Do naturally thin people actually think different?
Options
Replies
-
Well, most thin people do say they forget to eat or they're not really interested as much.. which makes them NOT naturally thin, they're just consuming far fewer calories. I'm sure people think I'm "naturally thin" too because they don't see the meal planning and hard work I put in at the gym. I don't believe naturally thin exists. When you see a thin person eating a ton of food, likely they accidentally fasted the day before. I know someone who runs a lot, but running takes his appetite away. I used to have to remind him to eat constantly. Not naturally thin, just not eating, and running too much.
And as a thin person, i don't see food as anything but nourishment to keep me alive and fuel my workouts.. Though it wasn't always that way. I used to be overweight and I overate often. I had a different relationship with food and saw it as more of a comfort. Reprogramming my thinking and sorting out unhealthy attachments came with changing my entire lifestyle.6 -
5738_Cassiel wrote: »I was "naturally thin" until I wasn't. People aren't magically one or the other.
How does this answer my question? I never said people are magically one or the other. My question was this:
Is there an actual difference between the way naturally thin people and overweight people think?
The implication is that there may or may not be an actual difference. The implication is also that people are of different sizes. I am simply asking if there is a comparison between 2 of the hundreds of variations of generalized body types/sizes.
There wasn't any change in my thinking, just in my lifestyle.
And how do you decide a "naturally thin" person? Someone who's thin at that moment? Someone who used to be overweight but isn't anymore? If someone is like me and stopped being "naturally" thin, does their data point get removed?4 -
I think it should be "unconsciously thin" rather than "naturally thin", i.e. no conscious effort is made to stay thin, they unconsciously maintain a CI = CO balance.15
-
MonkeysForSale wrote: »I think it should be "unconsciously thin" rather than "naturally thin", i.e. no conscious effort is made to stay thin, they unconsciously maintain a CI = CO balance.
I like this description a lot better than naturally thin4 -
5738_Cassiel wrote: »I was "naturally thin" until I wasn't. People aren't magically one or the other.
How does this answer my question? I never said people are magically one or the other. My question was this:
Is there an actual difference between the way naturally thin people and overweight people think?
The implication is that there may or may not be an actual difference. The implication is also that people are of different sizes. I am simply asking if there is a comparison between 2 of the hundreds of variations of generalized body types/sizes.
There wasn't any change in my thinking, just in my lifestyle.
And how do you decide a "naturally thin" person? Someone who's thin at that moment? Someone who used to be overweight but isn't anymore? If someone is like me and stopped being "naturally" thin, does their data point get removed?
Okay, thank you for answering my question. To me, I would define naturally thin people by those who are able, like another person posted, to maintain a weight without a ton of conscious effort. As for you, do you feel like maintaining your current lifestyle (and subsequent body weight) is a lot of effort? If not, then I would say you're unconsciously (naturally) thin (:0 -
MonkeysForSale wrote: »I think it should be "unconsciously thin" rather than "naturally thin", i.e. no conscious effort is made to stay thin, they unconsciously maintain a CI = CO balance.
Yes, this is what I've been assuming was meant by "naturally thin."
I will add that I'm also assuming it means "no matter what the food environment."
There are many food enviroments in which I am normal weight to thin without effort (I was when younger). But I'm not naturally thin -- given the right environment (most today), I have to make a conscious effort to not overeat by adopting specific habits and mindfulness. This is not necessarily a feeling that I am expending a lot of effort, but it gets far more challenging at some times than others (i.e., my struggles with emotional eating are obviously more of an issue at some times and not others).2 -
5738_Cassiel wrote: »I was "naturally thin" until I wasn't. People aren't magically one or the other.
How does this answer my question? I never said people are magically one or the other. My question was this:
Is there an actual difference between the way naturally thin people and overweight people think?
The implication is that there may or may not be an actual difference. The implication is also that people are of different sizes. I am simply asking if there is a comparison between 2 of the hundreds of variations of generalized body types/sizes.
There wasn't any change in my thinking, just in my lifestyle.
And how do you decide a "naturally thin" person? Someone who's thin at that moment? Someone who used to be overweight but isn't anymore? If someone is like me and stopped being "naturally" thin, does their data point get removed?
I see naturally thin as someone who has been thin, be!is r at a healthy bmi, his or her entire life without much effort, and this does exist. I have two sisters who prove it. I have to put in a lot of effort constantly to even lose weight. I just hate feeling hungry.0 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one
). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
OK, my knowledge of stats sucks (and I have proof that confirms that!)
However.... using the abstract sited:
8% co-efficient of variation (defined according to wikepedia as standard deviation divided by mean) for resting metabolic rate.
Let's assume a 1500 RMR (slightly lower than my MFP BMR of 1518, just for ease of number crunching).
Using 8% co-efficient of variation, this means a standard deviation of 120 Cal.
Which means that a person who is TWO standard deviations from the mean would be 240 Cal away
So 2.5% of the population would be at 1260BMR instead of 1500. and 2.5% of the population at 1740 instead of 1500. And 95% in-between assuming a normal distribution.
I am a very active person on MFP (actually exceed that most of the time). That is an activity factor of 1.8 on MFP.
1260 x 1.8 = 2268
1500 x 1.8 = 2700 and
1740 x 1.8 = 3131 (for the lucky people on the other end of the spectrum)
So same activity, same "expected BMR", and at the margins of what the quoted abstract lists we have one PAV8888 eating 2268 Cal to maintain and at the other end a different but identically active PAV8888 eating 3131 to maintain!
I don't call that a SMALL difference.
You then ADD to that a 1-2% exercise energy expenditure coefficient of variation. And even better, according to that paper, the one that so many people around here seem to believe is minor, a 20% coefficient of variation for diet-induced thermogenesis.
Now, according to that paper's summary, regardless of all that, the people they stuck in a metabolic chamber all pretty much ended up within a 5% to 10% coefficient of variation for the whole day (so all the PAV8888s in the metabolic chamber ranged, using the 10% figure, from a TDEE of 2430 to 2970 due to their non-exercise activity habits... which is less than I demonstrate above, but which is still an extra meal!)
So... what am I mis-reading? *I am on phone and have only accessed the abstract*
(And no, when I was gaining weight it wasn't because my metabolism was slow. It was because I was both inactive and eating more calories on average than I do now that I am multiple times more active. My actual base metabolism IS actually slower now.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.
So you're saying they looked at a whole whack of random people and found that more or less people eat 1600 to 2400 Cal sort of thing?
Like... as a population?
Yes - this is a population study identifying the statistical distribution of BMR. Age/weight/height/gender/activity level are all variables.4 -
MonkeysForSale wrote: »I think it should be "unconsciously thin" rather than "naturally thin", i.e. no conscious effort is made to stay thin, they unconsciously maintain a CI = CO balance.
This is the perfect definition and should be posted on MFP somewhere as a reference so people are talking about the same thing.0 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
OK, my knowledge of stats sucks (and I have proof that confirms that!)
However.... using the abstract sited:
8% co-efficient of variation (defined according to wikepedia as standard deviation divided by mean) for resting metabolic rate.
Let's assume a 1500 RMR (slightly lower than my MFP BMR of 1518, just for ease of number crunching).
Using 8% co-efficient of variation, this means a standard deviation of 120 Cal.
Which means that a person who is TWO standard deviations from the mean would be 240 Cal away
So 2.5% of the population would be at 1260BMR instead of 1500. and 2.5% of the population at 1740 instead of 1500. And 95% in-between assuming a normal distribution.
I am a very active person on MFP (actually exceed that most of the time). That is an activity factor of 1.8 on MFP.
1260 x 1.8 = 2268
1500 x 1.8 = 2700 and
1740 x 1.8 = 3131 (for the lucky people on the other end of the spectrum)
So same activity, same "expected BMR", and at the margins of what the quoted abstract lists we have one PAV8888 eating 2268 Cal to maintain and at the other end a different but identically active PAV8888 eating 3131 to maintain!
I don't call that a SMALL difference.
You then ADD to that a 1-2% exercise energy expenditure coefficient of variation. And even better, according to that paper, the one that so many people around here seem to believe is minor, a 20% coefficient of variation for diet-induced thermogenesis.
Now, according to that paper's summary, regardless of all that, the people they stuck in a metabolic chamber all pretty much ended up within a 5% to 10% coefficient of variation for the whole day (so all the PAV8888s in the metabolic chamber ranged, using the 10% figure, from a TDEE of 2430 to 2970 due to their non-exercise activity habits... which is less than I demonstrate above, but which is still an extra meal!)
So... what am I mis-reading? *I am on phone and have only accessed the abstract*
(And no, when I was gaining weight it wasn't because my metabolism was slow. It was because I was both inactive and eating more calories on average than I do now that I am multiple times more active. My actual base metabolism IS actually slower now.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.
So you're saying they looked at a whole whack of random people and found that more or less people eat 1600 to 2400 Cal sort of thing?
Like... as a population?
Yes - this is a population study identifying the statistical distribution of BMR. Age/weight/height/gender/activity level are all variables.
Well... this is a tiny bit anticlimactic then!
Err... everything I said above... comparison and all that... obviously it all doesn't apply even remotely since I was barking up the wrong tree!6 -
stevencloser wrote: »change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
OK, my knowledge of stats sucks (and I have proof that confirms that!)
However.... using the abstract sited:
8% co-efficient of variation (defined according to wikepedia as standard deviation divided by mean) for resting metabolic rate.
Let's assume a 1500 RMR (slightly lower than my MFP BMR of 1518, just for ease of number crunching).
Using 8% co-efficient of variation, this means a standard deviation of 120 Cal.
Which means that a person who is TWO standard deviations from the mean would be 240 Cal away
So 2.5% of the population would be at 1260BMR instead of 1500. and 2.5% of the population at 1740 instead of 1500. And 95% in-between assuming a normal distribution.
I am a very active person on MFP (actually exceed that most of the time). That is an activity factor of 1.8 on MFP.
1260 x 1.8 = 2268
1500 x 1.8 = 2700 and
1740 x 1.8 = 3131 (for the lucky people on the other end of the spectrum)
So same activity, same "expected BMR", and at the margins of what the quoted abstract lists we have one PAV8888 eating 2268 Cal to maintain and at the other end a different but identically active PAV8888 eating 3131 to maintain!
I don't call that a SMALL difference.
You then ADD to that a 1-2% exercise energy expenditure coefficient of variation. And even better, according to that paper, the one that so many people around here seem to believe is minor, a 20% coefficient of variation for diet-induced thermogenesis.
Now, according to that paper's summary, regardless of all that, the people they stuck in a metabolic chamber all pretty much ended up within a 5% to 10% coefficient of variation for the whole day (so all the PAV8888s in the metabolic chamber ranged, using the 10% figure, from a TDEE of 2430 to 2970 due to their non-exercise activity habits... which is less than I demonstrate above, but which is still an extra meal!)
So... what am I mis-reading? *I am on phone and have only accessed the abstract*
(And no, when I was gaining weight it wasn't because my metabolism was slow. It was because I was both inactive and eating more calories on average than I do now that I am multiple times more active. My actual base metabolism IS actually slower now.)
The thing is that this distribution is for the whole population. You have in there sub 5' tall grannies as well as 7' tall high school basketballers. That's the main cause of the distribution, the boring old "more mass equals more BMR".
Ya, I used to split a pizza equally with my OH until I realized, "Duh, he's a foot taller than me - I need less food than he does."6 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
OK, my knowledge of stats sucks (and I have proof that confirms that!)
However.... using the abstract sited:
8% co-efficient of variation (defined according to wikepedia as standard deviation divided by mean) for resting metabolic rate.
Let's assume a 1500 RMR (slightly lower than my MFP BMR of 1518, just for ease of number crunching).
Using 8% co-efficient of variation, this means a standard deviation of 120 Cal.
Which means that a person who is TWO standard deviations from the mean would be 240 Cal away
So 2.5% of the population would be at 1260BMR instead of 1500. and 2.5% of the population at 1740 instead of 1500. And 95% in-between assuming a normal distribution.
I am a very active person on MFP (actually exceed that most of the time). That is an activity factor of 1.8 on MFP.
1260 x 1.8 = 2268
1500 x 1.8 = 2700 and
1740 x 1.8 = 3131 (for the lucky people on the other end of the spectrum)
So same activity, same "expected BMR", and at the margins of what the quoted abstract lists we have one PAV8888 eating 2268 Cal to maintain and at the other end a different but identically active PAV8888 eating 3131 to maintain!
I don't call that a SMALL difference.
You then ADD to that a 1-2% exercise energy expenditure coefficient of variation. And even better, according to that paper, the one that so many people around here seem to believe is minor, a 20% coefficient of variation for diet-induced thermogenesis.
Now, according to that paper's summary, regardless of all that, the people they stuck in a metabolic chamber all pretty much ended up within a 5% to 10% coefficient of variation for the whole day (so all the PAV8888s in the metabolic chamber ranged, using the 10% figure, from a TDEE of 2430 to 2970 due to their non-exercise activity habits... which is less than I demonstrate above, but which is still an extra meal!)
So... what am I mis-reading? *I am on phone and have only accessed the abstract*
(And no, when I was gaining weight it wasn't because my metabolism was slow. It was because I was both inactive and eating more calories on average than I do now that I am multiple times more active. My actual base metabolism IS actually slower now.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.
So you're saying they looked at a whole whack of random people and found that more or less people eat 1600 to 2400 Cal sort of thing?
Like... as a population?
Yes - this is a population study identifying the statistical distribution of BMR. Age/weight/height/gender/activity level are all variables.
Well... this is a tiny bit anticlimactic then!
Err... everything I said above... comparison and all that... obviously it all doesn't apply even remotely since I was barking up the wrong tree!
Depends on your perspective. To a rational mind this is the most positive outcome as all data proves beyond reasonable doubt that weight management is an output of your behavior. You are in control. If your current situation is not ideal, then you have complete control of the results.
The concept of low/high metabolism is a myth. There are no naturally skinny people. There are no naturally fat people.
To the original question posed by the OP I would suggest the following: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions. Unsuccessful people blame everything but themselves, thereby robbing themselves of a priceless opportunity to grow, learn, and mature.12 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
Our guests at Thanksgiving often talk about my skinny mother's "high metabolism." I tell them they should follow her around for a day. She is VERY active.
Now that she's 80, she's starting to slow down, but last summer she could outwork my brother and me combined. She's a little Energizer Bunny.7 -
change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
OK, my knowledge of stats sucks (and I have proof that confirms that!)
However.... using the abstract sited:
8% co-efficient of variation (defined according to wikepedia as standard deviation divided by mean) for resting metabolic rate.
Let's assume a 1500 RMR (slightly lower than my MFP BMR of 1518, just for ease of number crunching).
Using 8% co-efficient of variation, this means a standard deviation of 120 Cal.
Which means that a person who is TWO standard deviations from the mean would be 240 Cal away
So 2.5% of the population would be at 1260BMR instead of 1500. and 2.5% of the population at 1740 instead of 1500. And 95% in-between assuming a normal distribution.
I am a very active person on MFP (actually exceed that most of the time). That is an activity factor of 1.8 on MFP.
1260 x 1.8 = 2268
1500 x 1.8 = 2700 and
1740 x 1.8 = 3131 (for the lucky people on the other end of the spectrum)
So same activity, same "expected BMR", and at the margins of what the quoted abstract lists we have one PAV8888 eating 2268 Cal to maintain and at the other end a different but identically active PAV8888 eating 3131 to maintain!
I don't call that a SMALL difference.
You then ADD to that a 1-2% exercise energy expenditure coefficient of variation. And even better, according to that paper, the one that so many people around here seem to believe is minor, a 20% coefficient of variation for diet-induced thermogenesis.
Now, according to that paper's summary, regardless of all that, the people they stuck in a metabolic chamber all pretty much ended up within a 5% to 10% coefficient of variation for the whole day (so all the PAV8888s in the metabolic chamber ranged, using the 10% figure, from a TDEE of 2430 to 2970 due to their non-exercise activity habits... which is less than I demonstrate above, but which is still an extra meal!)
So... what am I mis-reading? *I am on phone and have only accessed the abstract*
(And no, when I was gaining weight it wasn't because my metabolism was slow. It was because I was both inactive and eating more calories on average than I do now that I am multiple times more active. My actual base metabolism IS actually slower now.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.
So you're saying they looked at a whole whack of random people and found that more or less people eat 1600 to 2400 Cal sort of thing?
Like... as a population?
Yes - this is a population study identifying the statistical distribution of BMR. Age/weight/height/gender/activity level are all variables.
Well... this is a tiny bit anticlimactic then!
Err... everything I said above... comparison and all that... obviously it all doesn't apply even remotely since I was barking up the wrong tree!
Depends on your perspective. To a rational mind this is the most positive outcome as all data proves beyond reasonable doubt that weight management is an output of your behavior. You are in control. If your current situation is not ideal, then you have complete control of the results.
The concept of low/high metabolism is a myth. There are no naturally skinny people. There are no naturally fat people.
To the original question posed by the OP I would suggest the following: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions. Unsuccessful people blame everything but themselves, thereby robbing themselves of a priceless opportunity to grow, learn, and mature.
That last bit doesn't seem entirely helpful, though. It's nice to think that everyone can succeed if they just look inward and start implementing solutions, but people do have legitimately different circumstances, many of which are out of their control. Even if metabolism isn't the problem that many people think it is, there are dozens of other factors that can influence how difficult it might be to lose weight. It doesn't get talked about around here much that I've seen, but economic circumstances can be a huge factor in how much effort needs to be expended to lose weight. Mental and physical illnesses can come into play, fortunate or unfortunate combos of genetics, and so on. I think a pragmatic approach is better than this success or failure model. Recognize that you may have certain challenges or advantages, do your best not to compare your successes to others, and acknowledge that sometimes people have different priorities in life.5 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
OK, my knowledge of stats sucks (and I have proof that confirms that!)
However.... using the abstract sited:
8% co-efficient of variation (defined according to wikepedia as standard deviation divided by mean) for resting metabolic rate.
Let's assume a 1500 RMR (slightly lower than my MFP BMR of 1518, just for ease of number crunching).
Using 8% co-efficient of variation, this means a standard deviation of 120 Cal.
Which means that a person who is TWO standard deviations from the mean would be 240 Cal away
So 2.5% of the population would be at 1260BMR instead of 1500. and 2.5% of the population at 1740 instead of 1500. And 95% in-between assuming a normal distribution.
I am a very active person on MFP (actually exceed that most of the time). That is an activity factor of 1.8 on MFP.
1260 x 1.8 = 2268
1500 x 1.8 = 2700 and
1740 x 1.8 = 3131 (for the lucky people on the other end of the spectrum)
So same activity, same "expected BMR", and at the margins of what the quoted abstract lists we have one PAV8888 eating 2268 Cal to maintain and at the other end a different but identically active PAV8888 eating 3131 to maintain!
I don't call that a SMALL difference.
You then ADD to that a 1-2% exercise energy expenditure coefficient of variation. And even better, according to that paper, the one that so many people around here seem to believe is minor, a 20% coefficient of variation for diet-induced thermogenesis.
Now, according to that paper's summary, regardless of all that, the people they stuck in a metabolic chamber all pretty much ended up within a 5% to 10% coefficient of variation for the whole day (so all the PAV8888s in the metabolic chamber ranged, using the 10% figure, from a TDEE of 2430 to 2970 due to their non-exercise activity habits... which is less than I demonstrate above, but which is still an extra meal!)
So... what am I mis-reading? *I am on phone and have only accessed the abstract*
(And no, when I was gaining weight it wasn't because my metabolism was slow. It was because I was both inactive and eating more calories on average than I do now that I am multiple times more active. My actual base metabolism IS actually slower now.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.
So you're saying they looked at a whole whack of random people and found that more or less people eat 1600 to 2400 Cal sort of thing?
Like... as a population?
Yes - this is a population study identifying the statistical distribution of BMR. Age/weight/height/gender/activity level are all variables.
Well... this is a tiny bit anticlimactic then!
Err... everything I said above... comparison and all that... obviously it all doesn't apply even remotely since I was barking up the wrong tree!
Depends on your perspective. To a rational mind this is the most positive outcome as all data proves beyond reasonable doubt that weight management is an output of your behavior. You are in control. If your current situation is not ideal, then you have complete control of the results.
The concept of low/high metabolism is a myth. There are no naturally skinny people. There are no naturally fat people.
To the original question posed by the OP I would suggest the following: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions. Unsuccessful people blame everything but themselves, thereby robbing themselves of a priceless opportunity to grow, learn, and mature.
That last bit doesn't seem entirely helpful, though. It's nice to think that everyone can succeed if they just look inward and start implementing solutions, but people do have legitimately different circumstances, many of which are out of their control. Even if metabolism isn't the problem that many people think it is, there are dozens of other factors that can influence how difficult it might be to lose weight. It doesn't get talked about around here much that I've seen, but economic circumstances can be a huge factor in how much effort needs to be expended to lose weight. Mental and physical illnesses can come into play, fortunate or unfortunate combos of genetics, and so on. I think a pragmatic approach is better than this success or failure model. Recognize that you may have certain challenges or advantages, do your best not to compare your successes to others, and acknowledge that sometimes people have different priorities in life.
I'll restate: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions.
There are issues beyond our control, but until we analyze each issue with an objective mindset then how can we know? This isn't an issue of pragmatism, nor is comparison required. Comparison, like blaming others, is a useless exercise.
8 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
OK, my knowledge of stats sucks (and I have proof that confirms that!)
However.... using the abstract sited:
8% co-efficient of variation (defined according to wikepedia as standard deviation divided by mean) for resting metabolic rate.
Let's assume a 1500 RMR (slightly lower than my MFP BMR of 1518, just for ease of number crunching).
Using 8% co-efficient of variation, this means a standard deviation of 120 Cal.
Which means that a person who is TWO standard deviations from the mean would be 240 Cal away
So 2.5% of the population would be at 1260BMR instead of 1500. and 2.5% of the population at 1740 instead of 1500. And 95% in-between assuming a normal distribution.
I am a very active person on MFP (actually exceed that most of the time). That is an activity factor of 1.8 on MFP.
1260 x 1.8 = 2268
1500 x 1.8 = 2700 and
1740 x 1.8 = 3131 (for the lucky people on the other end of the spectrum)
So same activity, same "expected BMR", and at the margins of what the quoted abstract lists we have one PAV8888 eating 2268 Cal to maintain and at the other end a different but identically active PAV8888 eating 3131 to maintain!
I don't call that a SMALL difference.
You then ADD to that a 1-2% exercise energy expenditure coefficient of variation. And even better, according to that paper, the one that so many people around here seem to believe is minor, a 20% coefficient of variation for diet-induced thermogenesis.
Now, according to that paper's summary, regardless of all that, the people they stuck in a metabolic chamber all pretty much ended up within a 5% to 10% coefficient of variation for the whole day (so all the PAV8888s in the metabolic chamber ranged, using the 10% figure, from a TDEE of 2430 to 2970 due to their non-exercise activity habits... which is less than I demonstrate above, but which is still an extra meal!)
So... what am I mis-reading? *I am on phone and have only accessed the abstract*
(And no, when I was gaining weight it wasn't because my metabolism was slow. It was because I was both inactive and eating more calories on average than I do now that I am multiple times more active. My actual base metabolism IS actually slower now.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.
So you're saying they looked at a whole whack of random people and found that more or less people eat 1600 to 2400 Cal sort of thing?
Like... as a population?
Yes - this is a population study identifying the statistical distribution of BMR. Age/weight/height/gender/activity level are all variables.
Well... this is a tiny bit anticlimactic then!
Err... everything I said above... comparison and all that... obviously it all doesn't apply even remotely since I was barking up the wrong tree!
Depends on your perspective. To a rational mind this is the most positive outcome as all data proves beyond reasonable doubt that weight management is an output of your behavior. You are in control. If your current situation is not ideal, then you have complete control of the results.
The concept of low/high metabolism is a myth. There are no naturally skinny people. There are no naturally fat people.
To the original question posed by the OP I would suggest the following: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions. Unsuccessful people blame everything but themselves, thereby robbing themselves of a priceless opportunity to grow, learn, and mature.
That last bit doesn't seem entirely helpful, though. It's nice to think that everyone can succeed if they just look inward and start implementing solutions, but people do have legitimately different circumstances, many of which are out of their control. Even if metabolism isn't the problem that many people think it is, there are dozens of other factors that can influence how difficult it might be to lose weight. It doesn't get talked about around here much that I've seen, but economic circumstances can be a huge factor in how much effort needs to be expended to lose weight. Mental and physical illnesses can come into play, fortunate or unfortunate combos of genetics, and so on. I think a pragmatic approach is better than this success or failure model. Recognize that you may have certain challenges or advantages, do your best not to compare your successes to others, and acknowledge that sometimes people have different priorities in life.
