No, There's No Such Thing as a "Fast Metabolism"

[redeyemindtricks]

#BATTLEROYALE #TeamRJ

This take is a quick one. In the form of a public service announcement, basically.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING as a "naturally fast metabolism".

Nope.

It's not a thing.

__

I wrote a take yesterday about how losing weight and keeping it off really IS harder -- objectively -- for significantly overweight people than for those who've never been overweight.

The things in that take AREN'T "excuses". They are legitimate hardships, which are faced by one group of people -- those who are currently or were formerly obese -- but not by others.

On the other hand, one thing that IS often used as an excuse is... "Oh, some lucky people just have faster metabolisms than others."

Well...

Um...

No.

(Those are 3 links to studies.)

To a certain extent, this is just common sense. If you had 2 car engines that worked the same way, they'd get the same gas mileage... end of story. (If one engine WAS somehow burning more fuel than the other, it would run hot -- since the excess energy would have nowhere to go except to be dissipated as heat. If that happened in a human body, that unlucky human would quickly overheat and die of hyperthermia.)

__

So, why DO some people burn off calories more easily than others?

The answer is really NEAT.

Literally. The answer is "non-exercise activity thermogenesis", abbreviated NEAT by those in the know. NEAT is also known as AEE ("activity energy expenditure").

What is NEAT/AEE?

As that second study pointed out, NEAT includes "all those activities that render us vibrant, unique, and independent beings".

The mythical "fast metabolism" is really just ... not sitting still.

Is it really that simple?

Yep.

As the author says... "nonexercise activity varies by as much as 2,000 calories per day because some occupations are far more energy expending than others and because leisure activities range from almost complete rest to those that are highly energized."

TWO THOUSAND calories PER DAY!

That's definitely enough to account for the fastest of "fast metabolisms".

And, sure enough, when they over-fed a bunch of people... "changes in NEAT accounted for the energetic counterresponse to fat gain. Those people who increased their NEAT the most did not gain fat, even with overfeeding."

In plain English:

If someone can eat extra food without gaining weight, that's because she/he is simply moving around more -- at work, at play, or even just fidgeting and bouncing around.

Yep.

From that first study: "Although it is widely believed that genetics contribute significantly to the variability in body fatness, the available data do not support a role for defects in resting metabolic rate ... as [a] significant cause of obesity. ...Because daily energy expenditure is decreasing, it is difficult for most people to restrict intake to meet energy requirements, and more and more people are becoming obese."

In plain English: If you're the same size as someone else... you'll have the same metabolism as that someone else, too.

From that third study: "There was no indication of metabolic efficiency in even the severely obese."

In other words...

ANYONE can have a "fast metabolism".
All you have to do is ... get up and do stuff.

...Or even bounce your leg all day long, if you ride a desk for a living. Every little bit helps.

In fact, if you fidget ENOUGH... you can burn almost 100 calories an hour.

By fidgeting.

Yep.

That's a thing.

A thing that happens.

To all my elementary-school teachers who told me to quit bouncin' mah damn legs all the time...

Hah.

I win.

I see you hatin'. #spazgirl #neversitstill #keeponmovin

Stay active, peeps.

<3

[BaileyisDarcy]

So wait... My chronic bouncing knee is whats keeping the junk food off my hips?

... I suddenly have a reason to like it.

Fuckin A!

[redeyemindtricks]

#srsly

[Misspinkadee]

It won’t let me post a comment so I have to post a reply. But this can’t be true. I’m a stick, I literally eat whatever I want sometimes 5k calories a day, I sit around all day I’m lazy as hell. I don’t workout and people say I have the perfect body. That I’m so skinny and they say I have a fast metabolism. Can someone explain this?

[RedHood7]

Too bad bouncing legs convey nervousness. If it had been the other way around it would be perfect.

[redeyemindtricks]

What do you mean by "the other way around"?

[RedHood7]

If bouncing legs conveyed confidence.

[redeyemindtricks]

Oh hahah, yeah.

Well... I think this impression is more malleable than you think.

I mean, I can *guarantee* you I'm higher-strung and more physically restless than you. Not only am I a leg bouncer, but I also tend to contract and relax random muscles in rhythm (*sort* of like twitching, but... in rhythm), and I'm also tapping out "percussion" on my hands ALL THE TIME, as I described here:
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q2072764-what-do-you-think-of-my-drumming

If you just saw me once -- and didn't talk to me -- THEN, okay, you might mistake that for "nerves". (But even then you probably wouldn't, because the *rhythmic* tapping of the fingers is something that's much more characteristic of relaxed people, not of nervous people.)
But, if you talk to me for 5 seconds, you'll realize that "nervous" is as far from the truth as you could possibly get. I talk in a voice that's laid back, but still perfectly enunciated (and also LOUD ahah).

I mean, my friends -- and my clients and other

[redeyemindtricks]

people I know for business reasons -- actually DO see my spazfulness in a positive light. They'll describe me as "She's a dynamo", or "She's a do-er", or "She never has a lazy moment" (even though hahah that last one is pretty wrong).

If you are an inveterate fidgeter/bouncer/twitcher/spaz, then my recommendation to you is to work extra hard on cultivating a VERY laid-back, VERY well-articulated voice, and to become VERY good with words.
If you do these things, I *guarantee* that no one who ever interacts with you for more than 10 seconds will hold a negative view of the fidgeting/twitching/spazfulness.

[RedHood7]

Wow. Thanks for the advice. This is gonna be very useful

[redeyemindtricks]

No prob! <3

[NJ_Casanova]

I believe there is,

My sister is 41yrs old, eats whatever she wants and doesn't work out (at all) and is as skinny/skinnier than Kira Knightly.
img.wennermedia.com/.../...es-righton-inline-2.jpg

I'm fit, only go for walks eat whatever I want (mainly right before I go to bed) and am fitter than Channing tatum in dear John,
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images

closer to him in Magic mike (depending on how much of his definition was actually make up)
www.eonline.com/.../...hanning-Tatum.ms.090314.jpg

I'm not saying the eating bad doesn't affect my health... but I clearly don't gain weight from it.

[redeyemindtricks]

So, you mostly eat just later in the day?
In that case, you're probably naturally practicing "intermittent fasting" -- and with most of yr calories before bedtime, which is actually optimal nutrient timing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475137

If you eat the vast majority of yr food during a few hours' window, then... you're definitely eating less than most people. End of story, close the books on that one. (Unless I'm misunderstanding the words you wrote in parentheses.)

[NJ_Casanova]

you mostly eat just later in the day?

I eat during the day, but ( normal size meals for breakfast and lunch) I enjoy pigging out while watching movies at night... It also helps me sleep.

In total I probably eat 1,000 calories more than I should.

[redeyemindtricks]

Interesting.
What kinds of foods do you usually eat? Specifically, is yr diet higher than usual in protein?

Most proteins have a "thermic effect" of 20-30% of calories -- meaning, yr body actually burns off 20-30 percent of the protein calories just in order to digest the proteins and excrete the relevant waste.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC524030/#B16

So, if yr diet is high in protein, that means you're basically overestimating yr net calorie intake **even if you're actually weighing the food and counting everything accurately**.

That wouldn't explain a full thousand calories, but, it could explain a certain percentage of that.

How are you getting that thousand-calorie figure?

[NJ_Casanova]

I'm basically a meat eater, bread, potatos and cheese

Burgers, hot dogs, kielbasa, lunch meat sandwiches
Pizza with meat toppings
lots of bread, potato/french fries
macaroni/pasta
chinese food
Eggs and bacon or pork roll for breakfast or pancakes and sausage

I do usually have a salad once every other day, with my sandwiches during lunch or with the burgers.

[redeyemindtricks]

v. interesting, thanks.

[Anonymous]

I've read the same studies, and interpret them differently.

Because the shift in NEAT levels is not about lifestyle. It's about how much you burn when you're sitting watching tv. Some people, when they overeat, their body naturally fidgets a lot more, runs hotter (burning more calories) etc. Some people there's very little shift. So we're not talking here about just a baseline, and we're not talking about living an active lifestyle. And we're not even saying 'can you make fidgeting a habit'. What it comes down to is that -everyone- when they overeat naturally fidgets more/has a higher body temp, and -everyone- when they eat below maintenance, naturally runs cooler and moves less when at rest. But some people speed up a lot when they overeat, and some people only speed up a little. Some people slow down a lot when they eat below maintenance, some slow down only a little.

If life were fair, people would either be 'sensitive' or insensitive to how much they ate.

Life isn't fair. People who speed up a lot when they overeat tend to not slow down much when they undereat. And people who don't speed up much when they overeat tend to slow down a lot when they undereat.

At caloric maintenance, no difference. And we're not talking about raising baseline calorie burn via exercise here. What we're saying is 'what happens when you eat above maintenance or below, without you even intending it to happen?'

[redeyemindtricks]

"What it comes down to is that -everyone- when they overeat naturally fidgets more/has a higher body temp, and -everyone- when they eat below maintenance, naturally runs cooler and moves less when at rest."

The second one is mostly true. The first isn't even *close* to true.

Think about the post-Thanksgiving-dinner slump. There are people -- especially people who've developed type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance through excessive sugar consumption -- who feel like that after they eat just about ANYTHING.
Quite the opposite of "wanting to fidget" -- they get flooded with insulin, they're insulin-resistant so most of the functionality of the insulin goes to fat storage, and so... they get tired af, and start storing stuff as fat.

[Opinion Owner]

That's immediately after. Their daily calorie burn still goes up. From the studies i'd seen before, if you give people say 1000 calories over maintenance, some people burn off an extra 700+ via NEAT, some it's only an extra 200 plus, that's kind of the range, but nobody goes negative.

[redeyemindtricks]

yeah those things are tweakable, in the medium- and long-term, with dietary adjustments.

both...

• ... dietary adjustments in *preparation* (for instance, going on a very-low-carb diet to get rid of insulin resistance)

and...

• ... adjustments in the kinds of foods from which those "extra" calories come

As an extreme version of the second one, there are actually a number of studies now that seem to point to the idea that a caloric excess that's 100% protein CAN'T cause weight gain -- like, yr body just gets rid of all the excess, even if it's thousands of calories. (The evidence is pretty convincing, up to about 250 g = 1000 extra calories of pure protein a day.)
Beyond a certain point that would fuck up the pH of yr inner systems... and it'd be expensive asf... but it's an intriguing possibility

[redeyemindtricks]

like pisses out the excess (doesn't metabolize it at all... not talking about crazy shitloads of NEAT overheating)

[Opinion Owner]

I think it may be the case, but as you said, its in the long term and not that well understood (in terms of changing your response).

It's also true that if you eat very specific types of nutrient it's hard to gain weight. For instance, the pathway that turns carbohydrates into stored body fat is staggeringly inefficient. The problem is if you eat a lot of carbs and a small amount of fat, you get all your energy needs from the carbs and that little bit of fat does get stored as body fat. But if you really ate exceptionally low fat it would be hard to gain weight on carbs as a human. Protein as well.

[redeyemindtricks]

That's the ideal diet for someone who's blasting anabolic steroids, but it's an unmitigated disaster for anyone who isn't. (Cholesterol and fats are the source of ALL sex hormones. On a theoretical zero-fat high-carb diet, WITHOUT steroids, yr sexual function would totally be in the septic tank.) As a man, on that diet, you'd be a temperamental little bitch for whom the ability to have erections (or sexual arousal, lol) would be a distant memory.

If you were taking blast doses of steroids, though, it'd be ideal -- because you wouldn't NEED dietary fat for anything anymore, and, moreover, any dietary fat you *did* eat would pretty much go straight to arterial plaque (since all the sex hormones would be essentially taken care of exogenously).

That's probably how that Zizz dipshit died. At the doses he was clearly taking... he probably just ate a steak.

[PrincessofNohr]

While these studies do suggest that basal metabolic rate is largely similar between people of the same size and that it has little do with obesity, I feel like they fail to address other factors that people may classify under "fast metabolism", i. e. the ability to each much food and not gain fat. There could be a whole host of other factors: ability to put on muscle mass, ability to keep on/lose fat, ability to extract nutrients from food, etc.

Nutrient extraction is one that has always caught my attention. I know someone who has had rheumatic gastrointestinal problems for most of his life and has always been extremely thin despite a pretty heavy diet. After beginning treatment for it, he's begun to put on weight and is a more normal size for his height and age with no change in his activity level or diet. It would seem that he is possibly now extracting more nutrients from the food when they are given more time in his intestines. This may be a form of the legendary "fast metabolism".

[redeyemindtricks]

Nutrient *partitioning* can differ significantly from person to person.
Most famously, people run the gamut from insulin-resistant (will store more calories as fat, especially from carb sources, and will be "lazy" and won't keep/build lean tissue well) to insulin-sensitive (the opposite) -- and that changes from moment to moment and month to month, too, depending on current diet and exercise.
There are also other ways in which partitioning is affected, too. These are the things most famously screwed up by long-term starvation and anorexia/bulimia nervosa -- when people recover from these things and start to gain again, their bodies have "learned" to store almost ALL calories as fat, and have to gradually "unlearn" this over time.

Problems with nutrient *extraction*, on the other hand, are a whole different animal -- and I don't think many people with such problems would willingly hold them up as exemplars of the vaunted Fast Metabolism.
Does yr friend have to run to the bathroom a

[redeyemindtricks]

lot, or does he have major issues with gas or other elimination-related problems? (Basically, what's *happening* to all those non-extracted nutrients?)

[PrincessofNohr]

The nutrients are "on the fast track" if you will. I suppose though it depends just WHERE they hit that fast track though. If they fly through the small intestine, there may not be time to absorb everything. The large intestine would make little difference with this, if I were to guess, since it doesn't absorb nutrients. I would be interested to see a study if speed through the intestines really does affect absorption to a point.

[redeyemindtricks]

Yeah, that would be interesting for sure.

[dangerDoge]

Well, I was with ya until you said it was "that simple." Just read your studies and also did additional research.

The metabolism of a person is influenced by things like muscle mass, hence why large muscular people can eat more without gaining tons of fat. They burn more, not from the working part only, but their muscle mass. It also explains why men, on average, can eat more than women without facing the weight-- it's because they, on average, have more muscle mass than women.

This essentially skews how fast someone's metabolism is. You are right in how weight affects metabolism too and how the secret is being active, but part of that is the muscle helping.

And there is a such thing as a fast/slow metabolism, but chances are it's due to a thyroid problem, which is not exactly a good thing. 😅

[redeyemindtricks]

Oh, yeah... BIGGER people have higher metabolic rates, yeah. That much is obvious enough (... I guess obvious enough that it didn't even merit saying, hahah).

[redeyemindtricks]

Thyroid problems NEVER cause weight fluctuations of more than 10 or 15 lbs. That's the maximum gain due to the thyroid, even in cases of Hashimoto's thyroiditis (where the thyroid gland literally doesn't work at all).

If someone gains more than about that amount, then that *can't* be blamed on the thyroid. That's a lifestyle issue.

__

In fact, even the American Thyroid Association -- which, if anything, has a vested interest in *exaggerating* the problem -- says only 5-10 pounds on its official website!

https://www.thyroid.org/thyroid-and-weight/

(click "What is the relationship between hypothyroidism and weight gain?")

[dangerDoge]

Hey I never said it was a major change. I just said there was a change, hence how there is, technically speaking, a fast/slow metabolism... Contrary to the title 😁

[redeyemindtricks]

you know what I meant lol

24.media.tumblr.com/.../...gcZFeg1qjemo2o1_250.gif

[Anonymous]

Much of our calories are spent on keeping our bodies alive, and maybe a tiny fraction is spent on the physical activities that we do. In the past, many people lived on farms and had to do farmwork. As the world becomes more and more urbanized, people found more convenient ways to live, which are not always the healthiest. Dishwashers, sit-on mowers, food processors, and electric ovens and stoves all make our daily tasks easier and less stressful. We just don't need to spend so much energy anymore, but our bodies are not adapted to such a sedentary lifestyle. So, we have to figure out some way to be active while being trapped in an environment that makes our lives a tenfold easier.

[redeyemindtricks]

Yep, that's pretty much *exactly* what the author says at the end of the first study:
"The most likely environmental factor contributing to the current obesity epidemic is a continued decline in daily energy expenditure that has not been matched by an equivalent reduction in energy intake. Because daily energy expenditure is decreasing, it is difficult for most people to restrict intake to meet energy requirements, and more and more people are becoming obese. Thus, increasing physical activity may be the strategy of choice for public health efforts to prevent obesity."

[Opinion Owner]

Personally, I am against exercising mindlessly in the gym. I believe that idea is exercise is counter-productive. I believe that physical activity must be useful and productive, so I would rather do household duties manually. As my mother always says, the dishwasher doesn't have eyes. People have eyes and can wash dishes more cleanly.

[COCOCHANEL]

neat take !

i don't gain weight even though i tend to REALLY overeat (love buffets) and love fried foods and butter. people i've lived with spend a lot of time with me find it amazing. i also don't lose which is sad. even if i try to stop eating junk food and carbs and eat more protein and vegetables... i even cut dairy. no progress.

my height, weight and body shape have been the same since i was 15. i can still comfortably wear the skintight pants i wore in 9th grade.

i'm pretty idle, i never exercise more than walking to the station or the grocery store and i don't walk fast. for the last decade or so i've tended to go through phases where i lie in bed all day, like even after waking up i stay in bed and lie still or sit and watch tv. active days are days when i just walked a bit more than usual.

just wondering why i see no changes no matter what i do （−＿−；）

[redeyemindtricks]

When you go to buffets, do you end up fasting for a long time afterward (and also before)?

The whole technique of eating most of the day's calories in one GIANT meal -- and basically fasting the rest of the time -- is actually a highly effective weight-maintenance technique (and the body tends to *use* the calories well, too). Most people just can't do it because they don't have the self-control to fast the rest of the time.

[COCOCHANEL]

i tend to eat out of boredom and i can't stop. if i buy 2 packs of cookies (like milanos, brussels, oreos, etc) i eat them in one day and i feel nauseated during and after but i don't learn from this. really compulsive behavior.

i do have a tendency to light junk food during the day and then ate a massive dinner and just pass out. but that's mostly because i was working or wandering around and didn't have the option. if someone offers me food i'll always accept. after a buffet i just need a few hours til i try to eat the takeout box or something else. people literally laugh because i eat so much in one sitting.

[COCOCHANEL]

i am so glad to hear that eating a gigantic meal isn't bad for you. always heard it was bad and everyone would say don't eat at night you'll gain weight and i was like right, ok..

[IceCubedude]

Dude you are so wrong on so many levels iam not even sure where to start... if i eat liek a pig an dont excercise i will gain lots of weight unlike my friends who dont even work as half as a hard as i do , i have a manual labor job and i work out.

fast metabolism does exists that why some people are fat and some are skinny without even trying, you can fidget as much as you want but that won't change anything, some people have bodies that store fat instead of producing extra energy like skinnier people do, i studied this at college and it does very well exist.

if you deny it or ignore it you're just setting yourself up and everyone you know for a big fat failure.

[aWes0MeNeSs]

YES!

[IceCubedude]

@aWes0MeNeSs just telling the truth the way it is, some things are up for debate some are simply facts.

[aWes0MeNeSs]

Yes, I agree with you.

[redeyemindtricks]

Default-fat and default-skinny are functions of (1) different appetites, and (2) different amounts of AEE/NEAT.

#2 is discussed in the take.

#1 is also a BIG thing. If you know people who work out, then you'll know (a) people who have to literally *struggle* to eat ENOUGH food to "bulk up"... and (b) people who can eat and eat and eat, but for whom dieting is basically like killing themselves.

The "A" people have naturally smaller appetites. To such a point that they actually struggle to eat big meals! That whole idea would be a joke to the "B" people, who have naturally bigger appetites.

[IceCubedude]

you actually think you know what you're talking about? this is the best kind of ignorance, sorry to burst your bubble but meal size, appetite and how fat you are while related, they are simply irrelevant for some people, also who said skinny people dont eat? my friend is a stick man, and eats all day long like a machine but never gains a single pound, he doesn't really work or anything and he eats thousands of calories daily.

comparing someone who is naturally skinny to someone who is naturally fat with slow metabolism is simply dumb (No offense), we can argue all day but at the end we will get back to real life where fast and slow metabolism exist.

[Sunflower19]

@IceCubedude agreed!

[redeyemindtricks]

Clinical nutritionists have literally failed to find a single example of such a thing. If you look at the studies where they've tried... they *all* have results exactly like those of the 3 I posted above.

I mean... you're taking on quite an attitude about this, considering the *entire scientific establishment* is on the side of the issue that isn't your side.

[IceCubedude]

i can easily find a reasearch that states how aliens dont smoke because their hands aretoo small to hold a cigarrette... the links you posted mean nothing, because its still taught at schools, univirsities and fits our way or life and the explination of fatst and slow metabolism make sense.

why some people are naturally skinny? why some are naturally muscly? why some people can reach 400 lbs while some eat like there's no tommorrow and can't even get close to fat? it is not something they're doing, its called genetics, your genetics determine what kind of body you have, sure with hard work any body can change but stop working as hard and your body will be want to get back to its original state... if you want to motivate people thats not the way to do it.

[Lightspeed-Lemon]

Not sure about this. There are some very sedentary people -- think computer nerds drinking Mountain Dew all day -- who remain skinny all their lives. And I saw this marathon runner on TV who was technically obese. I think people's bodies are predisposed to be certain shapes and sizes. You can work out or diet to change your size, but the minute you stop, the body wants to return to its natural shape. I have a friend who's always been big. He's actually slimmed down a lot in recent years by being active and playing sports every week but is still a "large" type compared to me, no matter what he does. Like the obese marathon runner, he is fit and healthy, regardless of his appearance. That's one reason I try not to judge overweight people.

[redeyemindtricks]

Default-fat and default-skinny are functions of (1) different appetites, and (2) different amounts of AEE/NEAT.

#2 is discussed in the take.

#1 is also a BIG thing. If you know people who work out, then you'll know (a) people who have to literally *struggle* to eat ENOUGH food to "bulk up"... and (b) people who can eat and eat and eat, but for whom dieting is basically like killing themselves.

The "A" people have naturally smaller appetites. To such a point that they actually struggle to eat big meals! That whole idea would be a joke to the "B" people, who have naturally bigger appetites.

[Jayded1]

What do you have your degree in? Mine is in Biochemistry with a focus on nutrition/dietetics and weight loss. You are plain wrong in virtually everything you said, those studies are abstracts, not published in scientific journals. A abstract and can say anything, they are not peer reviewed. If you want to really understand metabolic rate you should watch some videos by Layne Norton, he has his PHD in Biochemistry and one of the worlds leading experts on metabolism. The easiest way i can disprove you is twins. Do some research on how one twin can be fat and another skinny and both eat the same amount of calories and burn the same amount of calories.

[HulkkSmash]

Dont bother, she's not interested in facts

[YourFutureEx]

So, some people really do gain weight easily and some don't no matter what?

[Sunflower19]

This.

[redeyemindtricks]

The abstracts are for journal articles. I can't link articles directly, in general, because most journal articles are behind paywalls.
The second link is a summary article, but the relevant research is easy enough to find.

Do you have a link to these twin studies? I'd love to see those.

[Hidden_P]

Sorry but no.

I'm the youngest of 5. My mum is very slim (I mean very slim. She is a US size 00 after 5 children). Her diet is mostly cake and burnt toast.

We all were brought up the same. 2 of my brothers are very slim. Me and and another brother are not.

Now, I had my meals massively judged and were smaller than my brothers, I did a lot more exercise than them, I went to school more (I did 6 days, they did 5) and my day off I horse rode. I had to run 3 miles a week in under half an hour up a very large hill and back down. I can't stop fidgeting and always moving.

Now we are older I basically wait on my family while they sit and do nothing. My old job was in catering (for almost 8 years) and we weren't allowed to sit down. 4 and a half hours granted you 15 minutes, 10 of which were getting changed.

Riddle me that shit.

[redeyemindtricks]

You mentioned you're pretty short right? How tall are these brothers?

If you ate the same *absolute amount* of food as someone who's substantially taller, it's very possible that this amount could be "overeating" for you but not for the taller person. Each inch of height differential = approximately 5 lbs differential to have the same physique... which translates to about 40-50 calories/day per extra inch.

I'm 6'2". Compared to a 5'2" woman with a similar physique, my daily maintenance is almost 600 more calories/day.
In other words, if I had a 5'2" sister, we ate the same meals, and MY weight stayed the same... SHE would gain more than a pound a week!

__

Also, men and women aren't directly comparable. Men have more lean mass, so they burn more calories. Between a man and woman with "similar" builds and heights, the man will burn 200-300 extra calories a day on average.

[Hidden_P]

I didn't mention here I am short. I'm 5ft5. What I mentioned here was my meals were adjusted for me being a girl and being shorter than my brothers.
I don't need a diet lesson.

[redeyemindtricks]

Sorry, I must have been thinking of another poster.

[Hidden_P]

It's fine but I'm just saying, I don't think it's as simple as "move more"

[redeyemindtricks]

There are other variables yeah...
For instance, for a lot of people (maybe even most), keeping appetite under control is the bigger problem.

But, if there's one thing the whole Fitbit revolution has shown us, it's that people really aren't aware of how much their activity level can vary from day to day (and aren't aware when that level *drops*, either).

[Hidden_P]

Sorry but still don't believe it.

[DarkHumorRUs]

Well there's no way. I always fidget and bounce my leg, way more than my brother does, and he ended up thin/fit, and I ended up overweight with a fat stomach.
We had LITERALLY the same exact lifestyle up until he was about 17 and I was about 15. We both sat around playing on the computer for many hours in our free time. Neither of us worked out. Neither of us played sports. Neither of us are much junk food or snacks cause our parents didn't buy it that much.

Dunno what to tell you. There's no reason I should be the fat one besides the fact that I have bad luck.

[redeyemindtricks]

Was he taller, vs. eating the same absolute amount of food?

Any difference in sugary drinks? (One extra can of non-diet soda per day can put 15lbs of fat on you over a year)

[DarkHumorRUs]

Nope, he wasn't taller until around when he was 17 and I was 15.
If anything I ate less than he did anyway.

And again we didn't drink sugary drinks cause parents didn't buy.

And at this point he's about 150 lbs, 5'11", kinda lean/muscular (he's working on it), and I'm 175 lbs, 5'8", muscular but with a noticeable fat stomach and some fat in other areas.

[pinkkitten4188]

maybe it's testosterone? I read an article that said men naturally lose weight easily due to this

[redeyemindtricks]

Hm.

The height difference is more of a thing than most people realize. If you had similar builds, then, each extra inch of height means about 6 more lbs of bodyweight, which translates to an additional 50 cal/day or so for maintenance. So; **all else equal** his caloric needs would exceed yours by abot 150 cal/day.

If you ate EXACTLY the same food, and his weight stayed the same, and yr lifestyles were identical... you'd have a 150 cal/day surplus, so you'd gain between 10 and 15 lbs over the course of a year.

Also, with *average* builds, the maintenance calories for a man who's 5'11" 150lbs and a man who's 5'8" 165lbs would be about the same (since the shorter guy would have more bodyfat, which doesn't metabolize energy the way functional tissue does). So, you would only have to eat **double** digit calories/day more than yr brother to explain this WHOLE difference.

Double-digit cals/day is not something you would probably even perceive, unless you weigh all yr food.

[DarkHumorRUs]

I actually have wider shoulders (no, not just because I'm overweight), and he has narrower shoulders. But another thing is I was 5'8" by 8th grade, and he kept growing throughout high school up to a point.

[ManOnFire]

No, not so sure about this. Both my brother and I are thin. I didn't use to be, but somehow I lost weight over the years. He however has always been thin because of a fast metabolism. I'm not as active as I used to be or move as fast as he does yet I'm just as thin. It also doesn't explain how thicker people can still be fidgety but not losing weight, or thin people who are inactive and still thin. It also seems to be a lot of conflicting info about metabolism. Some researchers are saying what you're saying, while others are still maintaining that fast metabolism is true.

[redeyemindtricks]

"It also doesn't explain how thicker people can still be fidgety but not losing weight, or thin people who are inactive and still thin"

Bigger and smaller appetites respectively.

[ManOnFire]

Doesn't add up. There are thicker people who eat little and are still thick, and thinner people who eat a lot and are still thin, like my brother. And also thicker people who eat a lot and still don't gain or lose weight.

[CancerianMan81]

yeah I'm one of those people and I can't understand it I can eat and eat and eat and eat and not gain one pound and I've been this way my whole life and I'm still thin at the age of 35 I don't get it

[CancerianMan81]

hell maybe it's the things I'm eating hell I don't know but the thing is I eat everything and anything coming and going

[ManOnFire]

@CancerianMan81 I'm in the same position as you. I grew up something of a thick guy, but then around my 20s I started losing weight. I eat everything, pasta, rice, beef, fatty foods, sugar, and still can't get back to what I used to be. So weird.

[IVoidWarranties]

It's called high metabolism _ the metabolic rate your body burns off & process's food !

Fat people - low metabolic rate , harder to burn off calories, higher fat to muscle ratio

Athletic - Muscle to fat ratio! More muscle higher metabolic rate of which food is burned off as a fuel source!

If your a bodybuilder - extreme muscle mass & lower fat! Regardless of what you eat, because of the higher amount of muscle to fat ratio your able to metabolize food at a much higher rate!

Fast does not apply ! Either you have a High metabolic output or Low metabolic output.

Low Metabolic - body has harder time burning the food your consuming

High metabolic - Food you consume is burned quickly.

[IVoidWarranties]

If you ask any bodybuilder they will tell you the same , Fast metabolism does not exist & lot's of people confuse high metabolic with the word fast metabolism ! { yes i made a reply on my post LOL } but here's an example if you still don't get my point : https://youtu.be/4Q-fUXwQJaA

Jay Cutler has more muscle mass so his Metabolic rate is much higher ! Just look at him!

[redeyemindtricks]

BIGGER people have higher metabolic rates, yeah. That much is obvious enough (... I guess obvious enough that it didn't even merit saying, hahah).

If you had 2 guys the size of Big Jay, they'd both have the same basal metabolic rate.

[IVoidWarranties]

well duh LOLZ :P :)

I 6ft 3 , 190 with 6% body fat ! taken me 10 months to get to that 190 goal ! :P :)

[legs_n_sheets]

Actually this is true. People who are obese from early ages had bad nutrition, and high fructose intake. This is explained through obesity epidemic. If all people had the same exact healthy diet from early ages everyone would be skinny, actually. This may be of interest to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

You need to stimulate your body if you want to have what people call "fast metabolism". Though metabolism is something that slows with age, anyone can actually prevent it with adopting exercise as a daily, or a weekly routine.

[lightbulb27]

fascinating.

I wonder if one of the activities is how much their mind is processing, or efficiency of digestive system (takes about 15% of energy). The mind takes a lot of energy, so if one thinks a lot, maybe they burn more calories.

So if I see a very obese person the issue is they are taking in too many calories and not active enough... ok... no Nutella sandwich for them then!

[redeyemindtricks]

I hate to break it to ya, but, more brainy brains use LESS energy. The Einsteins and Da Vincis are using the LEAST glucose in their brains -- their brains are the most efficient.
www.ethz.ch/.../...iency-hypothesis-confirmed.html

The losses involved in digestion and processing are typically 5-10% of fat calorie intake, 10-15% of carb calorie intake, and 20-25% of protein calorie intake.
For people who don't vary the overall composition of their diet much, this is basically irrelevant to their planning (yr estimated numbers are actually however many % higher than they really are -- but it doesn't matter, because they're ALWAYS that much higher. In the same way it wouldn't matter if yr scale was 30 lbs heavy, if that was the only scale you ever used to weigh yrself.)

[lightbulb27]

I'll read that article later, but now I have a great line for the next overweight person I meet or who thinks they are:

"You know what your real problem is... you are so freakin' smart! here's a link as proof , you are like Einstien or Newton, your brain is sooo efficient. :)"

how do you know this... oh yea, you are nutritionist right?

you lost me on the parens part, but is ok. ty!

[redeyemindtricks]

My tax return says I'm a "health and fitness consultant". It's difficult to describe what I do for a living in short form... nutrition is only a small part of it.

[lightbulb27]

that's great, sounds like you know your stuff and are a great resource here.

[redeyemindtricks]

Thanks.

[Blonde401]

I work on my feet, I move all day, I walk up and down stairs all day and yet I don't burn any calories? I walk to and from work which is a 40 minute walk each way, yet I can't shift any weight and it's not like I eat all day, I don't cause I'm working 🙁

[Prettyapathetic]

Check your liver

[Blonde401]

@Prettyapathetic I've had some medical tests done recently for something unrelated and nothing came back. I think it's my medication but I'd be dead without it so I guess I'll stay fat.

[redeyemindtricks]

Have you tried weighing -- and writing down -- LITERALLY EVERYTHING you put into yr mouth for a few weeks? And then mb going over th eresults with a nutritionist?

Lots of people are quite unaware of the total amount of food that they consume -- especially if they ever munch at random times (outside of mealtimes). And most people don't really estimate portion sizes very well, either (hence the weighing).

Have you ever tried that?

[Blonde401]

I actually dieted last year and lost 42 pounds so yeah I have. It just doesn't seem to be working at the moment, I've hit an bump in the road.

[redeyemindtricks]

Hm, interesting.

Curious about the medicine -- mb you could tell me in PM what it is, if you don't mind sharing

[Blonde401]

I'm on 4mg of Mirtazipine a day, it's an antidepressant. I'm also on the Deppo provera birth control which is notorious for weight gain. I'm just struggling with the weight loss.

[Blonde401]

*45mg sorry

[devilish-cutie]

this is not true, example how statistics and science are not actually always right and that can happen probably in loss of more relevant input or not enough knowledge about things that affect the matter.

Anyway, I'm thin, most of my family is that way. I have a good friend that eats way less then me, she is not fat but she gets fat really easily unlike me. We both work out. She has done sports from early age and has often sex life.
Maybe it's not metabolism but something in genetics it is.
Working out and having a good diet will make your body thiner, fiter, but I might work for it w 20% of effort and my friend w 80% of effort to achive it and stay that way

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

So I'm super lazy, but I really want to know the answer. Can you give me an tl;dr? Cause I eat like shit compared to 95% of people, but I've always been skinny and good shape. Even now, I'm still in relatively good shape (obviously not compared to what I was) despite not doing shit and having the same unhealthy diet... And yeah, I know I'm gonna have to change, but that's future me's problem 😁

[redeyemindtricks]

TL;DR

You have less of an appetite, and/or you move yr body more in general, than people who gain weight.

You are also 6'4" (right?) which means you have substantially greater caloric needs than someone of average height.
Bodyfat doesn't use food energy much, while other forms of mass do. So, for instance, a typical 6'4" 150lbs guy and a typical 5'4" 200lbs guy are going to have around the *same* maintenance calories.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

Debatable? I'm a real picky eater, but I can eat a metric ton of foods I do like 😂. Also, I don't exercise that much. I walk a lot, though! And I've been doing better, especially this past month vacation 😁... Speaking of which, I really don't want to jump the gun and jinx myself, but I think the company I interviewed for really liked me and if the things work out, I'll be moving to savannah fo real real, not fo play play 😁

[redeyemindtricks]

Good luck!

Walking makes more of a diff than people tend to think. If there's one thing the Fitbit trend has made people more aware of... that's it.

Ironically, being a "picky eater" may help you keep yr weight down, too -- especially if the "picky eating" results in a greater-than-usual separation of fat and carbohydrate.
If you aren't one for tl;dr then I'll spare you the more expansive explanations, but, most weight gain comes from eating substantial amounts of fat and carbohydrate *together*. If yr favorite foods are high on one of these and low on the other -- and being "picky" maintains that separation unusually well -- then that could be a big contributor here, too.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

I know it makes a difference, especially when I walk on a beach. 1 time, I literally walked 20 miles... some might say I like taking long walks on the beach 😏. I did 121.8 between biking, walking and running over the past month... Or about 30.5 miles a week. Not bad since pretty much a ton of the time I've been driving!

I eat a ton of carbs. I'd like to hear the long version, but just not now. I had a 5 hour drive and I'm just in full relax mode right now

[redeyemindtricks]

20 miles at once? Like, you walked for 6+ hours?
•___•

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

Didn't I tell you I loved the beach? 2 nights ago, when I was I'm tybee, I stayed from like 8pm to about 2am just walking and sitting on the pier. It's pretty much the only place where I can really think super clearly, besides the shower. And I've always been interested in astronomy, especially since my aunt works at NASA, but I got super interested this summer and trying to save up for a telescope. I wish I could explain how clear the sky was and how excited I was. Where I live, it's mostly covered by trees and shit 😑

[redeyemindtricks]

Oh, yeah I get you.

I'm not so much interested in astronomy, but, when I've driven across the Llano Estacado part of Texas with a sufficient lack of fog, I've occasionally pulled over, climbed up on top of the car roof, and just stared up at the sky for a while. There basically aren't any trees *at all* there -- and, unlike Tybee even, there's no light pollution for literally hundreds of miles.

I'm pretty much a hater of trees, too... lol #desertrat

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

I'm an astrophysicist in my 4th life. I love that stuff!! That's why I would love to live out west, or at least vacation there. I'm guessing that's part of west Tex. My imagination pretty much just goes crazy, which is hard to fathom if you knew even half the shit that goes on in my head 😂. And I hate trees that engulf the sky. Like, deciduous (did I spell that right?) trees basically block out 60% of the sky and it's so annoying... And I don't even live in a woodsy part of my town compared to a lot of places 😑

[redeyemindtricks]

Yep, west Texas. Near where I-10 and I-20 come together, if you look at a map. Total middle of nowhere.

[Likes2drive]

This only makes sense for the average person, some people just don't gain weight no matter what and others can't lose matter how little they eat, it's like bad genetics or something where they are predisposed to be that way especially when you have both parents that are heavy. But I think the rest make sense. Nice take though, interesting as always

[redeyemindtricks]

... but, no. No dude.
If you observed ALL of those people's activity, and wrote down EVERYTHING they put into their mouths, you would find that they obeyed the same patterns as everyone else.

Again, common sense. To be especially pointed about it, imagine taking these people who "can't lose no matter now little they eat" and tossing them into a WWII concentration camp. You think they still wouldn't lose weight THEN?
Yeahhh...

What's probable is that their *appetite* is screwed (as I wrote in my other take this week), and so they find it almost impossible to eat "normal" portion sizes.

[Likes2drive]

Yeah that makes sense, I have even thought of that same scenario of them being in a concentration camp then they would have to lose weight no matter what even though it's a terrible example, but yeah it does a lot to do with portion control subconsciously even. I can eat a lot at times but I'm so active in my job I just burn it up. I loved the example with the cars though😊

[redeyemindtricks]

Hey, well... the human body *is* literally an internal-combustion engine.

[nog6422]

If a fat guy just didn't eat anything, he'd get skinny before he died.

Of course they'd also have all sorts of other nutritional problems so this is not a way to get thin, but still you statement that "others can't lose matter how little they eat" is false. Unless their process for using stored fat is broken.

[Likes2drive]

@nog642 yeah that would be a problem since they may die before that since their body may start digesting its own organs while breaking down the stored fat, people being held captive were still fed something at times so that's why they stayed alive but who knows what would happen if a fat person wasn't given anything

[nog6422]

@Likes2drive They shouldn't consume their organs before their fat. Otherwise there's something wrong with them.

[Likes2drive]

@nog642 yeah you would think but who knows how their body will act under those extremes since they got so big in the first place, I think they would have a heart attack before getting really thin but it's hard to know what will happen first

[Hasaboyfriend]

I fidget a LOT but I'm still overweight :/ I have ADHD so I am constantly moving, but I was born fat so maybe it might be harder for me to lose weight... Ah well, I've always been fat, always will be :(

[redeyemindtricks]

If you put yr mind to it -- and have LOTS of patience (long-term changes don't come quickly) -- then you can make the changes you want.

If you want 'em bad enough