What do you think of people who are naturally slim?
Options
Replies
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.
I guess everyone's different! I did notice that the kid got a lot more muscle mass before the final height, so who knows about the body recomp. I just learned that it was a thing, so I am a babe in the woods in that regard.1 -
At 162 cm (5'4") I will be anywhere between 52-57kg without any calorie counting. The reason for this is because I've always been a picky eater, never had a big appetite or a lot of interest in food. If I eat a lot of junk I will gain weight, but I just don't want to most of the time. I might have a bag of chips every few weeks or a glass of coke at parties, but everything else is pretty healthy.0
-
Tegan_the_Vegan wrote: »At 162 cm (5'4") I will be anywhere between 52-57kg without any calorie counting. The reason for this is because I've always been a picky eater,never had a big appetite or a lot of interest in food. If I eat a lot of junk I will gain weight, but I just don't want to most of the time. I might have a bag of chips every few weeks or a glass of coke at parties, but everything else is pretty healthy.
Exactly. Some people who have no worries about their weight simply don't care as much about food and often forget about food when engaged in other fun activities.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »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 lol
Can you recollect though (absolute interest...not being picky) if after extraordinary days of eating that you ate less the day after or the day after that or picked at stuff? I used to see this with camping friends.
Also, no regular exercise but were you on top of the housework, busy with school stuff ie your NEAT? I feel that is equally important for my weight..not just regular prescribed exercise.
Cos another difference I noticed with slim friends was their definition of sedentary or lazy in comparison to mine was very far apart at that time. Their sedentary looked active to me. (I hadn't always been large either but I took it for granted back then the habits/behaviour working in my favour).
I have always had a huge appetite, that is one thing that has not changed. And honestly have heard the "you eat so much" many, many times over the years. I eat twice as much as my husband who weighs 20kgs more than me, and yes we're together 24/7, both work from home. Eating huge one day has never affected my next days appetite.
Maybe my memory is skewed but i can't say my NEAT is much or any different then to back then, i used to get into daytime tv.. i haven't watched tv during the day for years. One thing that has definitely changed is that i fidget all day, i cant sit down longer for 30 minutes at a time before i have to get up and do my walking laps, which goes back to being more active these days.
Like i said, maybe i'm not remembering the past years accurately. But i don't dwell or stress over it, it is what it is and I've resigned myself to a future lifetime of calorie counting.3 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »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 lol
Can you recollect though (absolute interest...not being picky) if after extraordinary days of eating that you ate less the day after or the day after that or picked at stuff? I used to see this with camping friends.
Also, no regular exercise but were you on top of the housework, busy with school stuff ie your NEAT? I feel that is equally important for my weight..not just regular prescribed exercise.
Cos another difference I noticed with slim friends was their definition of sedentary or lazy in comparison to mine was very far apart at that time. Their sedentary looked active to me. (I hadn't always been large either but I took it for granted back then the habits/behaviour working in my favour).
I have always had a huge appetite, that is one thing that has not changed. And honestly have heard the "you eat so much" many, many times over the years. I eat twice as much as my husband who weighs 20kgs more than me, and yes we're together 24/7, both work from home. Eating huge one day has never affected my next days appetite.
Maybe my memory is skewed but i can't say my NEAT is much or any different then to back then, i used to get into daytime tv.. i haven't watched tv during the day for years. One thing that has definitely changed is that i fidget all day, i cant sit down longer for 30 minutes at a time before i have to get up and do my walking laps, which goes back to being more active these days.
Like i said, maybe i'm not remembering the past years accurately. But i don't dwell or stress over it, it is what it is and I've resigned myself to a future lifetime of calorie counting.
I was not overweight until I hit 40+. People would ask how I could eat so much and not gain weight when i was in my 30s. My body self regulated, and I didn't eat a lot all of the time. I naturally cut back for a few days after a big meal, but it wasn't conscious. I just wasn't hungry for a few days and ate lighter.
I think overweight people eat subconsciously sometimes not thinking about mindless eating in front of the fridge, television, or standing over a kitchen counter top munching. My mom taught us to sit down at the dining room table to eat. People nowadays often don't have the time to create a sit down meal. Rush, rush, rush.0 -
My wonderful doctor is a big fan of puttering. He says you can burn three times the calories "puttering about" vs sitting, and he has replaced his work desk with a treadmill desk. He has the type of practice that allows him to spend time with patients, so he sits while he is having a discussion with you, but when he is in his office between patients, he is on his treadmill desk, working and strolling along. He does squats between patients, too! He also notes that there is a fundamental difference between people concerning "food thinking"...he himself is a "food thinker" and is always aware of his last intake and frequently thinking about the next meal, and has to resist overeating or eating when not hungry. His 100lb wife often gets to 5 p.m. and wonders why she is suddenly so hungry, only to realize she hasn't eaten all day!0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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
That's because you missed the context of the original problem.
We're talking about a 5'9" 113 lb sedentary person.
It's actually because the study is talking RMR of that much. "Metabolism", not including conscious exercise and minimal NEAT.
Their total conclusions were from least variance between individuals to most: Exercise Expenditure, RMR, TDEE, DIT, with NEAT being the biggest factor in people's TDEE differences.ForecasterJason wrote: »
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
And not going into variance between people of the same stats, someone with that RMR would be 6'6'', 250 pounds at 15% bodyfat = 212.5 pounds lbm or something comparable. That is pretty out of the ordinary. Basically only very few strongmen and Pro Wrestlers who come up to that, which is what 100-200 people total?0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »gonetothedogs19 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.
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.
And where is your evidence that bone-thin 20-year-olds eat less and exercise more when they say they don't ?
Like the other poster said, you can't follow these people 24 hours a day. So it works both ways.
Did you take psyche 101? Cause you learn that your memories are not reliable. Particularly when remembering a time with fondness.
My memory, in terms of how much I ate when I was in college, and in terms of how little exercise I did, is 100% perfect. Again, denying the obvious that some people burn a lot more calories than other people.
This entire thread has been filled with people who at one point in their life, had the same mindset as you, until they faced reality and had the epiphany that they or others were either eating less than they thought, or they were more active than they thought. The only thing obvious is that you aren't willing to even consider that your personal perspective may be slightly clouded creating bias.
Apparently, it does not fit the narrative that everyone has here. Weigh all your food. Measure all your food. Count the calories of every strawberry you eat. It's the only way.
But why does claiming that you ate more and weighed less fly in the face of this narrative. It's still CICO. My CI and CO were just more than the average person. Why is this so hard to believe?
And I'm not winning a contest. I am just stating a FACT. 6' 1", 145 lbs. when I was 21. WHY? And please don't repeat the same thing - you ate less than you thought, or your memory is bad, or you fidgeted a lot. Tired of hearing that.
I knew I recognized your name this whole time as a poster who seems to take an issue with the use of a food scale, but I wasn't going to write anything about it until now. I remember that thread too and it was similar to this one.
Nobody expects you to provide a food log from your college days, but the fact of the matter is that when you're claiming that you defy science, you'd better be able to back it up. It's absolutely not hard to believe that your CICO was more than the average person, but you seem to be implying that you were so much of an outlier that you could sit there and consume 10K calories while your friends consumed 5K and they'd gain but you wouldn't and that just doesn't happen. Your height alone gives you a few more calories.
I ran a 5'9", 150 pound, 18 year old sedentary male through a TDEE calculator; he'd need 2029 on average to maintain. A 6'1", 150 pound, 18 year old sedentary male gets 2105 calories on average. A difference of 76 calories from height alone which is approximately one medium apple, one large egg, or one extra roasted chicken drumstick. Change the activity levels to moderately active and the average difference becomes 98 calories; that's around 12 extra tortilla chips, an extra hot dog without a bun, an extra vodka soda or light beer, or an extra 2.5 ounces of broiled salmon. Do you see how all of that can easily add up and seem like a lot more food throughout the day? This doesn't even take differences in bodyfat into consideration.
Now, I've noticed that you're 57 years old which means that you were in college from approximately 1977 to 1981, give or take a few years. You know what hasn't changed much, if at all, between then and now? The calorie needs of a growing boy/young man. You know what has changed? Portion sizes. Everything was much smaller back then than it is now. So let's say your CO meant you could eat 500 calories more than your friends without gaining. In 2016 that's not much, maybe a burger from a fast food joint, a bagel, or two small slices of pizza. Back in 1979 to 1982? You could probably get 500 calories out of two burgers, two bagels, or three small slices of pizza. Also, how much food ordering was actually done by college boys back then? I'd assume not even half as much as now. Due to that, if you were eating mostly home cooked meals or meals prepared in the school cafeteria, you could have easily been able to put more on your plate for not as much calories as now. There are so many factors to consider that it's a bit illogical to state "I out-ate all my friends at ALL times and was WAY skinnier". You just cannot assert that without knowing what your friends ate 24/7. I could eat a huge bowl of salad and it will only be 240 calories and take me an hour to eat while my friend could have a Snickers bar for approximately the same amount of calories but finish it in 60 seconds. Who seems like they ate more though?
I have a friend just like you were back then; two years ago he was 145 pounds at 6'3" but he ate M&Ms or peanuts by the handful several times per day. You know what else he did? Yard work for his mom around the house all the time, socializing with friends a lot throughout the day, ran errands. He didn't just sit on his butt all day, eat, and magically not gain weight. Now he's trying to build muscle and he's 195 pounds. To him it felt like he had to eat SO much to gain weight because he wasn't used to eating that much. He also moved to a place where you need to drive everywhere instead of walk, so that decreased his TDEE. It doesn't have to be lifting weights at the gym for your body to count it. If I get up now and do 10 jumping jacks, I could probably get away with eating one more strawberry today than I would be able to otherwise. Movement is movement, no matter how everyday it seems. This is why at 5'3" and 108 pounds, I'm able to get away with eating 2000+ calories and not gaining weight on many days when women who are heavier or even taller than me cannot. I do my 45 to 60 minutes of hard exercise in the morning, but the rest of the day I'm on my feet running errands, taking walks, doing housework, etc. All of those things, even if they are light work, increase my TDEE.16 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »gonetothedogs19 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.
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.
And where is your evidence that bone-thin 20-year-olds eat less and exercise more when they say they don't ?
Like the other poster said, you can't follow these people 24 hours a day. So it works both ways.
Did you take psyche 101? Cause you learn that your memories are not reliable. Particularly when remembering a time with fondness.
My memory, in terms of how much I ate when I was in college, and in terms of how little exercise I did, is 100% perfect. Again, denying the obvious that some people burn a lot more calories than other people.
Of course it is. Everyone's is, despite scientific research.5 -
I'm 5'9" and was supper skinny in my 20's and early 30's. I was eating 4,000 to 5,000 calories a days and still not gaining weight. They were not quality calories either, lots of junk, sugar, and at least 6 cans of soda/day. I could eat an entire loaf of bread in one day and still not gain weight. I weighed 145 back then and tried everything to gain weight.
This didn't last forever, in my mid 30's started putting on a few pounds, and that continued until I got up to 215 a few months ago.1 -
ITT: Two fifty-something year old men with impeccable memory capacities from 20 to 30 years ago who were both 145 in their twenties and couldn't gain a pound despite eating tons of calories. One was even calorie counting, with precision and not at all potentially overestimating their calorie intake mind you, before it was even a popular thing to do. They had the same level of physical activity in their twenties as they did in their thirties and forties, but then magically gained weight as they aged with zero change. Color me impressed and finally convinced that some people can truly defy all aspects of science.6
-
Maxematics wrote: »ITT: Two fifty-something year old men with impeccable memory capacities from 20 to 30 years ago who were both 145 in their twenties and couldn't gain a pound despite eating tons of calories. One was even calorie counting, with precision and not at all potentially overestimating their calorie intake mind you, before it was even a popular thing to do. They had the same level of physical activity in their twenties as they did in their thirties and forties, but then magically gained weight as they aged with zero change. Color me impressed and finally convinced that some people can truly defy all aspects of science.
Where did you find these two people who had ZERO change in diet or activity in 30 years? ...with impeccable memories (which isn't even a thing because we all have memories that differ depending on our perception).1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Also, it is true that someone basically adult sized who is still growing will need more calories. So what? I am not sure why this is meaningful to the thread topic.
Ya, my ex grew 7" during college - was 6'4" by the time he graduated.0 -
People who are "normally slim" tick me off. Not really - but I get aggravated that everyone has different struggles, and mine is with food. I am certain that normally slim people have other obstacles that drive them crazy that they have to deal with too - I would soooooo choose another obstacle for me to have to deal with if I got the choice. I don't know what, but food addiction would so not be on the list.
My mother seems think she's the authority for being an armchair critic watching me for 50 years deal with this - but I'm sorry - no PH.D., no right to an opinion. She's been a "size one civilian" all her life, and her famous enough line is, "What you need to do is...." Yeah - bite me.
I'm morbidly obese surrounded by size-1 civillians. That bothers me. I've seen so many of those s1c's drink themselves into oblivion and suffer the consequences of a monster hangover, and they don't learn from it. I guess I'm just as bad - having lost 140 pounds and gained back 100.
I know I shouldn't let it get to me that other people don't seem to have the same struggles I have with food, and I wouldn't wish it on anybody - guess I can't have it both ways. LOL
No one is better than you and EVERYONE has their own issues. Learn to set boundaries with your mother and go get professional help to help yourself cope.
You DESERVE to be happy and healthy. Make use of the good resources you have around you and do not make excuses for yourself. You are in charge of your own health and happiness.4 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Wicked_Seraph wrote: »Over time, I've learned that these individuals who are naturally slim simply have better habits than I do. Their portion sizes are more reasonable, they don't eat excessively, they're more active, and so forth. My thinking was quite skewed in that women who fretted over gaining a pound or two, and exercised regularly, were "obsessed". I never thought to consider that their definition of eating "a lot" was probably very, very different than my definition of eating "a lot". For them, working out and eating conscientiously was THEIR normal - whereas mine was no exercise and unrestrained gluttony. I'm not "naturally fat", I just never bothered looking after my weight.
My sister gets frustrated when people accuse her of being "naturally thin" and "oh, you can just eat whatever you want!" They generally have no idea that she used to weigh about 220 lbs. They have no idea that despite happily chowing down on a generous slice of cake, she is otherwise very careful about how she eats.
So you are going to tell me with a straight face that if you took, say, 200 women who are 5'6" and 150 lbs., and gave them the exact same number of calories for two months, and they did the same amount of exercise in those two months, that at the end of two months they would have all lost the same weight?
You're not really saying that, are you?
Well, in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment the participants all "lost about 25% of their weight."
5 -
dragon_girl26 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »RachelElser wrote: »Some people are naturally slim. My friend is just a little over 5 feet, 110 lbs soaking wet, near 40 years old with a kid. And I've seen what she eats. She's Italian and Sicilian so lots of pasta and she drinks regular soda. She also has great skin and looks 10 years younger then she is!
Yes, another naturally slim person.
But here come the comments - "she's really not eating as much as you think she is eating," or, "she's secretly running five miles a day and not telling you," or, "you don't know how much running around she has to do with that kid."
Denial, denial, denial that there are naturally slim people because they have fast metabolisms.
Metabolisms do vary, but not greatly given same size and body composition. Often people who eat a lot without gaining as much as expected simply aren't absorbing as much of what they eat as others. While metabolic rates don't vary greatly, guts do.
Right, plus, as already been established, "lots of" pasta means different things to different people. I've lost weight eating while still eating lots of pasta. My definition of lots of pasta has also changed over the years. Pasta in and of itself doesn't make overweight unless you consume too many calories.
Additionally, we can't glean from the original comment how this person eats the rest of the time when not with company, how active they are, etc... if she follows something like the Mediterranean diet, the basis for being able to eat that way is also to be as active as possible.
To look at this one offhand example and make the blanket statement "see, this person is naturally slim" without also having this info to examine is jumping the gun a bit.
Ya, people who eat one meal with my mother, whose weight hovers around Underweight, might think she is "naturally slim." However, if they were to be around her all day they would see that she is extremely active, and frequently skips meals.
During her second marriage, she had a desk job, went to school, ate differently, and "naturally" weighed about 25 pounds more.4 -
Gotcha. RMR instead of TDEE makes more sense.stevencloser wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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
That's because you missed the context of the original problem.
We're talking about a 5'9" 113 lb sedentary person.
It's actually because the study is talking RMR of that much. "Metabolism", not including conscious exercise and minimal NEAT.
Their total conclusions were from least variance between individuals to most: Exercise Expenditure, RMR, TDEE, DIT, with NEAT being the biggest factor in people's TDEE differences.ForecasterJason wrote: »
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
And not going into variance between people of the same stats, someone with that RMR would be 6'6'', 250 pounds at 15% bodyfat = 212.5 pounds lbm or something comparable. That is pretty out of the ordinary. Basically only very few strongmen and Pro Wrestlers who come up to that, which is what 100-200 people total?
0 -
Surveying them would be inaccurate. Just like your recollection of what you actually ate 35 years ago.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »WinoGelato 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.
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.
Well if you surveyed my frat brothers they would verify what I said. Again, there is no reason for me to make this up. CICO for me met a lot more calories than the average person.
And sorry, I don't have a diary of everything I did 35 years ago.
What reason is there for you to make this up? Well, you believe "naturally thin" is a thing and you are trying to debate against science. You don't want to seem like you're wrong.
I was 126lbs when I graduated from high school at 5'6". My first 3 months of weight training, I lost weight even though I SWORE I was eating more than before. Fortunately a bodybuilder named Randy Samuels and his girlfriend at the time Patricia Hamashin( who still competes at 56), help me to understand that I wasn't consuming as much as I thought I was. At 19, I started writing down everything I ate and VOILA found out I was only consuming 2400 calories a day. Once I bumped that up to 4000-5000 calories, it seemed like I was eating 16 hours a day. I was NEVER hungry but still FORCED myself to eat so I could gain weight. In 3 months time of doing this, I gained over 20lbs.
So why don't I believe in "naturally thin"? Because I myself was once one of those who thought he was one of them.
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 -
Maxematics wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »gonetothedogs19 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.
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.
And where is your evidence that bone-thin 20-year-olds eat less and exercise more when they say they don't ?
Like the other poster said, you can't follow these people 24 hours a day. So it works both ways.
Did you take psyche 101? Cause you learn that your memories are not reliable. Particularly when remembering a time with fondness.
My memory, in terms of how much I ate when I was in college, and in terms of how little exercise I did, is 100% perfect. Again, denying the obvious that some people burn a lot more calories than other people.
This entire thread has been filled with people who at one point in their life, had the same mindset as you, until they faced reality and had the epiphany that they or others were either eating less than they thought, or they were more active than they thought. The only thing obvious is that you aren't willing to even consider that your personal perspective may be slightly clouded creating bias.
Apparently, it does not fit the narrative that everyone has here. Weigh all your food. Measure all your food. Count the calories of every strawberry you eat. It's the only way.
But why does claiming that you ate more and weighed less fly in the face of this narrative. It's still CICO. My CI and CO were just more than the average person. Why is this so hard to believe?
And I'm not winning a contest. I am just stating a FACT. 6' 1", 145 lbs. when I was 21. WHY? And please don't repeat the same thing - you ate less than you thought, or your memory is bad, or you fidgeted a lot. Tired of hearing that.
I knew I recognized your name this whole time as a poster who seems to take an issue with the use of a food scale, but I wasn't going to write anything about it until now. I remember that thread too and it was similar to this one.
Nobody expects you to provide a food log from your college days, but the fact of the matter is that when you're claiming that you defy science, you'd better be able to back it up. It's absolutely not hard to believe that your CICO was more than the average person, but you seem to be implying that you were so much of an outlier that you could sit there and consume 10K calories while your friends consumed 5K and they'd gain but you wouldn't and that just doesn't happen. Your height alone gives you a few more calories.
I ran a 5'9", 150 pound, 18 year old sedentary male through a TDEE calculator; he'd need 2029 on average to maintain. A 6'1", 150 pound, 18 year old sedentary male gets 2105 calories on average. A difference of 76 calories from height alone which is approximately one medium apple, one large egg, or one extra roasted chicken drumstick. Change the activity levels to moderately active and the average difference becomes 98 calories; that's around 12 extra tortilla chips, an extra hot dog without a bun, an extra vodka soda or light beer, or an extra 2.5 ounces of broiled salmon. Do you see how all of that can easily add up and seem like a lot more food throughout the day? This doesn't even take differences in bodyfat into consideration.
Now, I've noticed that you're 57 years old which means that you were in college from approximately 1977 to 1981, give or take a few years. You know what hasn't changed much, if at all, between then and now? The calorie needs of a growing boy/young man. You know what has changed? Portion sizes. Everything was much smaller back then than it is now. So let's say your CO meant you could eat 500 calories more than your friends without gaining. In 2016 that's not much, maybe a burger from a fast food joint, a bagel, or two small slices of pizza. Back in 1979 to 1982? You could probably get 500 calories out of two burgers, two bagels, or three small slices of pizza. Also, how much food ordering was actually done by college boys back then? I'd assume not even half as much as now. Due to that, if you were eating mostly home cooked meals or meals prepared in the school cafeteria, you could have easily been able to put more on your plate for not as much calories as now. There are so many factors to consider that it's a bit illogical to state "I out-ate all my friends at ALL times and was WAY skinnier". You just cannot assert that without knowing what your friends ate 24/7. I could eat a huge bowl of salad and it will only be 240 calories and take me an hour to eat while my friend could have a Snickers bar for approximately the same amount of calories but finish it in 60 seconds. Who seems like they ate more though?
I have a friend just like you were back then; two years ago he was 145 pounds at 6'3" but he ate M&Ms or peanuts by the handful several times per day. You know what else he did? Yard work for his mom around the house all the time, socializing with friends a lot throughout the day, ran errands. He didn't just sit on his butt all day, eat, and magically not gain weight. Now he's trying to build muscle and he's 195 pounds. To him it felt like he had to eat SO much to gain weight because he wasn't used to eating that much. He also moved to a place where you need to drive everywhere instead of walk, so that decreased his TDEE. It doesn't have to be lifting weights at the gym for your body to count it. If I get up now and do 10 jumping jacks, I could probably get away with eating one more strawberry today than I would be able to otherwise. Movement is movement, no matter how everyday it seems. This is why at 5'3" and 108 pounds, I'm able to get away with eating 2000+ calories and not gaining weight on many days when women who are heavier or even taller than me cannot. I do my 45 to 60 minutes of hard exercise in the morning, but the rest of the day I'm on my feet running errands, taking walks, doing housework, etc. All of those things, even if they are light work, increase my TDEE.
That's all very interesting but you miss an important point - my fellow frat bothers who ate less than me and did the same amount of exercise I did (walking to class) were heavier than me. Back then there were no joggers, and nobody knew where the weight room was.0 -
Maxematics wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »gonetothedogs19 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.
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.
And where is your evidence that bone-thin 20-year-olds eat less and exercise more when they say they don't ?
Like the other poster said, you can't follow these people 24 hours a day. So it works both ways.
Did you take psyche 101? Cause you learn that your memories are not reliable. Particularly when remembering a time with fondness.
My memory, in terms of how much I ate when I was in college, and in terms of how little exercise I did, is 100% perfect. Again, denying the obvious that some people burn a lot more calories than other people.
This entire thread has been filled with people who at one point in their life, had the same mindset as you, until they faced reality and had the epiphany that they or others were either eating less than they thought, or they were more active than they thought. The only thing obvious is that you aren't willing to even consider that your personal perspective may be slightly clouded creating bias.
Apparently, it does not fit the narrative that everyone has here. Weigh all your food. Measure all your food. Count the calories of every strawberry you eat. It's the only way.
But why does claiming that you ate more and weighed less fly in the face of this narrative. It's still CICO. My CI and CO were just more than the average person. Why is this so hard to believe?
And I'm not winning a contest. I am just stating a FACT. 6' 1", 145 lbs. when I was 21. WHY? And please don't repeat the same thing - you ate less than you thought, or your memory is bad, or you fidgeted a lot. Tired of hearing that.
I knew I recognized your name this whole time as a poster who seems to take an issue with the use of a food scale, but I wasn't going to write anything about it until now. I remember that thread too and it was similar to this one.
I have no issue with the use of a food scale. But lots of people lose weight without a food scale. If you enjoy weighing and measuring your food, and counting every calorie, more power to you. That's the last thing I would want to do. I do, however, believe in CALORIE AWARENESS.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions