Why are slim people slim?

cdjs77 wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

nettiklive wrote: »

lporter229 wrote: »

Yeah, I agree that it's not just about food either. I don't think that inactive people truly realize how active some people are. Conversely, I don't think that active people realize how sedentary some people can be. And I am not talking about "exercise" activities like running, biking, lifting etc. I am talking about moving in general. Some people just move a lot more than others and it matters a lot.

This is something I really have trouble wrapping my mind around. Because if you look at the estimated calorie burns from actual exercise, it's really not that much - 100-400 or so calories per session depending on activity for a small person like myself - and that's with cardio, sweating and panting your butt off and hating life, lol. The whole concept of you can't outrun a bad diet because it takes something like half an hour of running to burn off a banana (making this up but you know these types of estimates). So in light of that, it's really hard for me to understand how some extra walking, tapping your foot and twiddling your thumbs can really add up to all that much to make a difference. I always thought that this cliche advice like take the stairs and park further out was completely useless, maybe targeted at morbidly obese people as a start to get them to move at all, but not to keep someone stick thin with no effort...

It does add up. Every little thing adds up. The difference between running and just moving without even thinking about it is that you're not even thinking about it. I've always hated the "X minutes burns Y food" thing. It isn't a single food that puts someone over, it's the total of them.

The difference between normal and obese BMI for a short 5' woman is just under 150 calories, so per that example, the difference between a normal weight and an obese woman is a couple of fruits. What if the normal weight one just burns one calorie more a minute for 3 hours out of the day without even noticing by tapping, walking, taking the stairs and whatnot?

We think there is a huge difference in eating between people who are overweight and those who aren't, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes the things that make a difference are so small it isn't even funny. I've gone from about 1500-1800 steps a day to about 7000 steps without exercise just by moving a little bit more here and there. It doesn't feel too different from the way I was, but I'm effectively walking nearly an entire hour more without even thinking about it. An hour of walking feels like effort, an hour of walking that just happens intermittently over a day without thinking doesn't even register for me as out of the norm, but the calories burned are effectively the same. Add some deliberate exercise sessions, and I'm pretty sure I would maintain a lower weight on the same food intake (which in my case would still be a high weight because I was super morbidly obese - yes, that's a real term).

I think this is very important. I think people really overestimate the difference in consumption between heavy and light people and underestimate the role of little bits of activity adding up.

I have never been overweight, so I can't speak to that, but for most of my life I was very thin. When I moved overseas I gained a decent amount of weight in a short amount of time and felt like I had to work really hard to get back to my old weight, running at least an hour a day, when I never ran before. It wasn't until I got a fitbit and went home for Christmas that I realized the reason. The house I grew up in was a big one-story house with a long hallway, which, when I was a kid, and now when I visit, I (unknowingly) pace up and down. I was easily getting more than 10,000 steps a day when I was visiting my parents, whereas, in my tiny city apartment, there isn't a lot of room for pacing so I was mostly sedentary, struggling to get 3,000 or more steps in a day. Hence why I needed to start running to keep the weight off, I was merely making up for those missing steps, which usually made a difference of about 300 or so calories in a day.

I also just checked out of curiosity the TDEE for a sedentary person my weight and height (175cm or 5'9" and 57 kg or about 125 lbs) versus the TDEE for someone my weight and height who is overweight (I used 80 kg or about 176 lbs). The difference was 276 kcal, that's less than what I burned meandering around my parents house. So it's pretty easy to see how little activities can add up. It also goes to show how it can seem like one can eat almost as much as their skinny counterpart and still be overweight. 276 kcal isn't much, it's about as much as a plain bagel, or a glass of whole milk. It's probably often a small enough difference that it's unnoticeable. No one would think that extra glass of whole milk a day would be the difference between being overweight and on the verge of underweight, but over time, it is.

:flowerforyou: , because clicking a like/insightful/hug tag was not enough.

Yes. A small difference on the causation end, a big difference on the results end, because time.

This is something I really have trouble wrapping my mind around. Because if you look at the estimated calorie burns from actual exercise, it's really not that much - 100-400 or so calories per session depending on activity for a small person like myself - and that's with cardio, sweating and panting your butt off and hating life, lol. The whole concept of you can't outrun a bad diet because it takes something like half an hour of running to burn off a banana (making this up but you know these types of estimates). So in light of that, it's really hard for me to understand how some extra walking, tapping your foot and twiddling your thumbs can really add up to all that much to make a difference. I always thought that this cliche advice like take the stairs and park further out was completely useless, maybe targeted at morbidly obese people as a start to get them to move at all, but not to keep someone stick thin with no effort...[/quote]

I have always been an "antsy" person. I don't like to sit still. I am a chemist and about half of my time is spent in a lab moving around and the other half is spent behind my desk. On days when I am in my office all day, I am constantly getting up to do things because I can't sit in one place for too long. When I get home from work I cook and clean, take my dog for a walk, and do whatever other things need to be done to avoid sitting around. Be it good or bad, I do not really have the patience to sit and watch TV.
I have MFP friends with fitbits who are always talking about how they struggle to get 10K steps per day. Until I recently got an activity tracker, I could not have told you how many steps I walked per day, but I figured I was probably getting at least that many. It turns out I average about 20K steps per day (I do run, so I am not discounting the effect that has on my number of steps, but even on rest days I am well over 10K). That is the point I was trying to make though. Some people are just naturally more active and that goes a long way toward why they are staying thin. It does make a difference.[/quote]


So true. I always fidget. I can't watch tv during the day either without getting up all the time to go to the bathroom, do some chore, let the dog in, get a drink etc. I have a very nice recliner and I avoid it all day until I'm actually ready to set down (I DO sit down and watch tv after the kids are in bed for an hour), or I know I just won't get up from it.

Yesterday I did maybe 10 minutes on the treadmill, the rest was cleaning, cooking and whatnot, and I got my 10k steps easily too. I do have a 3 story house, with laundry in the basement, and I often have my recipes up on my computer in another room, so need to walk back and forth as I cook (I'm actually too lazy to pull it up on my phone, true story).

So many people think that hitting the gym for 40 minutes 3x a week is enough, and eat as if they were lightly active, but sit all day the rest of the time and then wonder why they're not losing.

I know that it does come to food intake in the end, but for me activity is EVERYTHING. If I wasn't active, I'd be obese again, just because I can't sustain my appetite on a sedentary lifestyle (and always ruin my progress when I get sick).

I think having a family slowed me down. Yes, it is active and tiring at ties doing things with the kids but there is a lot more sitting watching and waiting for them. It also made things I do for recreation less frequent. I am not complaining about that tradeoff, just pointing out it is a source of a slow down. There might have been a bump when they were small, but most of the time you are shuttling, watching and waiting.

lporter229 wrote: »

nettiklive wrote: »

lporter229 wrote: »

Yeah, I agree that it's not just about food either. I don't think that inactive people truly realize how active some people are. Conversely, I don't think that active people realize how sedentary some people can be. And I am not talking about "exercise" activities like running, biking, lifting etc. I am talking about moving in general. Some people just move a lot more than others and it matters a lot.

This is something I really have trouble wrapping my mind around. Because if you look at the estimated calorie burns from actual exercise, it's really not that much - 100-400 or so calories per session depending on activity for a small person like myself - and that's with cardio, sweating and panting your butt off and hating life, lol. The whole concept of you can't outrun a bad diet because it takes something like half an hour of running to burn off a banana (making this up but you know these types of estimates). So in light of that, it's really hard for me to understand how some extra walking, tapping your foot and twiddling your thumbs can really add up to all that much to make a difference. I always thought that this cliche advice like take the stairs and park further out was completely useless, maybe targeted at morbidly obese people as a start to get them to move at all, but not to keep someone stick thin with no effort...

I have always been an "antsy" person. I don't like to sit still. I am a chemist and about half of my time is spent in a lab moving around and the other half is spent behind my desk. On days when I am in my office all day, I am constantly getting up to do things because I can't sit in one place for too long. When I get home from work I cook and clean, take my dog for a walk, and do whatever other things need to be done to avoid sitting around. Be it good or bad, I do not really have the patience to sit and watch TV.
I have MFP friends with fitbits who are always talking about how they struggle to get 10K steps per day. Until I recently got an activity tracker, I could not have told you how many steps I walked per day, but I figured I was probably getting at least that many. It turns out I average about 20K steps per day (I do run, so I am not discounting the effect that has on my number of steps, but even on rest days I am well over 10K). That is the point I was trying to make though. Some people are just naturally more active and that goes a long way toward why they are staying thin. It does make a difference.

Wow I can't imagine being that active. I walk around all day and workout bike etc but unless I deliberately do the elliptical or treadmill I only get about 3000 steps max.

CarvedTones wrote: »

I think having a family slowed me down. Yes, it is active and tiring at ties doing things with the kids but there is a lot more sitting watching and waiting for them. It also made things I do for recreation less frequent. I am not complaining about that tradeoff, just pointing out it is a source of a slow down. There might have been a bump when they were small, but most of the time you are shuttling, watching and waiting.

And less time for making healthy meals, lol.

nettiklive wrote: »

lporter229 wrote: »

Yeah, I agree that it's not just about food either. I don't think that inactive people truly realize how active some people are. Conversely, I don't think that active people realize how sedentary some people can be. And I am not talking about "exercise" activities like running, biking, lifting etc. I am talking about moving in general. Some people just move a lot more than others and it matters a lot.

This is something I really have trouble wrapping my mind around. Because if you look at the estimated calorie burns from actual exercise, it's really not that much - 100-400 or so calories per session depending on activity for a small person like myself - and that's with cardio, sweating and panting your butt off and hating life, lol. The whole concept of you can't outrun a bad diet because it takes something like half an hour of running to burn off a banana (making this up but you know these types of estimates). So in light of that, it's really hard for me to understand how some extra walking, tapping your foot and twiddling your thumbs can really add up to all that much to make a difference. I always thought that this cliche advice like take the stairs and park further out was completely useless, maybe targeted at morbidly obese people as a start to get them to move at all, but not to keep someone stick thin with no effort...

What is active to one person may be sedentary to another. During the work week I do not consider myself to be a particularly active person. I have a desk job. I spend 10 hours a day at my office, but even on my most sluggish chained-to-my-desk-and-working-through-lunch days I will still manage 6000-7000 steps before I leave the office. I will knock out another 5000-10,000+ when I get home just handling household chores and the like. I can't even imagine how one can manage to *only* walk 5000 steps in a day (those with physical limitations excluded, of course). That would actually take effort for me.

That said, I know there are people like this. If person A walks 5000 steps in normal activity and adds a half hour workout and person B just walks 15,000 steps, who will burn more calories (assuming the same basic stats)?

sardelsa wrote: »

nettiklive wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

nettiklive wrote: »

lporter229 wrote: »

Yeah, I agree that it's not just about food either. I don't think that inactive people truly realize how active some people are. Conversely, I don't think that active people realize how sedentary some people can be. And I am not talking about "exercise" activities like running, biking, lifting etc. I am talking about moving in general. Some people just move a lot more than others and it matters a lot.

This is something I really have trouble wrapping my mind around. Because if you look at the estimated calorie burns from actual exercise, it's really not that much - 100-400 or so calories per session depending on activity for a small person like myself - and that's with cardio, sweating and panting your butt off and hating life, lol. The whole concept of you can't outrun a bad diet because it takes something like half an hour of running to burn off a banana (making this up but you know these types of estimates). So in light of that, it's really hard for me to understand how some extra walking, tapping your foot and twiddling your thumbs can really add up to all that much to make a difference. I always thought that this cliche advice like take the stairs and park further out was completely useless, maybe targeted at morbidly obese people as a start to get them to move at all, but not to keep someone stick thin with no effort...

It does add up. Every little thing adds up. The difference between running and just moving without even thinking about it is that you're not even thinking about it. I've always hated the "X minutes burns Y food" thing. It isn't a single food that puts someone over, it's the total of them.

The difference between normal and obese BMI for a short 5' woman is just under 150 calories, so per that example, the difference between a normal weight and an obese woman is a couple of fruits. What if the normal weight one just burns one calorie more a minute for 3 hours out of the day without even noticing by tapping, walking, taking the stairs and whatnot?

We think there is a huge difference in eating between people who are overweight and those who aren't, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes the things that make a difference are so small it isn't even funny. I've gone from about 1500-1800 steps a day to about 7000 steps without exercise just by moving a little bit more here and there. It doesn't feel too different from the way I was, but I'm effectively walking nearly an entire hour more without even thinking about it. An hour of walking feels like effort, an hour of walking that just happens intermittently over a day without thinking doesn't even register for me as out of the norm, but the calories burned are effectively the same. Add some deliberate exercise sessions, and I'm pretty sure I would maintain a lower weight on the same food intake (which in my case would still be a high weight because I was super morbidly obese - yes, that's a real term).

Could be. I guess it just seems so difficult to grasp because when I exercise, I'm sweating, gasping, red-faced and generally feel like dying haha. So if all that doesn't burn all that many calories, it seems hard to believe that simply walking or other mild activities that don't feel like a lot of effort and don't get your heart rate up to where you're sweaty and out of breath, would have the same, or higher, effect...

Higher heart rate doesn't always mean more calories burned. Also if you do more cardio or more intense cardio, it can lead to being more tired all day, which can lead to reductions in NEAT (so basically you worked hard in the gym, but are drained so you sloth around the rest of the day). Those little things add up over the day and over time. I find if I keep my cardio more steady and less intense, I have more energy to take the stairs, run around, go for a walk, dance in the kitchen, which really helps with my calorie burn at the end of the day.

Absolutely right about the NEAT. Some people have issues with it dropping after workouts. Weightology has an article/research review that shows some people will compensate with less activity after a work out. Some people do this intentionally, some people subconsciously. There are also people lose weight and have less NEAT. they become less fidgety and walk less. That is most people. Then, you have hyperresponders to weight loss and NEAT. I find myself much more fidgety these days post weight loss. That was even before I started my lean bulk. I just have to move! Maybe I was always like that, just never knew it because I was so heavy. I have relatives that never stop moving. Always shaking legs, tapping feet. I have noticed that when i sit at a table my knee just goes up and down constantly.

psychod787 wrote: »

sardelsa wrote: »

nettiklive wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

nettiklive wrote: »

lporter229 wrote: »

Yeah, I agree that it's not just about food either. I don't think that inactive people truly realize how active some people are. Conversely, I don't think that active people realize how sedentary some people can be. And I am not talking about "exercise" activities like running, biking, lifting etc. I am talking about moving in general. Some people just move a lot more than others and it matters a lot.

This is something I really have trouble wrapping my mind around. Because if you look at the estimated calorie burns from actual exercise, it's really not that much - 100-400 or so calories per session depending on activity for a small person like myself - and that's with cardio, sweating and panting your butt off and hating life, lol. The whole concept of you can't outrun a bad diet because it takes something like half an hour of running to burn off a banana (making this up but you know these types of estimates). So in light of that, it's really hard for me to understand how some extra walking, tapping your foot and twiddling your thumbs can really add up to all that much to make a difference. I always thought that this cliche advice like take the stairs and park further out was completely useless, maybe targeted at morbidly obese people as a start to get them to move at all, but not to keep someone stick thin with no effort...

It does add up. Every little thing adds up. The difference between running and just moving without even thinking about it is that you're not even thinking about it. I've always hated the "X minutes burns Y food" thing. It isn't a single food that puts someone over, it's the total of them.

The difference between normal and obese BMI for a short 5' woman is just under 150 calories, so per that example, the difference between a normal weight and an obese woman is a couple of fruits. What if the normal weight one just burns one calorie more a minute for 3 hours out of the day without even noticing by tapping, walking, taking the stairs and whatnot?

We think there is a huge difference in eating between people who are overweight and those who aren't, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes the things that make a difference are so small it isn't even funny. I've gone from about 1500-1800 steps a day to about 7000 steps without exercise just by moving a little bit more here and there. It doesn't feel too different from the way I was, but I'm effectively walking nearly an entire hour more without even thinking about it. An hour of walking feels like effort, an hour of walking that just happens intermittently over a day without thinking doesn't even register for me as out of the norm, but the calories burned are effectively the same. Add some deliberate exercise sessions, and I'm pretty sure I would maintain a lower weight on the same food intake (which in my case would still be a high weight because I was super morbidly obese - yes, that's a real term).

Could be. I guess it just seems so difficult to grasp because when I exercise, I'm sweating, gasping, red-faced and generally feel like dying haha. So if all that doesn't burn all that many calories, it seems hard to believe that simply walking or other mild activities that don't feel like a lot of effort and don't get your heart rate up to where you're sweaty and out of breath, would have the same, or higher, effect...

Higher heart rate doesn't always mean more calories burned. Also if you do more cardio or more intense cardio, it can lead to being more tired all day, which can lead to reductions in NEAT (so basically you worked hard in the gym, but are drained so you sloth around the rest of the day). Those little things add up over the day and over time. I find if I keep my cardio more steady and less intense, I have more energy to take the stairs, run around, go for a walk, dance in the kitchen, which really helps with my calorie burn at the end of the day.

Absolutely right about the NEAT. Some people have issues with it dropping after workouts. Weightology has an article/research review that shows some people will compensate with less activity after a work out. Some people do this intentionally, some people subconsciously. There are also people lose weight and have less NEAT. they become less fidgety and walk less. That is most people. Then, you have hyperresponders to weight loss and NEAT. I find myself much more fidgety these days post weight loss. That was even before I started my lean bulk. I just have to move! Maybe I was always like that, just never knew it because I was so heavy. I have relatives that never stop moving. Always shaking legs, tapping feet. I have noticed that when i sit at a table my knee just goes up and down constantly.

I am definitely more fidgety now. When I’m sitting at work I’m bouncing one of my legs. When I’m using my standing desk I’m constantly moving in someway. During meetings I have to consciously be thinking “don’t bounce your leg. Don’t tap your foot. Don’t sway the chair” so as not to be distracting with my fidgeting. I don’t know for sure how much those calories amount to. But if you consider my Fitbit estimates my daily burn is 2400-2500 from my steps and workouts and really my maintenance is about 300 calories higher I assume they definitely add up. Even right now. Sitting watching tv smuggling with my dog and I’m wiggling both of my legs. I don’t hold still until I’m ready to sleep.

ETA: the Fitbit steps are 12k average and 6 hours a week weight lifting.