Stupid question ouch

Roza42 wrote: »

ceiswyn wrote: »

The metabolism thing is indeed largely a myth. Sorry.

What happens is that the guy who eats ‘3 boxes of pizza’ is actually eating almost nothing the rest of the time, or is fidgeting and getting up constantly, or doing a whole load of cycling at weekends. The main reason that people gain weight as they age is that they aren’t as active.

Ok, you are the first person who posted metabolism thing is a myth. I am not sure exactly what is meant by that. People do burn fuel at different rates. How is that a myth?

BMR is really where you would see what most people think of as the difference in metabolism. But where most people's numbers diverge from the "norm" is in NEAT and TDEE, or in other words in activity level and exercise exertion. Add to that people who don't log but assume they eat either a lot or little, and other people seeing a snapshot of a person's day and thinking they can determine from that how much they eat, and it's far more likely that people who seem to have a high metabolism are really just eating less than you think and moving more than you think.

Most of the articles out there about how to increase your metabolism are false advertising. They basically come down to ways to get more energy, thereby moving more, thereby increasing your TDEE. It has nothing to do with some inherent need for more or less calories to do the same things.

Most people we think of as having a "higher metabolism" are just more active during the course of their day.

I used to assume I had a slow metabolism - I was fairly active and eating @ 1400 cals per day and maintaining! Then I got a Fitbit and discovered I was barely getting 4000 steps per day. Then I got a food scale and started choosing database entries more carefully and discovered I was really eating 1700-1800 cals per day. I didn't have a slow metabolism, I was inactive and eating too much. Now people credit my "fast metabolism", but it's really that I'm getting 8000-10,000 steps per day and fitting treat foods in my calories. They just see me nibbling treats all the time and working a desk job.

I'm sure there are small differences in BMR between people who have the exact same stats, but my understanding is that the range is simply not as wide as people would like to believe. BMR can be tested in a lab, and people's BMR's are generally what the calculators say they would be when they are tested.

Roza42 wrote: »

ceiswyn wrote: »

The metabolism thing is indeed largely a myth. Sorry.

What happens is that the guy who eats ‘3 boxes of pizza’ is actually eating almost nothing the rest of the time, or is fidgeting and getting up constantly, or doing a whole load of cycling at weekends. The main reason that people gain weight as they age is that they aren’t as active.

Ok, you are the first person who posted metabolism thing is a myth. I am not sure exactly what is meant by that. People do burn fuel at different rates. How is that a myth?

Others (especially Heybales and Kimny) have talked about this in practical & common sense terms.

Here is a reference, from a site that's quite science-based and generally regarded as neutral (not an advocacy blog), that includes footnotes with cites to specific relevant research:

https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/

Let's underscore this, the most common misunderstanding that leads to some of these disputes: We need to clearly distinguish "basal metabolic rate" (or "resting metabolic rate", which is similar but not identical) from all-source calorie burn (which is TDEE, total daily energy expenditure), and from other subdivisions of TDEE (such as NEAT, non-exercise activity thermogenesis, which is TDEE excluding intentional exercise). People tend to use the term "metabolism" very loosely.

RMR/BMR have a narrow standard deviation. The activity components of calorie burn can vary hugely between individuals, and are very subject to intentional manipulation by the individual (absent medical conditions like - at the extreme - paralysis).

When people blame their "metabolism" for their weight, what they usually seem to mean is that they're the victim of factors outside their control. This is very, very unlikely, and especially unlikely in the absent of major medical conditions.

OP, somatotypes (like "endomorph") have been pretty thoroughly debunked. Individuals can differ in various ways, but these patterns are irrelevant. (I used to be an "endomorph", then I lost weight and became a "mesomorph". .) It is still sometimes used as a descriptive taxonomy for individuals' current physique, which is different from using it as a diagnostic/prescriptor about what someone can become, and how. Discussion and links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology

Also, OP, the Reddit thread you linked seems incoherent, to me. If you get stronger, X amount of weight that used to feel heavy will begin to feel less heavy, and eventually perhaps even light. The very strongest people of all tend to be larger people (not necessarily fatter), because their bigger bodies have inherently bigger muscles, and longer levers (bone structure), but that tells us very little about whether we as individuals can lift more at 160 pounds vs. 150 pounds.

If I go from 150 pounds to 160 pounds by adding 10 pounds of muscle (which would take a long time and a lot of work!), then I'd probably be able to lift more. If I go from 150 pounds to 160 pounds by adding 10 pounds of fat, it's very unlikely to improve my ability to lift.

If your lifts have stalled or declined, it's probable that your program is not well-designed, your nutrition is suboptimal (protein is particularly important, but it's not the only nutrient that's important), your calorie deficit is too extreme (you're not eating enough calories), or something of that nature. It could be mental, but it's more likely to be physical.

When I lost about 1/3 of my bodyweight, I got weaker for a bit because I was unintentionally eating too little (MFP underestimates my calorie needs). I corrected that as soon as I realized there was a problem, and in an overall sense my strength at my goal weight was not appreciably different from my strength at my obese weight. (Unlike some, I was not doing anything structured to increase my strength during weight loss; I was only trying to maintain it.)

Edited: Hit "post" too soon by accident!

kimondo666 wrote: »

metabolism is real, for example lizzie velasquez that has to eat 8k calories to stay alive, daily. Its rare genetic condition but proves that you can vary in terms of metabolism.

One exception to a rule does not dictate a norm for a population, though. This is like saying a skydiver died because his chute failed to open therefore all parachutes are unsafe and will lead to death.