New Discovery: Protein shuts down Fat burning
TallGent66
Posts: 84 Member
The Atlantic: A Potential Hidden Factor in Why People Have So Much Trouble Losing Weight
A new study in mice points to how cell biology, not willpower, might be the root of yo-yo dieting.
By Amanda Mull
"The American conventional wisdom about weight loss is simple: A calorie deficit is all that’s required to drop excess pounds, and moderating future calorie consumption is all that’s required to maintain it. To the idea’s adherents, the infinite complexity of human biology acts as one big nutritional piggy bank. Anyone who gains too much weight or loses weight and gains it back has simply failed to balance the caloric checkbook, which can be corrected by forswearing fatty food or carbs."
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
"...In a new study published today, Schmidt and her team have unlocked a molecular mechanism controlling weight gain and loss in mice: a protein that shuts down the animals’ ability to burn fat in times of bodily stress, including when dieting or overeating. This discovery might hold the key to understanding why it’s so hard for humans to lose weight, and even harder to keep it off."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/
A new study in mice points to how cell biology, not willpower, might be the root of yo-yo dieting.
By Amanda Mull
"The American conventional wisdom about weight loss is simple: A calorie deficit is all that’s required to drop excess pounds, and moderating future calorie consumption is all that’s required to maintain it. To the idea’s adherents, the infinite complexity of human biology acts as one big nutritional piggy bank. Anyone who gains too much weight or loses weight and gains it back has simply failed to balance the caloric checkbook, which can be corrected by forswearing fatty food or carbs."
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
"...In a new study published today, Schmidt and her team have unlocked a molecular mechanism controlling weight gain and loss in mice: a protein that shuts down the animals’ ability to burn fat in times of bodily stress, including when dieting or overeating. This discovery might hold the key to understanding why it’s so hard for humans to lose weight, and even harder to keep it off."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/
46
Replies
-
TallGent66 wrote: »The Atlantic: A Potential Hidden Factor in Why People Have So Much Trouble Losing Weight
A new study in mice points to how cell biology, not willpower, might be the root of yo-yo dieting.
By Amanda Mull
"The American conventional wisdom about weight loss is simple: A calorie deficit is all that’s required to drop excess pounds, and moderating future calorie consumption is all that’s required to maintain it. To the idea’s adherents, the infinite complexity of human biology acts as one big nutritional piggy bank. Anyone who gains too much weight or loses weight and gains it back has simply failed to balance the caloric checkbook, which can be corrected by forswearing fatty food or carbs."
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
"...In a new study published today, Schmidt and her team have unlocked a molecular mechanism controlling weight gain and loss in mice: a protein that shuts down the animals’ ability to burn fat in times of bodily stress, including when dieting or overeating. This discovery might hold the key to understanding why it’s so hard for humans to lose weight, and even harder to keep it off."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/
Old news, but thanks for posting. We know whole food high carb vegan or keto, as long as they are stuck to, tend work.27 -
Thank you @TallGent66 for sharing. I enjoyed reading the article.9
-
From the article:Humans and other mammals have a protein on the surface of fat cells
A protein on the surface of fat cells isn't protein in the diet.
Just to be clear, because the title of your thread is misleading.
The more fat cells the more effect this will have, obviously.26 -
cmriverside wrote: »From the article:Humans and other mammals have a protein on the surface of fat cells
A protein on the surface of fat cells isn't protein in the diet.
Just to be clear, because the title of your thread is misleading.
The more fat cells the more effect this will have, obviously.
Just wanted to second the bolded. The study is not about eating protein, it's about a protein found in the body of mice.
The article unfortunately reads like the typical media reporting of scientific research, lots of flashbang and tricky wording. I clicked through to the actual paper and took a glance, but it was really dense with measurements and terminology and my brain just wasn't up to picking through it right now
23 -
In general, most of the successful people here tend to eat higher than normal recommended intakes of protein during their weight loss. I'm not saying that it's a requirement, I'm just saying that it is certainly not hindering their weight loss. I'll take that evidence over hypothetical studies in mice. The idea that protein would prevent weight loss would go against pretty much all observational weight loss study throughout history.
I also take issue with the idea in this article that "its so hard for humans to lose weight" . I am sympathetic to those who struggle with it, but a big reason why people struggle I feel is because they have been told that it's hard and they need to do whatever new oveecomplicated method a blog has given them. That makes it uncessarily complicated and harder than it needs to be. Weight loss does not need to be so complicated and "so hard".
Consistently eat at a reasonable calorie deficit, and you will lose weight. Everyone else is just trying to sell you something, or fill blog pages.24 -
In general, most of the successful people here tend to eat higher than normal recommended intakes of protein during their weight loss. I'm not saying that it's a requirement, I'm just saying that it is certainly not hindering their weight loss. I'll take that evidence over hypothetical studies in mice. The idea that protein would prevent weight loss would go against pretty much all observational weight loss study throughout history.
I also take issue with the idea in this article that "its so hard for humans to lose weight" . I am sympathetic to those who struggle with it, but a big reason why people struggle I feel is because they have been told that it's hard and they need to do whatever new oveecomplicated method a blog has given them. That makes it uncessarily complicated and harder than it needs to be. Weight loss does not need to be so complicated and "so hard".
Consistently eat at a reasonable calorie deficit, and you will lose weight. Everyone else is just trying to sell you something, or fill blog pages.
It's not referring to dietary protein or overall intake. It's referring to a protein called RAGE (no seriously that's what the abbreviation is 😂) that supposedly influences cellular fat loss in mice.12 -
New_Heavens_Earth wrote: »In general, most of the successful people here tend to eat higher than normal recommended intakes of protein during their weight loss. I'm not saying that it's a requirement, I'm just saying that it is certainly not hindering their weight loss. I'll take that evidence over hypothetical studies in mice. The idea that protein would prevent weight loss would go against pretty much all observational weight loss study throughout history.
I also take issue with the idea in this article that "its so hard for humans to lose weight" . I am sympathetic to those who struggle with it, but a big reason why people struggle I feel is because they have been told that it's hard and they need to do whatever new oveecomplicated method a blog has given them. That makes it uncessarily complicated and harder than it needs to be. Weight loss does not need to be so complicated and "so hard".
Consistently eat at a reasonable calorie deficit, and you will lose weight. Everyone else is just trying to sell you something, or fill blog pages.
It's not referring to dietary protein or overall intake. It's referring to a protein called RAGE (no seriously that's what the abbreviation is 😂) that supposedly influences cellular fat loss in mice.
I don't have an issue with the study. My issue is with the post and the article which is massively misleading that study.15 -
New_Heavens_Earth wrote: »In general, most of the successful people here tend to eat higher than normal recommended intakes of protein during their weight loss. I'm not saying that it's a requirement, I'm just saying that it is certainly not hindering their weight loss. I'll take that evidence over hypothetical studies in mice. The idea that protein would prevent weight loss would go against pretty much all observational weight loss study throughout history.
I also take issue with the idea in this article that "its so hard for humans to lose weight" . I am sympathetic to those who struggle with it, but a big reason why people struggle I feel is because they have been told that it's hard and they need to do whatever new oveecomplicated method a blog has given them. That makes it uncessarily complicated and harder than it needs to be. Weight loss does not need to be so complicated and "so hard".
Consistently eat at a reasonable calorie deficit, and you will lose weight. Everyone else is just trying to sell you something, or fill blog pages.
It's not referring to dietary protein or overall intake. It's referring to a protein called RAGE (no seriously that's what the abbreviation is 😂) that supposedly influences cellular fat loss in mice.
I don't have an issue with the study. My issue is with the post and the article which is massively misleading that study.
That it is.8 -
The study is much closer to saying that stress causes you to retain fat than saying anything about dietary protein being a hindrance for weight loss.
Also, it isn't "so hard for humans to lose weight". Humans have been losing weight, willingly or unwillingly, for tens of thousands of years. A 500 calorie daily deficit causes a 1 lb per week weight loss, always has, always will. Losing weight is easy if you maintain the correct calorie deficit. The hard part is exerting the self discipline to achieve the calorie deficit if you have access to food and want some.17 -
Losing weight is actually pretty easy, sustaining the weight loss to goal or especially keeping the weight off is what humans seem to be bad at in the current environment. Not sure how the article addresses that, but I suppose I should read it.8
-
I guess reading comprehension is now rare.8
-
I lost plenty of weight by counting calories. I've kept most of it off for years by calories.
If eating protein keeps you fat for life, calorie counting is like kriptonite for protein, because a ton of people control their weight with calories.5 -
The title of this post in click bait and not representative of the info in the study. It is really inaccurate.11
-
Did OP even read the article? Just FYI...dietary protein is not the same as gene manipulation13
-
This content has been removed.
-
Keto_Vampire wrote: »Did OP even read the article?
I can't tell if it was intentional clickbait or if they just misunderstood the entire article completely.4 -
In fairness, we all took it to mean dietary protein. OP simply said "Protein"... That's on us as much as it is on OP, no?9
-
Sure, but I think that in a nutrition and fitness forum, leaving "protein" ambiguous tends to lead people into assuming you mean dietary.4
-
nevermind...5
-
Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
23 -
You could describe weight loss as the interactions of trillions of subatomic particles. You wouldn't gain any insight compared to CICO, but it would technically be correct.
If you want to control your weight, calories work. It's kind of like how if you build an airplane based on aerodynamics, it'll fly, but if you build an airplane based on proteins and hormones, it won't fly. The proof of a theory is in the predictions it makes like the proof of a pudding is in the way it tastes. And you can lose weight by managing your calories.10 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.
And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.
Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...17 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.
And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.
Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...
"Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures ***for everyone,*** "
I wouldn't agree "for everyone".
One woman in college ate like a bird, her roommate confirmed she ate like a bird, and she was a big woman.
One of my dorm mates was a petite Asian woman who weighed maybe 100 pounds, stick thin, and she out ate football players. It was a burden to her, some gave her a cruel nickname, but she had a super high metabolism.
I understand these are exceptions. While caloric deficits may apply to most, I'm guessing Mother Nature may also have individuals in between 'the norm' and the exceptions.27 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
When a general-interest writer (not an endocrinologist) writes the bolded, what does it mean? Nearly nothing.
Everyone can lose weight in what is for them a calorie deficit. They can also keep that weight off in calorie balance.
Compliance (via satiation, satisfaction, sustainability) are extremely variable among individuals. Activity levels are individual. I'm convinced that short-run energy-expenditure adaptation to calorie deficit is pretty individual (can't prove it). Nutrition plays a role in satiation and energy level. Psychology is individual (stress compensation, boredom, etc., play in here.) Normative behavior (what your family did, what the people around you do) is relevant. And there's more.
Weight loss is simple: Calories in less than calories out. But it's also complicated: Compliance, adaptation, nutrition, psychological factors, social factors, and more.
One thing I think doesn't help: Making people think the whole thing is outside their influence or control, thus is hopeless. If genes are doom, it's outside our control, right? It's a good excuse, but it leaves us powerless.
We're not.21 -
In fairness, we all took it to mean dietary protein. OP simply said "Protein"... That's on us as much as it is on OP, no?
That was my thought, too, but I'll admit I was biased coming in, because I had read the Atlantic article before I ever saw anybody posting about it on MFP, so I already knew it was "a" protein acting as a receptor blocker or the like, not dietary protein.1 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
When a general-interest writer (not an endocrinologist) writes the bolded, what does it mean? Nearly nothing.
Everyone can lose weight in what is for them a calorie deficit. They can also keep that weight off in calorie balance.
Compliance (via satiation, satisfaction, sustainability) are extremely variable among individuals. Activity levels are individual. I'm convinced that short-run energy-expenditure adaptation to calorie deficit is pretty individual (can't prove it). Nutrition plays a role in satiation and energy level. Psychology is individual (stress compensation, boredom, etc., play in here.) Normative behavior (what your family did, what the people around you do) is relevant. And there's more.
Weight loss is simple: Calories in less than calories out. But it's also complicated: Compliance, adaptation, nutrition, psychological factors, social factors, and more.
One thing I think doesn't help: Making people think the whole thing is outside their influence or control, thus is hopeless. If genes are doom, it's outside our control, right? It's a good excuse, but it leaves us powerless.
We're not.
Everyone? False.
There was a young woman in my college dorms decades ago who ate like a bird, was a very good athlete, and was a big woman. Her roommate confirmed she ate very little. Some kind of glandular problem.
Same dorm complex, a super thin Asian woman would out eat football players. One hundred pounds or less. She had to force herself to eat due to an incredibly high metabolism. Plate after plate. People from other dorms gave her a cruel name for her eating needs.
Sure, many or most can lose weight. Go to Europe. Most people thin or average. Smaller meals, lots of walking, less fast food, etc.
Nature does prefer variation, right? Same as a Somoan neighbor in my high school years who gained 30, 40 pounds of good weight - one summer. Looked like Adonis. I asked him how he gained weight, "I eat 3 avocados every day."
My Mom understood the complications of avocados, I didn't! Technically impossible.... A college coach later told me the max lean muscle weight that could be gained in a year is 7 pounds.
23 -
Anecdotes aren't science.
If you accept what most of us learned in school that "energy can neither be created or destroyed" can you explain how any person in a genuine and personal energy deficit isn't going to be running down their energy stores over time?13 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
But I don't know that this: "Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...." is an accurate statement. It's at least misleading. Weight loss still comes down to calorie deficits and energy expenditures for everyone, but those with hormonal conditions may need to be properly treated to get their numbers in line. They still lose weight the same way, but untreated, they will have an unusual CO. The science is the same, their route to figuring out the numbers might be a bit more complicated.
And again the author of this article was being less than accurate when saying that "no one knew why" the Biggest Losers struggled. There were many pros in the weight loss industry who put forward pretty apparent reasons why. There was a ton of info about the Biggest Loser study participants back when it first hit the media, and when we discussed it here, it seemed pretty logical that most of them struggle and end up regaining. They lose in an incredibly aggressive and unsustainable manner, the rapid weight loss messes with their TDEE, and they don't learn how to eat for their new much lighter weight, especially without a trainer screaming at them and a chef preparing their meals. That's why we often suggest to people here that they avoid under-eating or crazy exercise schedules to lose the weight fast.
Did you click through to the actual study and try to translate it at all yourself? Unfortunately reading an article about a study often gives a very warped idea of what the study actually proves or even suggests. I haven't had a chance myself to dig into it yet...
I have kept a keen interest in the BL data set. I think it has little to do with how aggressive their weight loss was. I think it has more to do with lifestyle. We dont always get an accurate view of things because the media like to sensationalize things. Inside these groups many people have kept off lots of weight long term. They adapted a lower energy density lifestyle or calorie counting and kept a high PAL. in most cases 1.75 or higher. Some regain is bound to happen as their body's recover. If one lost 200 lbs and regained 50. Most people would think that's a failure. Though it's much akin to someone losing 20 and regaining 5 as an overall percentage of weight lost. A win in my view.4 -
TallGent66 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
When a general-interest writer (not an endocrinologist) writes the bolded, what does it mean? Nearly nothing.
Everyone can lose weight in what is for them a calorie deficit. They can also keep that weight off in calorie balance.
Compliance (via satiation, satisfaction, sustainability) are extremely variable among individuals. Activity levels are individual. I'm convinced that short-run energy-expenditure adaptation to calorie deficit is pretty individual (can't prove it). Nutrition plays a role in satiation and energy level. Psychology is individual (stress compensation, boredom, etc., play in here.) Normative behavior (what your family did, what the people around you do) is relevant. And there's more.
Weight loss is simple: Calories in less than calories out. But it's also complicated: Compliance, adaptation, nutrition, psychological factors, social factors, and more.
One thing I think doesn't help: Making people think the whole thing is outside their influence or control, thus is hopeless. If genes are doom, it's outside our control, right? It's a good excuse, but it leaves us powerless.
We're not.
Everyone? False.
There was a young woman in my college dorms decades ago who ate like a bird, was a very good athlete, and was a big woman. Her roommate confirmed she ate very little. Some kind of glandular problem.
Same dorm complex, a super thin Asian woman would out eat football players. One hundred pounds or less. She had to force herself to eat due to an incredibly high metabolism. Plate after plate. People from other dorms gave her a cruel name for her eating needs.
Sure, many or most can lose weight. Go to Europe. Most people thin or average. Smaller meals, lots of walking, less fast food, etc.
Nature does prefer variation, right? Same as a Somoan neighbor in my high school years who gained 30, 40 pounds of good weight - one summer. Looked like Adonis. I asked him how he gained weight, "I eat 3 avocados every day."
My Mom understood the complications of avocados, I didn't! Technically impossible.... A college coach later told me the max lean muscle weight that could be gained in a year is 7 pounds.
You ignored "what is for them a calorie deficit" in my PP.
For example, if someone tiny outeats football players without gaining, they're either failing to effectively metabolize what's eaten, or expending energy in unusual ways. They're not defying the laws of physics through magic.
There have been numerous research studies about calories in humans. Those humans haven't always matched online calorie calculator predictions, but none have defied physics.
I maintain on 25-30% more calories than MFP estimates, for reasons not related to exercise calorie expenditure or activity level. I can still gain weight (or lose it) by counting calories, and do so at predictable rates.
Speculatively, some people may have a more confounding set of circumstances, such as an extreme calorie-expenditure slowdown in response to calorie-intake restriction. That doesn't mean there's no calorie level at which they'll starve to death.14 -
TallGent66 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Would Cellular Protein have been a better title?
Most seem to have skipped this paragraph:
"Endocrinologists have known for decades that the science of weight is far more complicated than calorie deficits and energy expenditures...."
Not negating that many, or most, can lose weight on a caloric deficit.
It would be interesting if they reviewed all of the Biggest Losers. A tough subgroup. Did they go back to their old ways, stop exercising? One of the Juice Guys lost a ton of weight, became famous, had life changes, and put most of the weight back on.
When a general-interest writer (not an endocrinologist) writes the bolded, what does it mean? Nearly nothing.
Everyone can lose weight in what is for them a calorie deficit. They can also keep that weight off in calorie balance.
Compliance (via satiation, satisfaction, sustainability) are extremely variable among individuals. Activity levels are individual. I'm convinced that short-run energy-expenditure adaptation to calorie deficit is pretty individual (can't prove it). Nutrition plays a role in satiation and energy level. Psychology is individual (stress compensation, boredom, etc., play in here.) Normative behavior (what your family did, what the people around you do) is relevant. And there's more.
Weight loss is simple: Calories in less than calories out. But it's also complicated: Compliance, adaptation, nutrition, psychological factors, social factors, and more.
One thing I think doesn't help: Making people think the whole thing is outside their influence or control, thus is hopeless. If genes are doom, it's outside our control, right? It's a good excuse, but it leaves us powerless.
We're not.
Everyone? False.
There was a young woman in my college dorms decades ago who ate like a bird, was a very good athlete, and was a big woman. Her roommate confirmed she ate very little. Some kind of glandular problem.
Same dorm complex, a super thin Asian woman would out eat football players. One hundred pounds or less. She had to force herself to eat due to an incredibly high metabolism. Plate after plate. People from other dorms gave her a cruel name for her eating needs.
Sure, many or most can lose weight. Go to Europe. Most people thin or average. Smaller meals, lots of walking, less fast food, etc.
Nature does prefer variation, right? Same as a Somoan neighbor in my high school years who gained 30, 40 pounds of good weight - one summer. Looked like Adonis. I asked him how he gained weight, "I eat 3 avocados every day."
My Mom understood the complications of avocados, I didn't! Technically impossible.... A college coach later told me the max lean muscle weight that could be gained in a year is 7 pounds.
You ignored "what is for them a calorie deficit" in my PP.
For example, if someone tiny outeats football players without gaining, they're either failing to effectively metabolize what's eaten, or expending energy in unusual ways. They're not defying the laws of physics through magic.
There have been numerous research studies about calories in humans. Those humans haven't always matched online calorie calculator predictions, but none have defied physics.
I maintain on 25-30% more calories than MFP estimates, for reasons not related to exercise calorie expenditure or activity level. I can still gain weight (or lose it) by counting calories, and do so at predictable rates.
Speculatively, some people may have a more confounding set of circumstances, such as an extreme calorie-expenditure slowdown in response to calorie-intake restriction. That doesn't mean there's no calorie level at which they'll starve to death.
Actually... you can gain .25 to.5 lbs a week in a realistic newbie lifter of lean mass... if You are geared... up to 1lb a week. Lol2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions