Is my metabolism screwed or is that a myth?
katieobrizzle
Posts: 7 Member
A bit of background - I’m 27 and when I was 22-24 I was super healthy, weight lifting 4/5 times a week, eating well, great physique. At some point I started having really bad depression, which lead to me basically dropping all physical activity and healthy eating habits, and started drinking quite heavily. I finally feel in a place mentally where I’m ready to address all this, I started a new medication for my depression which seems to be really helping, and made the decision to reduce my alcohol intake last week (which will also help with weight loss).
I currently have about 20 pounds to lose, but will be happy with 15 to start with. My question is around my metabolism and whether I’m going to have trouble losing weight. For the past 3 years I’ve had really irregular meal times and really irregular daily calorie intakes (one day could be 1000, one day could be 3000+ if I’ve drank a bottle or more of wine), will this mean it’s harder or easier for me to lose weight? I imagine this has had some effect on my metabolism.
I currently have about 20 pounds to lose, but will be happy with 15 to start with. My question is around my metabolism and whether I’m going to have trouble losing weight. For the past 3 years I’ve had really irregular meal times and really irregular daily calorie intakes (one day could be 1000, one day could be 3000+ if I’ve drank a bottle or more of wine), will this mean it’s harder or easier for me to lose weight? I imagine this has had some effect on my metabolism.
2
Replies
-
Its hard to say that if your metabolism is screwed without some data.
But to lose weight you just have to stay in a calorie deficit.
I would recommend you getting yourself a smart scale that can measure your BMR(metabolic rate).
Once you know your BMR just minus around 300-500 calories and that would be your total daily intake.
0 -
The whole wrecking your metabolism thing is a myth. Your BMR won't really change much. Your daily general movement (walking, fidgeting, cleaning, etc.) accounts for much more7
-
You need a smart scale for BMR? Just enter your height, weight and age into an online calculator.
And do not eat 3-500 below that. BMR is the calories you need just to stay alive, and going that far below that level will probably limit your nutrition intake. Maybe the poster above was thinking of TDEE? Which a scale also won't know, as any estimate of TDEE is based on a multiplier estimate of BMR based on assumed activity levels.5 -
No.Its hard to say that if your metabolism is screwed without some data.
But to lose weight you just have to stay in a calorie deficit.
I would recommend you getting yourself a smart scale that can measure your BMR(metabolic rate).
Once you know your BMR just minus around 300-500 calories and that would be your total daily intake.
You don't subtract calories below your BMR. Your BMR (also called RMR/ Resting Metabolic Rate) is the calories you would need to JUST do basic functions if you laid in a bed all day.
Subtract calories from your TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure - which includes everything you do in a day: work, housework, showering, exercising, doing everything you do in the day.)
As far as the "ruined metabolism?" That's not a thing. There is a little bit of down-regulation of metabolic rate during a severe calorie restriction, but it's not permanent. Read this:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p17 -
Take the right steps to improve your habits, and you can lose weight. Pretty much everyone has some challenges to their weight loss. It's possible to succeed, as long as you realize that the only reason to think about those roadblocks is to figure out how to get over, around, under or otherwise past them.
That said:
(1). It's mostly a myth. More explanation of the "mostly", later.
(2). Y'know what, it doesn't matter whether that makes it harder for you to lose weight.
If you want to lose weight, all you have to work with is the current state of your body. If you take the right steps, you can improve your health, regain your fitness, and lose weight. It isn't easy every minute for anyone. Different people require different numbers of calories, even people who are superficially similar. That's normal, because we're not all cookie-cutter people. If you do happen to require fewer calories than the average person . . . you can work with that, and lose weight.
Metabolism is pretty much the the calories we burn being alive, not even moving - the result of what happens at a cellular level in our bodies. Certain kinds of ill health can have an effect on it, but the effect tends to be small. Perhaps your previous lifestyle cost you something health-wise. If it did, and the effects include some that are metabolic slowdown, the effect would be small.
If you can't change it instantly - and you can't - there's no point in worrying about it. Improving your health and fitness may make a gradual improvement.
Don't fall for skeezy marketers who want to sell you a magic cure for your metabolism. Such a thing doesn't exist.
What to do?
Adopt a sensible eating routine. Get overall good nutrition: Ample protein, healthy fats, plenty of varied, colorful fruits and veggies. Don't try to lose weight fast: Keep it moderate. Work your way up to a manageably challenging routine of reasonably enjoyable cardiovascular and strength exercise. With patience and persistence, you'll see progress.
I said I'd say more about "mostly a myth".
Metabolism is pretty consistent across the population from ages 20s through 60s, then decline is slow:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34385400/
Most people's basal metabolic rate (BMR) and resting metabolic rate (RMR) - measures of "metabolism", loosely - fall in a reasonably narrow range, and large variations are quite rare:
https://examine.com/articles/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
Certain eating practices can reduce our calorie needs, but the effect is limited, and recovery is possible. I know you're talking about something other than extreme weight loss diets, but ignore the title of what I'm about to link, because some of the issues are more general. Read the first few posts in this thread (the ones by the guy who started the thread) for details:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
Congratulations on re-finding your way. That bespeaks character and strength. That suggests to me that you can succeed in your goals, if you commit to them. I'm cheering for you!9 -
Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/3
-
Your metabolism is fine.
However, be aware that psychotropic medications can make it easier to gain weight. I’m not sure the exact reasons for this but they can change your appetite, both in terms of what you like/crave and in terms of how much you want.
That’s not to discourage you from taking the medication if it’s working for you. Just be aware of it, stick with the lowest effective dose, and consider whether you want to be on it long term or use it to help you get into a better space.
Good luck!3 -
Your fine, don't let that get in your head. It's about happiness this time, and I hope you find some, share with a friend. Cheers.2
-
herringboxes wrote: »Your metabolism is fine.
However, be aware that psychotropic medications can make it easier to gain weight. I’m not sure the exact reasons for this but they can change your appetite, both in terms of what you like/crave and in terms of how much you want.
That’s not to discourage you from taking the medication if it’s working for you. Just be aware of it, stick with the lowest effective dose, and consider whether you want to be on it long term or use it to help you get into a better space.
Good luck!
Yes, I was sad when I had to stop taking the antidepressant Remeron. It worked well as an AD and helped me sleep, but it spiked my appetite fiercely. The AD Wellbutrin, on the other hand, is half of the weight loss drug Contrave.2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
0 -
Metabolism doesn't change much at all. It's based on your own physical activity to raise it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
You should concentrate on your non exercise activities your NEAT (Non exercise activity thermogenesis) level will be elevated and you will feel energized. eg. replace your chair with gym ball keep staying and moving more often try to do as much as small lifts throughout the day ! Good luck ✌🏽0
-
neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.2 -
neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
0 -
katieobrizzle wrote: »A bit of background - I’m 27 and when I was 22-24 I was super healthy, weight lifting 4/5 times a week, eating well, great physique. At some point I started having really bad depression, which lead to me basically dropping all physical activity and healthy eating habits, and started drinking quite heavily. I finally feel in a place mentally where I’m ready to address all this, I started a new medication for my depression which seems to be really helping, and made the decision to reduce my alcohol intake last week (which will also help with weight loss).
I currently have about 20 pounds to lose, but will be happy with 15 to start with. My question is around my metabolism and whether I’m going to have trouble losing weight. For the past 3 years I’ve had really irregular meal times and really irregular daily calorie intakes (one day could be 1000, one day could be 3000+ if I’ve drank a bottle or more of wine), will this mean it’s harder or easier for me to lose weight? I imagine this has had some effect on my metabolism.
Your 27 and worrying about whether drinking wine or irregular daily calorie intake is going to effect your engine (METABOLISM) is probably wasted at this stage of your life and it's going to feed your depression. What we should do to maximize our health for longevity it a different conversation. Eating healthier which for me is eating more of a natural whole food diet is a good starting point which you can tweak. I would suggest if your not doing any and if completely sedentary to include at least 90 minutes of exercise a week somewhere, you know 3 times 30 minutes and generally after 6 months or so people generally feel better physically and mentally and more inclined to increase the time, you know this, you've been there and the effects it has on mental health is huge. Don't be so hard on yourself, at 27 you have time for adjustments that can and do make a considerable difference without feeling your safety is compromised in the present. imo. cheers2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.
True, but I think Anne was referring to basal metabolic rate, which is what most posters on here think of when they think "metabolism"1 -
Fantastic responses here so I will just wish you luck on your journey0
-
neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.
OK, so you're disagreeing with Anne, but you choose to keep quoting me as though you're disagreeing with me (nothing in any of your posts quoting me substantively contradicts me, yet you keep phrasing your responses quoting me as though I said something different from what you're saying).
0 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.
True, but I think Anne was referring to basal metabolic rate, which is what most posters on here think of when they think "metabolism"
Yes, and this is what I was getting at when I said nobody's really wrong here and that most people aren't thinking about NEAT when they talk about screwing up their metabolism -- they seem to be thinking about having damaged the underlying chemical processes in a way that's causing them to use a lot less energy to fuel their BMR.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.
True, but I think Anne was referring to basal metabolic rate, which is what most posters on here think of when they think "metabolism"
Yes, and this is what I was getting at when I said nobody's really wrong here and that most people aren't thinking about NEAT when they talk about screwing up their metabolism -- they seem to be thinking about having damaged the underlying chemical processes in a way that's causing them to use a lot less energy to fuel their BMR.
Exactly.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.
I said that in an article like the one linked, I thought that including NEAT in metabolism wasn't really responsive to the question I believe people are really asking when they ask whether their metabolism is ruined, or how to speed up their metabolism, or similar questions. I think they believe something like their BMR/RMR is somehow the issue. I don't think NEAT is part of the "metabolism" intended (by the questioner) in that context.
At least that's what I meant to be saying, but I'm fully capable of communicating my thoughts unclearly: I do it frequently, unfortunately. I can see how I could've been clearer here. In retrospect, because retrospect is like that.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Your metabolism is fine - most of what you read is not grounded in fact. Here's a good article: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-increase-metabolism/
I like that article, but as one of those annoying pedantic people, it bothers me that he includes NEAT as part of "metabolism".😆
NEAT obviously is a big part of our calorie needs, though - second only to metabolism for many people, and often a bigger factor than exercise. Also widely misunderstood/unappreciated.
Interesting. Where does anabolism and catabolism fall within your definition of metabolism, curious. Cheers
Since this seems tangential to the OP's thread, I don't really understand why you're asking the question, unless you think I'm getting something wrong here for OP's purposes. If that's so, it'd be helpful IMO if you'd say what the issue is.
Loosely, thinking of metabolism as a summation of chemical processes and energy needs in cellular activity, anabolism and catabolism are main classes of activity, the building up to bigger molecules and the breaking down to smaller ones. Of course NEAT involves cellular activity.
My point, in saying it bothers me that he includes NEAT in "metabolism" in that particular article, is a practical matter. I think when people are asking about "metabolic damage", or how to "improve metabolism", they're usually implicitly asking about some potential way in which cellular activity may become less efficient or more efficient.
Often, I suspect the underlying hope is for some hack - supplement or eating strategy or something - that will affect that efficiency. I don't think they're looking for "move more in daily life to improve your metabolism".
Increasing NEAT is a reasonable strategy to burn more calories, of course. I just think that in this kind of context, lumping NEAT into "metabolism" muddies the waters. Could just be my weird bias, of course.
I took it at face value with you implying neat was not part of metabolism.
I'm going to say nobody's really wrong here.
NEAT is the incremental expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. It's not the total of RMR + expenditure from non-exercise activity on top of your RMR. Since all energy expenditure ultimately involves the chemical processes that provide the energy, NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism, but I don't think it's really what most people are referring to when they talk about ruining or "screwing" their metabolism.
Metabolism is all the chemical and physiological reactions occurring in a living organism that are necessary to maintain life and neat is fundamental to those principles. Do different degree's of neat effect our metabolism differently, sure, no argument there.
You seem to be saying you disagree with me, but I don't see how. I said NEAT is "funded" by your metabolism (i.e., that's how you get the energy represented by NEAT). Not quite sure what your point is.
The energy we get is from the nutrients in food that is then converted into ATP by every cell in the body by the mitochondria and without food there is no living organism or metabolism and without neat we can't procure or consume food and why I said neat and let me include food into that mix is fundamental to metabolism. Anne suggested that neat was not part of metabolism and I said it was, it's not that complicated. Cheers.
I said that in an article like the one linked, I thought that including NEAT in metabolism wasn't really responsive to the question I believe people are really asking when they ask whether their metabolism is ruined, or how to speed up their metabolism, or similar questions. I think they believe something like their BMR/RMR is somehow the issue. I don't think NEAT is part of the "metabolism" intended (by the questioner) in that context.
At least that's what I meant to be saying, but I'm fully capable of communicating my thoughts unclearly: I do it frequently, unfortunately. I can see how I could've been clearer here. In retrospect, because retrospect is like that.
Like I said in that response, I just took it at face value and also, understood better why you said what you said, but unfortunately, I just couldn't let that nugget slip by and I like to believe you understand that.
cheers 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions