your TDEE consistently and you'll gain weight.Depends. People who struggle to keep weight on have a struggle, too. Different, but not easy. It's especially hard for small men who have trouble getting buff when that's what they really want.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You have no idea how much my boyfriend eats and still cant gain weight... he has see his gp aswell and they have told him also he will find it it hard. He has high medolism and works 7.30am until 6pm mon to firday and always on his feet. And he's over 6 ft aswell...
If i could id show you a picture of his breakfast
He's over 6 ft, works long shifts, and is always on his feet of course he has a high TDEE. I know guys that easily maintain on 3000-4000 calories, which (imo) is a massive amount of food.
Believe it or not, many of the males on here with desk jobs and a few hours of exercise maintain at the 3000 mark. The 4000 mark is generally two types of people; 1. those who exercise 10+ hours or 2. those with active jobs.
0 -
To add some additional perspective on metabolic rates.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/Extending this into practical terms and assuming an average expenditure of 2000kcal a day, 68% of the population falls into the range of 1840-2160kcal daily while 96% of the population is in the range of 1680-2320kcal daily. Comparing somebody at or below the 5th percentile with somebody at or above the 95th percentile would yield a difference of possibly 600kcal daily, and the chance of this occurring (comparing the self to a friend) is 0.50%, assuming two completely random persons.
Essentially, 96% of people fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean. So while there are some gifted people, it's a lot few than we think. The problem with personal observtion, its we only recognize that big meals. We don't see all of the small or skipping of meals or no snacking. We don't see all of the activity (even outside of exercise) and we don't look at the diet in context (meals over the whole week).
Interestingly enough, I see this all the time in the gaining weight section. So many people are "hard gainers", only to discover, they just don't eat enough calories. For many, that is because they gravitate towards low calorie food, only eat a few meals a day, or don't eat high quantities. When they actually start tracking calories, it's quickly discovered they fall around the mean caloric intake as others.
And in the 7 years I have been on this forum, there have been 2 outliers; 1 had hyperthyroidism, and 1 had a malabsorption issue.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10326769/are-you-a-hard-gainer-please-read/p1
Now, there are some people who are very active or have active jobs, which gives them a higher than average TDEE, but it's not their metabolism.
A few points to make here:
1. Given a normal distribution, one standard deviation is 68%. That's why the study gave the 68% range. 96% wasn't a magic number either, it's 2 standards deviations.
2. While comparing an individual whose caloric needs in the bottom 2% with one in the top 2% would happen randomly only rarely, these individuals occur as 4.2% of the overall population, so knowing people who fall outside two standards deviations on either end would be typical for most individuals given the average person knows several hundred people.
3. The caloric expenditure spread is quite significant; 540 calories within 2 standard deviantions. To an individual who is on 1700 cal/day, 2300 calories is A LOT more food. It is, in fact, a whole extra meal for me.
4. Being wrong about your caloric need by only 100 calories a day will help you out on an additional 10 lbs a year. That's within 1 standard deviation easily. If you take two individuals who are the same height and weight, but one needs 100 calories fewer /day, well within the natural variation, yet they both say the same amount, the one needing fewer calories will be larger with no obvious reason.1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »When asked why her son was so skinny, the mother responded, "I don't understand. He's eating me out of house and home, and he can't put on a pound." The other mother said, "He eats like a horse. I've never seen anything like it. Can't figure it out."
It is beyond my comprehension that most of the posters here cannot acknowledge the obvious - there are naturally skinny people, particularly those under the age of 25. The word metabolism is in the dictionary for a reason. And for most of us, our metabolism slows as we get older.
You just can't consume the same number of calories at 50 that you consumed at 21 (assuming similar amounts of exercise) without the consequence of weight gain. This is sky is blue and grass is green stuff.
It's beyond my comprehension as well that people can't acknowledge that young adults are often much more active than adults even if they aren't doing intentional exercise.
And as mentioned many times in this thread, yes, metabolism slows as you age, but not to the degree that people here seem to think. The far bigger factor is becoming less active as you age.
Yep. Also, if they are growing, they will have higher metabolisms. Nothing surprising. And there's some degree of muscle loss on average -- that's why the calculators that estimate TDEE without BF% ask age, and the one that uses BF% doesn't need age.
In the late 70's and early 80's, the only people that went to gyms were muscle heads. Running/jogging was not common. Bicycles were for kids.
My assumption is the average 55-year-old does more exercise today than he or she did when they were 20. Been to a gym lately and see the older people?
And they don't eat more at 55 than they ate at 20. Yet, if you ask most of them, they probably say they can't eat what they ate when they were 20.
The gym is not the only way people got exercise. In the '70s, '80s, and even the early '90s, teenagers and young adults were definitely moving way more than they are now; that in and of itself is getting more exercise. The internet wasn't as widely used in the '90s as it is now, nobody was using smartphones, no ordering food online/less fast food on a whole, if you needed to do research you walked to the library instead of performing a Google search at home, more walking everywhere instead of driving; all of that adds up and increases a person's TDEE.4 -
I am a "naturally slim" person. I have never been overweight by BMI, even during my pregnancy. "Naturally not-slim" people have loved to tell me my whole life how one day "it'll catch up to me" and I "won't be able to eat like that forever" and of course the "wait until you have kids."
Several years ago I started tracking what I ate because of how often "naturally not-slim" people liked to tell me how I ate like crap. Do you know what I learned? It turns out I eat a reasonable amount of calories for my size and activity level. Weird, huh?11 -
gertmeister wrote: »That's them, you're you. I've swum at an Olympic pool at my university and had more gorgeous swimmers look at my muscular body than at "skinny" girls with no tone. Be happy. Eat healthy. Cook for yourself mostly.
Lol2 -
I'm jealous but face it, being slim is not necessarily a sign of good health. Its just the surface.0
-
To add some additional perspective on metabolic rates.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/Extending this into practical terms and assuming an average expenditure of 2000kcal a day, 68% of the population falls into the range of 1840-2160kcal daily while 96% of the population is in the range of 1680-2320kcal daily. Comparing somebody at or below the 5th percentile with somebody at or above the 95th percentile would yield a difference of possibly 600kcal daily, and the chance of this occurring (comparing the self to a friend) is 0.50%, assuming two completely random persons.
Essentially, 96% of people fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean. So while there are some gifted people, it's a lot few than we think. The problem with personal observtion, its we only recognize that big meals. We don't see all of the small or skipping of meals or no snacking. We don't see all of the activity (even outside of exercise) and we don't look at the diet in context (meals over the whole week).
Interestingly enough, I see this all the time in the gaining weight section. So many people are "hard gainers", only to discover, they just don't eat enough calories. For many, that is because they gravitate towards low calorie food, only eat a few meals a day, or don't eat high quantities. When they actually start tracking calories, it's quickly discovered they fall around the mean caloric intake as others.
And in the 7 years I have been on this forum, there have been 2 outliers; 1 had hyperthyroidism, and 1 had a malabsorption issue.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10326769/are-you-a-hard-gainer-please-read/p1
Now, there are some people who are very active or have active jobs, which gives them a higher than average TDEE, but it's not their metabolism.
A few points to make here:
1. Given a normal distribution, one standard deviation is 68%. That's why the study gave the 68% range. 96% wasn't a magic number either, it's 2 standards deviations.
2. While comparing an individual whose caloric needs in the bottom 2% with one in the top 2% would happen randomly only rarely, these individuals occur as 4.2% of the overall population, so knowing people who fall outside two standards deviations on either end would be typical for most individuals given the average person knows several hundred people.
3. The caloric expenditure spread is quite significant; 540 calories within 2 standard deviantions. To an individual who is on 1700 cal/day, 2300 calories is A LOT more food. It is, in fact, a whole extra meal for me.
4. Being wrong about your caloric need by only 100 calories a day will help you out on an additional 10 lbs a year. That's within 1 standard deviation easily. If you take two individuals who are the same height and weight, but one needs 100 calories fewer /day, well within the natural variation, yet they both say the same amount, the one needing fewer calories will be larger with no obvious reason.
1. You are correct, I don't know what I was thinking, lol.
2. yep
3. Looking at the high/low, i would see your point. But we would also have to take into consideration of the other parts of the energy balance equation. If you so happen to be at the low, and you would want to increase intake, you would have to increase exercise comparatively.
4. No argument
2 -
Why care?0
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »When asked why her son was so skinny, the mother responded, "I don't understand. He's eating me out of house and home, and he can't put on a pound." The other mother said, "He eats like a horse. I've never seen anything like it. Can't figure it out."
It is beyond my comprehension that most of the posters here cannot acknowledge the obvious - there are naturally skinny people, particularly those under the age of 25. The word metabolism is in the dictionary for a reason. And for most of us, our metabolism slows as we get older.
You just can't consume the same number of calories at 50 that you consumed at 21 (assuming similar amounts of exercise) without the consequence of weight gain. This is sky is blue and grass is green stuff.
I was a machine operator when I was in my 20s. I ran around my machine all day and lifted heavy things. I blame my inability to eat the same at 49 as I did then to dwindling muscle mass due to years of desk jobs in my 30s and 40s and when I did spend time in the gym, doing so with the thought that women were supposed to do lots of reps with light weights.2 -
Oh my goodness, you are all making my head spin; some people are " naturally" thin because they have healthy eating habits and/or are active or growing. As we age we TEND to move less and therefore lose muscle slowly and therefore gain weight "easily" but that need not be the case. Hormones, during puberty, pregnancy, and menopause play a roll all throughout our lives.
Yes, it is "natural" as in effortless for some but all the other people are saying is that there is still a scientific explanation as to WHY those people are "naturally slim". They aren't defying gravity.
3 -
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 think they simply see things differently. What you see as "working at it" they see as "normal". You struggle to control portions/calories and stay active, for them it's just a normal way of life.4 -
Trust that I've done this long enough to know that if he's not gaining weight, it's because he's still eating at or under his TDEE. I've had many a guy tell me the same thing and when we actually check the numbers (physical activity and calories consumed) many guys find out that they aren't eating more than they are burning. Now there are a very small percentage of people who's bodies RESIST gaining weight more, but excess calories will still cause weight gain.chrisssiex23x wrote: »
If they aren't getting buff, it's because they aren't consuming the calories needed to do it. And while many may have a higher metabolic rate, math still applies. Eat more than your TDEE consistently and you'll gain weight.Depends. People who struggle to keep weight on have a struggle, too. Different, but not easy. It's especially hard for small men who have trouble getting buff when that's what they really want.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You have no idea how much my boyfriend eats and still cant gain weight... he has see his gp aswell and they have told him also he will find it it hard. He has high medolism and works 7.30am until 6pm mon to firday and always on his feet. And he's over 6 ft aswell...
If i could id show you a picture of his breakfast
There have been shows on this. Here's a good one to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1hbPXooB1U
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It seems to me that you two aren't saying very different things, just looking at them differently. If a person struggles to gain weight then they struggle to overeat. Since a doctor has told him he will find it hard to gain weight there could also be an underlying medical condition at play.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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 think they simply see things differently. What you see as "working at it" they see as "normal". You struggle to control portions/calories and stay active, for them it's just a normal way of life.
Ya, Dr. Judith S. Beck goes over this in The Beck Diet Solution: Train Your Brain to Think Like a Thin Person, which was available from my library system.0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »When asked why her son was so skinny, the mother responded, "I don't understand. He's eating me out of house and home, and he can't put on a pound." The other mother said, "He eats like a horse. I've never seen anything like it. Can't figure it out."
It is beyond my comprehension that most of the posters here cannot acknowledge the obvious - there are naturally skinny people, particularly those under the age of 25. The word metabolism is in the dictionary for a reason. And for most of us, our metabolism slows as we get older.
You just can't consume the same number of calories at 50 that you consumed at 21 (assuming similar amounts of exercise) without the consequence of weight gain. This is sky is blue and grass is green stuff.
It's beyond my comprehension as well that people can't acknowledge that young adults are often much more active than adults even if they aren't doing intentional exercise.
And as mentioned many times in this thread, yes, metabolism slows as you age, but not to the degree that people here seem to think. The far bigger factor is becoming less active as you age.
Yep. Also, if they are growing, they will have higher metabolisms. Nothing surprising. And there's some degree of muscle loss on average -- that's why the calculators that estimate TDEE without BF% ask age, and the one that uses BF% doesn't need age.
In the late 70's and early 80's, the only people that went to gyms were muscle heads. Running/jogging was not common. Bicycles were for kids.
My assumption is the average 55-year-old does more exercise today than he or she did when they were 20. Been to a gym lately and see the older people?
And they don't eat more at 55 than they ate at 20. Yet, if you ask most of them, they probably say they can't eat what they ate when they were 20.
Deliberate exercise is actually a pretty small part of the equation in general unless you're an athlete or something...When I was in my 20s I did zero deliberate exercise but I was active as hell in general and "naturally lean." The reality is that I didn't have a desk job and plenty of free time to go do whatever I wanted to do...now I have to sit at a desk for most of the day and have much less free time to be out and about doing whatever...I exercise now primarily to at least help make up for some of the difference in activity...3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions