What do you think of people who are naturally slim?
Options
Replies
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Well, the good news is that this is my last post because I am getting nowhere.
When I was in my late teens and early 20's, I ate like a horse, out-ate my friends, and I was skin and bones (as were my father, uncle and first cousin when they were in their late teens and early 20's). And I even bought a product called "Weight-On" when I was in college. Didn't work.
I am not a freak of nature. There are millions of others like me. If you want to reject this undeniable fact of life, so be it if it makes you happy.
But the thing is, you don't know exactly how many calories you were eating daily. Did you track your intake precisely or just using your, "I ate like a horse" method.
Track calories? A college student in a fraternity who tracks calories? Really? Find me one.
I ate more than others, and had no more physical activity than others. I was the bean pole. Again, it is beyond belief that people cannot accept this simple and factual statement.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-8-do-dietitians-accurately-report-their-food-intake-and-confirmation-bias/do-dietitians-accurately-report-their-food-intake/
People, especially the obese, are known to severely underreport their intake, even when they know the intake can be verified by others. This suggests that it is not a conscious thing.
If people, especially the obese, systematically unknowingly underreport their calorie intake (a known fact), the idea that people who believe they eat more than others but can't seem to gain even a gram actually don't eat that much and it's just their mind playing tricks on them is more likely than people randomly burning ridiculous amounts of calories more than their peers of identical stats which statistically is more than unlikely the more you claim you deviate from the average.
And now, before you yet again go to the acre and get ready to collect more straw, I said ridiculous amounts. That people have some degree of difference between their calorie expenditure is obvious.6 -
Good for them. Nobody else's success or failure has anything to do with my success.2
-
stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Well, the good news is that this is my last post because I am getting nowhere.
When I was in my late teens and early 20's, I ate like a horse, out-ate my friends, and I was skin and bones (as were my father, uncle and first cousin when they were in their late teens and early 20's). And I even bought a product called "Weight-On" when I was in college. Didn't work.
I am not a freak of nature. There are millions of others like me. If you want to reject this undeniable fact of life, so be it if it makes you happy.
But the thing is, you don't know exactly how many calories you were eating daily. Did you track your intake precisely or just using your, "I ate like a horse" method.
Track calories? A college student in a fraternity who tracks calories? Really? Find me one.
I ate more than others, and had no more physical activity than others. I was the bean pole. Again, it is beyond belief that people cannot accept this simple and factual statement.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-8-do-dietitians-accurately-report-their-food-intake-and-confirmation-bias/do-dietitians-accurately-report-their-food-intake/
People, especially the obese, are known to severely underreport their intake, even when they know the intake can be verified by others. This suggests that it is not a conscious thing.
If people, especially the obese, systematically unknowingly underreport their calorie intake (a known fact), the idea that people who believe they eat more than others but can't seem to gain even a gram actually don't eat that much and it's just their mind playing tricks on them is more likely than people randomly burning ridiculous amounts of calories more than their peers of identical stats which statistically is more than unlikely the more you claim you deviate from the average.
And now, before you yet again go to the acre and get ready to collect more straw, I said ridiculous amounts. That people have some degree of difference between their calorie expenditure is obvious.
Is this straw for the horse?1 -
The majority of thin people past 25 have to actually work for it. Don't get stuck in pity parties. They don't help you.5
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Well, the good news is that this is my last post because I am getting nowhere.
When I was in my late teens and early 20's, I ate like a horse, out-ate my friends, and I was skin and bones (as were my father, uncle and first cousin when they were in their late teens and early 20's). And I even bought a product called "Weight-On" when I was in college. Didn't work.
I am not a freak of nature. There are millions of others like me. If you want to reject this undeniable fact of life, so be it if it makes you happy.
But the thing is, you don't know exactly how many calories you were eating daily. Did you track your intake precisely or just using your, "I ate like a horse" method.
Track calories? A college student in a fraternity who tracks calories? Really? Find me one.
I ate more than others, and had no more physical activity than others. I was the bean pole. Again, it is beyond belief that people cannot accept this simple and factual statement.
Right - you didn't track calories when you were in college and the people you are comparing yourself against didn't either. That's not surprising. However, if you don't have any kind of data, then how can you be so sure that you ate more than these frat boys? That is the reason that people can't accept your anecdotal statement. It is a recollection, likely clouded by time and emotion, that has resulted in your staunch belief in something that is probably just not as factual as you would like it to be. It is beyond belief to me that you cannot accept the possibility that you might be misremembering what you ate, what they ate, or what your activity level was like. Without any numbers, there is just no way of knowing.5 -
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/rare-people-who-remember-everything-24631448/?no-ist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymesia
https://youtu.be/LlNB7dAXQEc
I can't even remember what I ate yesterday, let alone thirty years ago...........................0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Well, the good news is that this is my last post because I am getting nowhere.
When I was in my late teens and early 20's, I ate like a horse, out-ate my friends, and I was skin and bones (as were my father, uncle and first cousin when they were in their late teens and early 20's). And I even bought a product called "Weight-On" when I was in college. Didn't work.
I am not a freak of nature. There are millions of others like me. If you want to reject this undeniable fact of life, so be it if it makes you happy.
But the thing is, you don't know exactly how many calories you were eating daily. Did you track your intake precisely or just using your, "I ate like a horse" method.
Track calories? A college student in a fraternity who tracks calories? Really? Find me one.
I ate more than others, and had no more physical activity than others. I was the bean pole. Again, it is beyond belief that people cannot accept this simple and factual statement.
me
5 -
stevencloser wrote: »Again, just because it's behavior doesn't mean it's natural or unnatural.
I literally forget to eat if I am not hungry, and if I drink too much coffee in the morning, or the aforementioned big breakfast, I will feel full until supper-time. I am kind of anxious naturally and feel much better and calmer if I exercise to exhaustion at least once a day, preferably twice. I have trouble sitting still. I sleep 7.5 hours every night and 9 if I can on weekends, and don't feel good if I don't.
These things are part of my nature. They aren't learned responses, or don't feel like learned responses, they are the healthy behaviors of my normal body and mind if I am feeling good and not stressed. The things I do because they feel good, they keep me feeling good.
And again - skinny grandma, slim mom, slender daughters. There is no way that some of this isn't genetic.
Say you put everyone on the planet into their optimum shape and size. Those shapes and sizes would vary, right?
I don't think anyone's really disputing this level of detail. We're saying, lots of people probably don't have 113 lb 5'9" friends who eat 3000 calories everyday, sit on their heine all day and never gain a pound. Yeah I definitely know people who will take you to their favorite restaurant in the world, then not eat a thing because they just aren't hungry. Or you bought the same yummy food early in the day, I'm already on my fourth meal by nightfall and they still haven't eaten it or anything else. I'd have hunger burning a hole in my stomach by then and certainly couldn't do it
Seeing how that's far, FAR into the upper 2% of metabolisms (lacking exact numbers but I'd say far into the 0.X% even), I'd say that's an understatement.
Actually, can someone who is adept at statistics calculate the percentage of people that are that high if the mean seems to be around 2000 and 96% are within +-300 of that?
For the sake of simplicity, say it's 95%. This would give you a standard deviation of 150.
68% would fall within 1 standard deviation
95% would fall within 2 standard deviations and
99.7% would fall within 3.
1000 calories over the mean is 6.67 standard deviations. The chances are infinitesimal.1 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Again, just because it's behavior doesn't mean it's natural or unnatural.
I literally forget to eat if I am not hungry, and if I drink too much coffee in the morning, or the aforementioned big breakfast, I will feel full until supper-time. I am kind of anxious naturally and feel much better and calmer if I exercise to exhaustion at least once a day, preferably twice. I have trouble sitting still. I sleep 7.5 hours every night and 9 if I can on weekends, and don't feel good if I don't.
These things are part of my nature. They aren't learned responses, or don't feel like learned responses, they are the healthy behaviors of my normal body and mind if I am feeling good and not stressed. The things I do because they feel good, they keep me feeling good.
And again - skinny grandma, slim mom, slender daughters. There is no way that some of this isn't genetic.
Say you put everyone on the planet into their optimum shape and size. Those shapes and sizes would vary, right?
I don't think anyone's really disputing this level of detail. We're saying, lots of people probably don't have 113 lb 5'9" friends who eat 3000 calories everyday, sit on their heine all day and never gain a pound. Yeah I definitely know people who will take you to their favorite restaurant in the world, then not eat a thing because they just aren't hungry. Or you bought the same yummy food early in the day, I'm already on my fourth meal by nightfall and they still haven't eaten it or anything else. I'd have hunger burning a hole in my stomach by then and certainly couldn't do it
Seeing how that's far, FAR into the upper 2% of metabolisms (lacking exact numbers but I'd say far into the 0.X% even), I'd say that's an understatement.
Actually, can someone who is adept at statistics calculate the percentage of people that are that high if the mean seems to be around 2000 and 96% are within +-300 of that?
For the sake of simplicity, say it's 95%. This would give you a standard deviation of 150.
68% would fall within 1 standard deviation
95% would fall within 2 standard deviations and
99.7% would fall within 3.
1000 calories over the mean is 6.67 standard deviations. The chances are infinitesimal.
^^^for those not familiar with stats, this is the bell curve were used to seeing, correct? With 68% being the middle?0 -
FeedMeFish wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Well, the good news is that this is my last post because I am getting nowhere.
When I was in my late teens and early 20's, I ate like a horse, out-ate my friends, and I was skin and bones (as were my father, uncle and first cousin when they were in their late teens and early 20's). And I even bought a product called "Weight-On" when I was in college. Didn't work.
I am not a freak of nature. There are millions of others like me. If you want to reject this undeniable fact of life, so be it if it makes you happy.
But the thing is, you don't know exactly how many calories you were eating daily. Did you track your intake precisely or just using your, "I ate like a horse" method.
Track calories? A college student in a fraternity who tracks calories? Really? Find me one.
I ate more than others, and had no more physical activity than others. I was the bean pole. Again, it is beyond belief that people cannot accept this simple and factual statement.
me
You are 25, try calorie counting 30 years. LOL1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Well, the good news is that this is my last post because I am getting nowhere.
When I was in my late teens and early 20's, I ate like a horse, out-ate my friends, and I was skin and bones (as were my father, uncle and first cousin when they were in their late teens and early 20's). And I even bought a product called "Weight-On" when I was in college. Didn't work.
I am not a freak of nature. There are millions of others like me. If you want to reject this undeniable fact of life, so be it if it makes you happy.
But the thing is, you don't know exactly how many calories you were eating daily. Did you track your intake precisely or just using your, "I ate like a horse" method.
Track calories? A college student in a fraternity who tracks calories? Really? Find me one.
I ate more than others, and had no more physical activity than others. I was the bean pole. Again, it is beyond belief that people cannot accept this simple and factual statement.
Which would be why I gave you some easy questions that anyone could remember decades after the fact - to compare your thin self to your weight gaining self at different points in time. You complain about the hard question but didn't answer the easy one, either.
If you've ever read a scientific paper, you may find areas like Observations, methods, results, conclusion. You're stating your observation over and over again, no meat in between and no attempt to share relevant facts, and asking us to arrive at the same conclusions as you did. I'm not sure what you're looking for, here.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, it may be an exaggeration. But someone in their early 20s will still be able to eat more than in their early 40s, assuming the same weight and activity level.stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe the notion that those under 25 have significantly faster metabolisms. Human growth hormone, a major component of metabolism, is twice as high at age 20 as compared to age 35.
http://www.vrp.com/amino-acids/amino-acids/growth-hormone-amino-acids-as-gh-secretagogues-a-review-of-the-literature
Because we don't have "significantly faster metabolisms", or else I wouldn't have been 50 pounds heavier until 2 years ago when I started counting calories.
I don't know about you, but I didn't get my full height (5'4") until 21-22 (hell, I was nearly 13 before I hit 5 feet, and was 5'2" throughout most of high school), and raising a boy I've noted that, though he was 6' tall by 15, he took until 22-23 to settle at his final giant height of 6'3" to 6'4". I don't think the two of us are super special snowflakes, so some of that energy might still be used for growing, and maybe not just for height, body composition may have something to do with it.
Holy heck am I jealous. I got my first period by age 10, hit 5'3" by the time I was in 5th grade and just stopped growing completely. I went from being the tallest girl in class to the shortest in a matter of a few years. I would have loved to gain a few more inches of height, cup sizes, ANYTHING from the age of 11 to my early twenties.
3 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Again, just because it's behavior doesn't mean it's natural or unnatural.
I literally forget to eat if I am not hungry, and if I drink too much coffee in the morning, or the aforementioned big breakfast, I will feel full until supper-time. I am kind of anxious naturally and feel much better and calmer if I exercise to exhaustion at least once a day, preferably twice. I have trouble sitting still. I sleep 7.5 hours every night and 9 if I can on weekends, and don't feel good if I don't.
These things are part of my nature. They aren't learned responses, or don't feel like learned responses, they are the healthy behaviors of my normal body and mind if I am feeling good and not stressed. The things I do because they feel good, they keep me feeling good.
And again - skinny grandma, slim mom, slender daughters. There is no way that some of this isn't genetic.
Say you put everyone on the planet into their optimum shape and size. Those shapes and sizes would vary, right?
I don't think anyone's really disputing this level of detail. We're saying, lots of people probably don't have 113 lb 5'9" friends who eat 3000 calories everyday, sit on their heine all day and never gain a pound. Yeah I definitely know people who will take you to their favorite restaurant in the world, then not eat a thing because they just aren't hungry. Or you bought the same yummy food early in the day, I'm already on my fourth meal by nightfall and they still haven't eaten it or anything else. I'd have hunger burning a hole in my stomach by then and certainly couldn't do it
Seeing how that's far, FAR into the upper 2% of metabolisms (lacking exact numbers but I'd say far into the 0.X% even), I'd say that's an understatement.
Actually, can someone who is adept at statistics calculate the percentage of people that are that high if the mean seems to be around 2000 and 96% are within +-300 of that?
For the sake of simplicity, say it's 95%. This would give you a standard deviation of 150.
68% would fall within 1 standard deviation
95% would fall within 2 standard deviations and
99.7% would fall within 3.
1000 calories over the mean is 6.67 standard deviations. The chances are infinitesimal.
^^^for those not familiar with stats, this is the bell curve were used to seeing, correct? With 68% being the middle?
2000 is the middle.
Standard deviation is 150.
This means:
68% will be between 1850-2150
95% will be between 1700-2300
99.7% will be between 1350-24500 -
Here's the full text of the study btw. Had to jump through some hoops to find it, not found on scholar or pubmed.
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-wLVWT6NXVPL0JoPr/Ovid_ External Link#page/n1/mode/2up0 -
So if you're not tracking calories, how in the heck do you know how much you burn and how much you've eaten? Of course we don't accept what is anecdote. You can prove if you wrote a term paper, got a good grade in a class, and have a cell phone because they are tangible. But believing your statement, when it's EASILY disputed by actual science, just because you think it's true...........................well that'd be like having to believe you if you said the Tooth Fairy is really a real entity. Even if you have the money under your pillow to prove it.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Well, the good news is that this is my last post because I am getting nowhere.
When I was in my late teens and early 20's, I ate like a horse, out-ate my friends, and I was skin and bones (as were my father, uncle and first cousin when they were in their late teens and early 20's). And I even bought a product called "Weight-On" when I was in college. Didn't work.
I am not a freak of nature. There are millions of others like me. If you want to reject this undeniable fact of life, so be it if it makes you happy.
But the thing is, you don't know exactly how many calories you were eating daily. Did you track your intake precisely or just using your, "I ate like a horse" method.
Track calories? A college student in a fraternity who tracks calories? Really? Find me one.
I ate more than others, and had no more physical activity than others. I was the bean pole. Again, it is beyond belief that people cannot accept this simple and factual statement.
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
6 -
Bet they wouldn't if they lived with me for 30 days.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?
During the years when I was slim, people told me how lucky I am that I'm naturally slim.
What they didn't see was the fact that I was extremely active and that I didn't eat huge amounts of food. In fact, I had trouble eating more than about 3000 calories even on days when I needed to eat more than 3000 calories to fuel my activity.
Then, of course, my activity level decreased for a few years for various reasons, and I gained weight. Happily I've lost the weight again, but it certainly does take work. It doesn't just happen naturally.
There are some people who are thin no matter what they do. Those people are truly naturally thin.
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
6 -
Just wanted to comment on the activity level comments. I never exercised in my teens or 20's and 30's, i lived a sedentary life and ate whatever i wanted and stayed at the same weight throughout all those years, had 2 pregnancies, one of which i gained 52lbs which dropped off in a few months without paying attention to calories or food choices. I was also much more social back then, many more dinners out, take aways, bbq's, massive eating competitions between me and my brother and sister during regular family get togethers etc etc
My point is, i am now exercising and am more active than I've ever been in my life and i have to watch every damn calorie. Everything was effortless until i hit the age of 39-40 and this is when the weight start coming on, so for me lack of or lesser activity is definitely not the problem. I've gone from naturally slim all my life, to not lol1 -
Sounds like you have late bloomer genes in your family, as most males are done growing height-wise by age 19 and females by age 17. Granted, like you mentioned body composition does continue for some time after height growth is done.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, it may be an exaggeration. But someone in their early 20s will still be able to eat more than in their early 40s, assuming the same weight and activity level.stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe the notion that those under 25 have significantly faster metabolisms. Human growth hormone, a major component of metabolism, is twice as high at age 20 as compared to age 35.
http://www.vrp.com/amino-acids/amino-acids/growth-hormone-amino-acids-as-gh-secretagogues-a-review-of-the-literature
Because we don't have "significantly faster metabolisms", or else I wouldn't have been 50 pounds heavier until 2 years ago when I started counting calories.
I don't know about you, but I didn't get my full height (5'4") until 21-22 (hell, I was nearly 13 before I hit 5 feet, and was 5'2" throughout most of high school), and raising a boy I've noted that, though he was 6' tall by 15, he took until 22-23 to settle at his final giant height of 6'3" to 6'4". I don't think the two of us are super special snowflakes, so some of that energy might still be used for growing, and maybe not just for height, body composition may have something to do with it.
I paid particular attention to this for myself because I wanted to be tall, leggy, and gorgeous like my best friend who is 5'10". I fretted about it a lot, LOL. I paid particular attention to my son because, well, I'm his mother and I think moms just do that. I haven't observed that closely with other people so can't really speak to their growth rates.
Much to my disappointment, my height growth was done at 5'8" by the time I turned 17.
0 -
I still find that hard to believe that someone maintaining on 2500 calories is so far out of the ordinary.FunkyTobias wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Again, just because it's behavior doesn't mean it's natural or unnatural.
I literally forget to eat if I am not hungry, and if I drink too much coffee in the morning, or the aforementioned big breakfast, I will feel full until supper-time. I am kind of anxious naturally and feel much better and calmer if I exercise to exhaustion at least once a day, preferably twice. I have trouble sitting still. I sleep 7.5 hours every night and 9 if I can on weekends, and don't feel good if I don't.
These things are part of my nature. They aren't learned responses, or don't feel like learned responses, they are the healthy behaviors of my normal body and mind if I am feeling good and not stressed. The things I do because they feel good, they keep me feeling good.
And again - skinny grandma, slim mom, slender daughters. There is no way that some of this isn't genetic.
Say you put everyone on the planet into their optimum shape and size. Those shapes and sizes would vary, right?
I don't think anyone's really disputing this level of detail. We're saying, lots of people probably don't have 113 lb 5'9" friends who eat 3000 calories everyday, sit on their heine all day and never gain a pound. Yeah I definitely know people who will take you to their favorite restaurant in the world, then not eat a thing because they just aren't hungry. Or you bought the same yummy food early in the day, I'm already on my fourth meal by nightfall and they still haven't eaten it or anything else. I'd have hunger burning a hole in my stomach by then and certainly couldn't do it
Seeing how that's far, FAR into the upper 2% of metabolisms (lacking exact numbers but I'd say far into the 0.X% even), I'd say that's an understatement.
Actually, can someone who is adept at statistics calculate the percentage of people that are that high if the mean seems to be around 2000 and 96% are within +-300 of that?
For the sake of simplicity, say it's 95%. This would give you a standard deviation of 150.
68% would fall within 1 standard deviation
95% would fall within 2 standard deviations and
99.7% would fall within 3.
1000 calories over the mean is 6.67 standard deviations. The chances are infinitesimal.
^^^for those not familiar with stats, this is the bell curve were used to seeing, correct? With 68% being the middle?
2000 is the middle.
Standard deviation is 150.
This means:
68% will be between 1850-2150
95% will be between 1700-2300
99.7% will be between 1350-2450
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions