Quote:
Originally Posted by mandalinn82
I would define "naturally" as "not making any conscious effort".
That's certainly the definition I was using. If "naturally" thin people are using unconscious methods of adjusting activity or calorie burn, what does that mean to me. I can't access that same method. I can't consciously choose to make unconscious adjustments to my activity level.
Research has found that some of the metabolic adjustments aren't just unconscious, they're autonomic. For example, if you reduce food intake in test subjects (animals and humans), some will experience a drop in "normal" body temperature (because it takes fewer calories to support a lower body temperature).
When I read that a few years ago, I was flabergasted.
I've been dieting since I was 5, and my body temperature at one time was normal. But in my teens it started dropping, and is now almost a full two degrees below normal. If my temperature rises to 98 degrees, I'm extremely sick.
My brother (who had the hard time gaining weight) had higher than normal body temperature (although only by a few tenths, like 98.8 or 98.9).
While I could try to mimic the unconscious activity level of "naturally thin folks" it will never become unconscious, and I can't mimic the autonomic changes. I can't make my heart beat faster, or raise my body temperature.
I was watching a great obesity documentary, and I wish I could remember it's name or the obesity researcher who was talking, but he was talking aobut the interaction between genetics/biology and environment.
Essentially he was arguing the cliche "biology (genetics) loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger."
He said that if the environment is scarce enough in food, and daily living requires an active lifestyle, regardless of genetic predisposition, virtually no one will be obese, because there's just not enough food in the environment to support it.
Likewise, he argued in an environment in which daily living requires (or even just offers) a sedentary lifestyle - and the food environment is especially overabundant with high calorie/low volume fatty carbohydrates, you probably could get virtually 100% overweight if not obesity.
I say virtually, because there are people with genetic conditions that prevent them from gaining weight no matter how inactive they are and how many calories they ingest such as
"the woman who can't gain weight"
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/381053...-today_health/
and the "world's strongest boy," Richard Sandrak
http://damncoolpics.blogspot.com/200...ngest-boy.html
I saw a documentary that featured Richard Sandrak, and the doctor interviewed theorized that the boy had a genetic condition similar to ones identified in certain breeds of dogs and cattle (essentially no matter how much they eat, the body converts and stores it as muscle rather than fat).
The implications are interesting. The research could even eventually lead to a "cure" for obesity. If you could turn on the genetic switch that adds muscle, and turn off the genetic switch to add fat, you could prevent or even reverse obesity completely - a cure perhaps.
Likewise if you could flip the genetic switch that turns on the "unconscious" metabolism stimulators, another preventative/cure.
Any marketable obesity treatment from this research is decades if not a century off, but it's quite interesting in the abstract.