I agree with striving to maintain a posture of compassion toward others (though given some foregoing discussion in this thread, I'm evidently not always successful).
I do think, though, that when we examine ourselves, that the PP you're replying to is completely spot on.
Hands down, the best nugget I ever got from the cargo-boatloads of management education/training I've had over 4+ decades was the following, and it applies to my personal life as much as to good management, to emotions as much as to concrete actions:
Before reacting to a situation, it's vital to ask myself "what did I do to create, promote or allow this situation?"
Not only does that tend to short-circuit blame and excuses, but it also helps clarify the ways I can control or influence the situation to get an improved outcome. It focuses my attention on what power I do have, not on the power I don't.
Sometimes the only power I have is over how I react intellectually or emotionally to something. Even that's a help: Backward looking wishful thinking, blaming other people or circumstances, feeling guilt over what can't change, making excuses (distinct from reasons)? None of those do anything to improve the situation, they just make me feel bad in the present/future, and they can begin to take me further down a road to a general posture of resentment, felt powerlessness, anger, and unhappiness in routine everyday life.
Focusing on what I can't control promotes unhappiness and passivity. Focusing on what I can control (or influence) promotes improvement, however small.
None of that is about judging how others should feel or act, but it's part of how I judge myself.6 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
OK, my knowledge of stats sucks (and I have proof that confirms that!)
However.... using the abstract sited:
8% co-efficient of variation (defined according to wikepedia as standard deviation divided by mean) for resting metabolic rate.
Let's assume a 1500 RMR (slightly lower than my MFP BMR of 1518, just for ease of number crunching).
Using 8% co-efficient of variation, this means a standard deviation of 120 Cal.
Which means that a person who is TWO standard deviations from the mean would be 240 Cal away
So 2.5% of the population would be at 1260BMR instead of 1500. and 2.5% of the population at 1740 instead of 1500. And 95% in-between assuming a normal distribution.
I am a very active person on MFP (actually exceed that most of the time). That is an activity factor of 1.8 on MFP.
1260 x 1.8 = 2268
1500 x 1.8 = 2700 and
1740 x 1.8 = 3131 (for the lucky people on the other end of the spectrum)
So same activity, same "expected BMR", and at the margins of what the quoted abstract lists we have one PAV8888 eating 2268 Cal to maintain and at the other end a different but identically active PAV8888 eating 3131 to maintain!
I don't call that a SMALL difference.
You then ADD to that a 1-2% exercise energy expenditure coefficient of variation. And even better, according to that paper, the one that so many people around here seem to believe is minor, a 20% coefficient of variation for diet-induced thermogenesis.
Now, according to that paper's summary, regardless of all that, the people they stuck in a metabolic chamber all pretty much ended up within a 5% to 10% coefficient of variation for the whole day (so all the PAV8888s in the metabolic chamber ranged, using the 10% figure, from a TDEE of 2430 to 2970 due to their non-exercise activity habits... which is less than I demonstrate above, but which is still an extra meal!)
So... what am I mis-reading? *I am on phone and have only accessed the abstract*
(And no, when I was gaining weight it wasn't because my metabolism was slow. It was because I was both inactive and eating more calories on average than I do now that I am multiple times more active. My actual base metabolism IS actually slower now.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.
So you're saying they looked at a whole whack of random people and found that more or less people eat 1600 to 2400 Cal sort of thing?
Like... as a population?
Yes - this is a population study identifying the statistical distribution of BMR. Age/weight/height/gender/activity level are all variables.
Well... this is a tiny bit anticlimactic then!
Err... everything I said above... comparison and all that... obviously it all doesn't apply even remotely since I was barking up the wrong tree!
Depends on your perspective. To a rational mind this is the most positive outcome as all data proves beyond reasonable doubt that weight management is an output of your behavior. You are in control. If your current situation is not ideal, then you have complete control of the results.
The concept of low/high metabolism is a myth. There are no naturally skinny people. There are no naturally fat people.
To the original question posed by the OP I would suggest the following: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions. Unsuccessful people blame everything but themselves, thereby robbing themselves of a priceless opportunity to grow, learn, and mature.
That last bit doesn't seem entirely helpful, though. It's nice to think that everyone can succeed if they just look inward and start implementing solutions, but people do have legitimately different circumstances, many of which are out of their control. Even if metabolism isn't the problem that many people think it is, there are dozens of other factors that can influence how difficult it might be to lose weight. It doesn't get talked about around here much that I've seen, but economic circumstances can be a huge factor in how much effort needs to be expended to lose weight. Mental and physical illnesses can come into play, fortunate or unfortunate combos of genetics, and so on. I think a pragmatic approach is better than this success or failure model. Recognize that you may have certain challenges or advantages, do your best not to compare your successes to others, and acknowledge that sometimes people have different priorities in life.
I'll restate: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions.
There are issues beyond our control, but until we analyze each issue with an objective mindset then how can we know? This isn't an issue of pragmatism, nor is comparison required. Comparison, like blaming others, is a useless exercise.
Okay, with that emphasis, I agree. I'd read it more all-or-nothing than that, but you're absolutely right that it's a lot easier to find a solution when we are our own roadblock.
ETA: I like how you put that, @AnnPT77. I originally read the post as being about willpower, but I like how you interpreted it much better.3 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »change4char wrote: »I think peoples answers will be different based on how they classify "naturally thin." When I hear this phrase I think of people who have high metabolisms. Two people could be the same height/sex/activity level and think about food the same. They may equally enjoy food and eat the same meals, but one could end up larger than the other.
The variation in base calorie requirements between reasonably healthy/normal people of the same size is much smaller than one might expect - a few hundred calories a day.
On the unhappy side of that differential, a few hundred calories seems like a lot . . . when someone else gets to eat it, but you don't. Totally true, totally understandable.
However, it's only something like one candy bar, a small sandwich, an order of fries, or half a mocha latte daily (not all of those - just one ). That's really easy to eat beyond, even for the lucky so-called "fast metabolism" people.
These (maximum, rare) few hundred calorie differences in resting metabolic rate are of roughly the same order of magnitude in calories as an extra daily workout; a moderately active vs. sedentary home, hobby, or work life; or being fidget-y vs. non-fidget-y (not all of those, either - just one ).
Metabolic differences alone are not enough to explain "naturally thin" people.
And, given that intentionally moving more can create the same magnitude of difference in calorie burn, many of those of us not "naturally thin" can pretty easily change our habits to burn as many calories as the "metabolically lucky".
Details about metabolic variability here:
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
There are myriad reasons why some of us get fat, and others remain thin . . . as many combinations of reasons as there are people, I'd guess. I think most of the "naturally thin" idea is a myth . . . wishful thinking by those of us who wish we were.
@AnnPT77
IMO Metabolic differences alone easily explain many “naturally thin” people. If that slow metabolism person ate those 200 extra calories you dismiss as “not much anyway’ (paraphrased) that is 73000 calories a year or 20 pounds weight gain per year. The person who eats those 73000 calories and is thin: that’s naturally thin, comparatively.
Why is someone thin? Sure for similar varied types of reasons as someone might be overweight and some obese.
But, Imo “naturally” thin folk are the ones whose metabolisms and/or instinctive activity rates and/or hunger satiety signals function well. Some thin folk have to WORK at it because one or all of those signals don’t function as well (or other challenges). (These would be the thin but not naturally thin types). But, yes, some thin people are thin without conscious effort or lifestyle changes etc. - i.e. naturally thin.
Understand that differences in metabolic rate diminish to insignificance to closer two individuals are to height and weight. BMR is driven by mass. Mass is not driven by BMR. Even in the most extreme medically diagnosed metabolic deficiencies the impact to BMR/REE is ~5%.
Why is an individual thin/fat? Behavior.
Hunger signals, similar to BMR, are remarkably similar. Appetite signals on the other hand are dramatically different.
The difference between successful management depends on your awareness and willingness to sacrifice your present for success in the future. Not only true in weight, but finance, education, and every aspect of life.
So, it seems you disagree with examine.com's conclusion that 1 standard deviation of variance for RMR is 5-8%? Being that it's you, I know you have expertise and good reasoning behind it. Do you care to comment? (I think it's at least close to on topic for this thread, if a little arcane.)
I'm referring to: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ (as usual, they link their sources).
+1000 to your point about the centrality of putting future self equal or above current self, something I nonetheless struggle with routinely (dang hedonist tendencies, anyway!). It's the Stanford marshmallow test, life-sized.
I don't disagree with the article, but it doesn't state what the poster believes it does...and I'm including a greater degree of specificity than the cited source article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426
Those individuals falling into the 1st standard deviation of variance are those in the mean age/height/weight. If you take two 30 yr old males, both 5'8", both 200 lbs - you are going to find nearly identical BMRs to the point the variance becomes statistically insignificant.
This also neglects the natural variance of individual BMR. There is a 5% variation in individual BMR from day to day.
OK, my knowledge of stats sucks (and I have proof that confirms that!)
However.... using the abstract sited:
8% co-efficient of variation (defined according to wikepedia as standard deviation divided by mean) for resting metabolic rate.
Let's assume a 1500 RMR (slightly lower than my MFP BMR of 1518, just for ease of number crunching).
Using 8% co-efficient of variation, this means a standard deviation of 120 Cal.
Which means that a person who is TWO standard deviations from the mean would be 240 Cal away
So 2.5% of the population would be at 1260BMR instead of 1500. and 2.5% of the population at 1740 instead of 1500. And 95% in-between assuming a normal distribution.
I am a very active person on MFP (actually exceed that most of the time). That is an activity factor of 1.8 on MFP.
1260 x 1.8 = 2268
1500 x 1.8 = 2700 and
1740 x 1.8 = 3131 (for the lucky people on the other end of the spectrum)
So same activity, same "expected BMR", and at the margins of what the quoted abstract lists we have one PAV8888 eating 2268 Cal to maintain and at the other end a different but identically active PAV8888 eating 3131 to maintain!
I don't call that a SMALL difference.
You then ADD to that a 1-2% exercise energy expenditure coefficient of variation. And even better, according to that paper, the one that so many people around here seem to believe is minor, a 20% coefficient of variation for diet-induced thermogenesis.
Now, according to that paper's summary, regardless of all that, the people they stuck in a metabolic chamber all pretty much ended up within a 5% to 10% coefficient of variation for the whole day (so all the PAV8888s in the metabolic chamber ranged, using the 10% figure, from a TDEE of 2430 to 2970 due to their non-exercise activity habits... which is less than I demonstrate above, but which is still an extra meal!)
So... what am I mis-reading? *I am on phone and have only accessed the abstract*
(And no, when I was gaining weight it wasn't because my metabolism was slow. It was because I was both inactive and eating more calories on average than I do now that I am multiple times more active. My actual base metabolism IS actually slower now.)
The variability does not exist with another person of your gender/age/weight/height, so the expanding sigma values are misapplied. There is no unlucky/lucky people on one end of a spectrum. There is no "bell curve".
The comparison in the study is between multiple subjects of varying gender/age/weight/height.
A more accurate application would look like this:
Mean PAV8888: BMR = 1518
UnluckyPAV8888 BMR = 1442
LuckyPAV8888 BMR = 1593
Note the Min/Max are in constant fluctuation, so your BMR will change as needed to support biological functions.
So you're saying they looked at a whole whack of random people and found that more or less people eat 1600 to 2400 Cal sort of thing?
Like... as a population?
Yes - this is a population study identifying the statistical distribution of BMR. Age/weight/height/gender/activity level are all variables.
Well... this is a tiny bit anticlimactic then!
Err... everything I said above... comparison and all that... obviously it all doesn't apply even remotely since I was barking up the wrong tree!
Depends on your perspective. To a rational mind this is the most positive outcome as all data proves beyond reasonable doubt that weight management is an output of your behavior. You are in control. If your current situation is not ideal, then you have complete control of the results.
The concept of low/high metabolism is a myth. There are no naturally skinny people. There are no naturally fat people.
To the original question posed by the OP I would suggest the following: Successful people blame themselves first, hoping that they are the problem and eager to identify the root cause and start implementing solutions. Unsuccessful people blame everything but themselves, thereby robbing themselves of a priceless opportunity to grow, learn, and mature.
That last bit doesn't seem entirely helpful, though. It's nice to think that everyone can succeed if they just look inward and start implementing solutions, but people do have legitimately different circumstances, many of which are out of their control. Even if metabolism isn't the problem that many people think it is, there are dozens of other factors that can influence how difficult it might be to lose weight. It doesn't get talked about around here much that I've seen, but economic circumstances can be a huge factor in how much effort needs to be expended to lose weight. Mental and physical illnesses can come into play, fortunate or unfortunate combos of genetics, and so on. I think a pragmatic approach is better than this success or failure model. Recognize that you may have certain challenges or advantages, do your best not to compare your successes to others, and acknowledge that sometimes people have different priorities in life.
I agree with striving to maintain a posture of compassion toward others (though given some foregoing discussion in this thread, I'm evidently not always successful).
I do think, though, that when we examine ourselves, that the PP you're replying to is completely spot on.
Hands down, the best nugget I ever got from the cargo-boatloads of management education/training I've had over 4+ decades was the following, and it applies to my personal life as much as to good management, to emotions as much as to concrete actions:
Before reacting to a situation, it's vital to ask myself "what did I do to create, promote or allow this situation?"
Not only does that tend to short-circuit blame and excuses, but it also helps clarify the ways I can control or influence the situation to get an improved outcome. It focuses my attention on what power I do have, not on the power I don't.
Sometimes the only power I have is over how I react intellectually or emotionally to something. Even that's a help: Backward looking wishful thinking, blaming other people or circumstances, feeling guilt over what can't change, making excuses (distinct from reasons)? None of those do anything to improve the situation, they just make me feel bad in the present/future, and they can begin to take me further down a road to a general posture of resentment, felt powerlessness, anger, and unhappiness in routine everyday life.
Focusing on what I can't control promotes unhappiness and passivity. Focusing on what I can control (or influence) promotes improvement, however small.
None of that is about judging how others should feel or act, but it's part of how I judge myself.
@AnnPT77, this is extraordinarily useful. Thanks for this post. I wish we still had the Awesome button.5 -
alwaysbloated wrote: »alwaysbloated wrote: »
This was long, and a but repetitive (seemingly multiple episodes tacked together), but very on point and interesting. Thanks for bringing it in.
I thought the start was very boring, but it got better as it got on. I'm surprised the participants thought they should be huge, when they were doing lots of walking, fasting and playing sports for 2 hours a week. Seems obvious to us?
I liked the high-speed video of the woman at her desk job (would've been fun to have equivalent of her disbelieving colleague for comparison, maybe ). Also, the snack/meal research findings were interesting. I think I can see some of that effect in myself. 0 -
As part of my “lifestyle change” — an expression I despise— I made a point to observe those around me at a healthy weight. As others have said, the differences between them and me are how fast (or slow) they eat and how much (or little) is left on the plate.
I always woof down my food and clean my plate. Not an easy habit to break.5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoRh5-gCCrc&index=269&list=WL
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions