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?

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.