I know that there are some people out there with faster metabolisms or medical conditions that help them burn more fat, but I do think they are far more rare then a lot of people believe. Like some of the other people mentioned we are most of the time not getting the full picture.
This reminds me of a part of a BBC show entitled "How to be Slim" that gave smaller examples to emphasis larger studies. It specifically showed two female friends who claimed they ate the same amount of food and one was super skinny and the other overweight. This show is really worth watching!! (If you just want to watch the part on metabolism start at 7:23 on the linked video.)
There are so many things we can use as excuses to not lose weight. For me one of the excuses I used was a "slow metabolism" from PCOS. (We had a nice discussion about conquering myths a little while ago.) I can not in this journey afford to focus on what may be making losing weight more difficult for me then someone else, especially since what if it simply is not true. We can always come up with excuses. I believe to have lasting success in our journey was have to find a way to jump over, work around, or completely obliterate anything that is standing in our way.
I really don't think there is much scientific data to back up the theory of people having "slow metabolisms..." or "fast metabolisms..." in the absence of a disease state. The thyroid hormone affects the metabolism, if you are hyperthyroid you are in a hypermetabolic state, which is harmful. If you are hypothyroid, then your metabolism is slow.
Also, PeanutsMom is right-- we DO need fewer calories as we age, a fact that many people don't make an adjustment for, leading to middle-aged weight gain.
But the other differences are due to intake vs. output. There is plenty of data to suggest that "naturally thin" people are naturally more active-- anything from jiggling a foot to pacing, to walking around more.
Being "naturally slim" does not mean having a faster metabolism-- it means being naturally better at balancing what you take in against what you burn.
I make an analogy to alcohol. Some people just can't handle alcohol-- they drink, they become alcoholics. Some people aren't alcoholics, but they are interested in alcohol and have to remind themselves to watch it and pace themselves. Other people (like me) just aren't that interested in alcohol.
I can drink part of a drink, set it down and forget to go back to it. I can't do that with a piece of cake....
So, yes, some people are better at maintaining their weight without giving it any thought, some people have to work at it, but it's doable, and others, like many of us 100lbers find it a struggle.
You can call that "metabolism" if you want-- but it's not like there's an underlying scientific process that "makes" some people thin and some people fat.
For me, that's a good thing. Because yes, I may have to be more conscious and less automatic to keep my weight in check, at least the process IS under my control, ultimately, and is not controlled by some random process that I have no control over.
Faster metabolism, slower metabolism... take 10 different people, heck take 100 and I'm fairly certain that they will all burn calories at different rates. Ummm, yeah...
Then you've got the folks who say they've *ruined* their metabolisms. What does THAT mean? Our metabolisms DO change throughout the course of our lives - yes of course due to age, which has been mentioned but other factors as well. It's still up to US to recognize this and ADJUST to it.
Heck when I had a BMI of 56 and was walking around with an extra 165 lbs on me, I burned calories waaaay faster than I do now. Yes, my metabolism has slowed down. Thankfully .
I definitely did not get fat due to a slow metabolism. I would guess that compared to the average around here, I probably have a slightly hotter metabolism--I need more calories to sustain what I'm doing. But in an obesogenic environment, where sugar was available cheaply and easily 24/7, my genetic tendency toward sugar addiction was expressed and that led to massive weight gain. THAT is the way in which genetic heritability interacted with environment to make me obese.
I see the same thing in my daughter, who is seven. She is naturally athletic and literally constantly moving--she barely ever even sits down. But she has an unbelievable appetite for sugar and would ingest it all day long if we let her. She is also able to eat large quantities of food when she wants to, but chooses to eat less when what we offer her is "healthy stuff" that doesn't feed her sweet tooth. (We actually joke in the family about her having a black hole in her stomach, because she can put away food like nobody's business.) Though most of the time, truthfully, we must force her to sit down and eat some protein and good carbs in order to prevent hunger-crashes...because stopping to eat is never on her list of things to do.
The sugar consumption is something we're going to have to watch carefully with her and make sure she's fully educated about, because if possible I really want to prevent her from going down the road that it took me 15 years to recover from. If she never begins indulging in the kind of sugar habit I had, then she will naturally remain athletic and relatively slim.
I had a friend in highschool with a metabolic disorder. Essentially, his body just burned through calories like there was no tomorrow. Which sounds great, until you realize that when he wasn't playing soccer or exercising, his maintenance calories were somewhere in the range of 5000+ calories a day. And he didn't like junk food. It was actually a very interesting lesson in food. Simply put- when eating healthy foods- people just aren't hungry enough to eat too ignificantly over their calories. During training for soccer (he was a very competitive player) when they were practicing or conditioning for 6 hours a day, he said he could get to 4000. The rest of the time he was under 3000 unless he put lots of work into it. (Lots of "fat shakes" and other unpleasant looking weight gaining products that looked terrible) Keeping weight on was an absolute daily struggle for him.
But, I would agree that to some extent, most of the people who eat whatever they want just dont want that much. There are always a few exceptions to the rule (one of my roommates in college), but it does strike me that most people who eat whatever they want are either very active, don't really eat that much, or eat a lot of foods in healthy choices.
Similar to this -We have a friend with a similar metabolism - he eats literally thousands of calories every day. He has been asked to leave some of the all you can buffet restaurants because he would stay for several hours. He works at Best Buy, so he's moving around all day - but, not heavy lifting. (actually, alot of standing around he says) He is skinny as a rail and also has a metabolism disorder. It's not his thyroid however - it's nothing that can be corrected with medication. He and his wife can barely afford to keep him in enough food. He has to eat those 'weight on' shakes.
I asked my cousin, an endocrinologist, about this. He said that it is possible to have a faster metabolism, but - it often has to do with a hormone imbalance. (he probably said it in a different way - but, that's my take on what he said).
I do agree, also...that for most of us, it's calories in and calories out and exercise and all the rest. We are all so different.
This reminds me of a part of a BBC show entitled "How to be Slim" that gave smaller examples to emphasis larger studies. It specifically showed two female friends who claimed they ate the same amount of food and one was super skinny and the other overweight. This show is really worth watching!! (If you just want to watch the part on metabolism start at 7:23 on the linked video.)
Make no excuses! Take no prisoners!
Interesting discussion! I just wanted to say thanks for the link to the video. It looks really interesting and I will watch it when I get some time later on
Before I made any effort to lose weight , I used to feel jealous of every thin woman thinking she had a faster metabolism than me. I would see thin people eating at McDonalds and feel sorry for myself that I couldn't eat the same things and be their size. I did come to realize that these people probably didn't eat those things very often and they actually worked on maintaining their weight. I was so in denial of my weight issues that I wanted to blame it all on a slow metabolism and I felt like i was just designed to be fat. After losing a large amount of weight over the past couple years, I now know that my metabolism works just fine and my habits were to blame. I do agree that some people's metabolisms do work better than others and they may not be as prone to weight issues but almost everyone has to be cautious to their food choices to some degree to maintain their weight. I have a couple family members that were skinny as a rail as young adults and they felt they could eat anything. They both did eat very large fattening meals and sweets every day including 3 or 4 2l bottles of pop. Both men are no less active than they used to be and they both eat the same way they used to yet they are both overweight now with big pot bellies. I think their habits caught up to them in the long run. Anyway, I am just rambling and I have to run out the door for an appointment. Interesting topic though
When we say the we are overweight due to our metabolism (or anything else for that matter) and I'm not saying that anyone here has said that, it really is a shame - because then we give away our POWER. It makes us powerless to do anything about it - because well, "it's my metabolism's" fault. Nothing I can do about it. I am just destined to be fat. So people therefore don't even attempt to do anything about it.
It is always a choice to be overweight . Always. It's a choice to be fat, it's a choice to be thin.
I mean, the thing is... what is a "faster metabolism"...
Are you guys talking about two people, confined to a bed, both fed the exact same number of calories. One wastes away and the other one becomes morbidly obese?
I very much doubt it.
Metabolism is the basic rate at which we burn calories when we are at rest. Add to that, the speed at which we burn calories when we move around-- that is going to vary with a lot of factors: how much movement, how much do we weigh, how fit are we...
The resting metabolism of the two people on bed rest, both fed the exact same diet and prevented from moving? Those will differ too-- the 6'3" 28 year old man will burn more calories just lying there than the 5'1" 58 year old woman....
But if you match people for height, weight, and age, the basic metabolic differences, excluding movement-based differences, are relatively small.
Two women of roughly the same age, weight, and prior conditioning, confined to bed and fed the same amount: they will probably lose or gain in a fairly similar manner-- not identical, but not enough to make one super-skinny and the other morbidly obese.
The point is, we are not confined to bed and fed a set number of calories-- our speed of burning calories varies based on age, gender, fitness, weight, and a number of other factors....
"metabolism" in most cases, is the absolute least important of those factors.
What I want to know is this: When people are prone to be so thin, no matter what they do, and they say "it's my metabolism" nobody questions it.
Because, as a general "rule", society frowns upon fatness. Fat people are considered lazy, incompetent, and having no self control. Thin people are considered pro-active, smarter, industrious, having great self-control...
Is it fair? Heck no. But that's just society speaking. (society is a )
I've been both very thin and quite fat. I've been looked at differently (and by the same people, no less!) and treated differently on each end of the scale. When people who "knew me when" (I was thin) see me now.... well, let's just say a few of them have been very blunt with their WTF HAPPENED TO YOU!?!?!?! stance.
On the other side of that coin, I've had people who had never seen me thin and then see me after I've slimmed down, not only do I get compliments, but also that wide-eyed "how'd you do it?" questions and so forth. Almost like it was a miracle or something that I was able to lose weight, LOL.
All I know is that I was a very chubby infant/child... got very slim during my teens/early 20's... and have fought my weight ever since. And my skinny-all-his-life brother gained a BUTTLOAD of weight when he got married & his ever-so-slightly-chubby wife started cooking A LOT and going out to eat A LOT. After they divorced, and he got back into his singledom again, he lost the weight, seemingly effortlessly, even tho he enjoys a Coke Zero & Moon Pie every day as a treat.
When we say the we are overweight due to our metabolism (or anything else for that matter) and I'm not saying that anyone here has said that, it really is a shame - because then we give away our POWER. It makes us powerless to do anything about it - because well, "it's my metabolism's" fault. Nothing I can do about it. I am just destined to be fat. So people therefore don't even attempt to do anything about it
It's so funny, Robin, because to me it was the exact opposite. I had to acknowledge that I wasn't "like everyone else" metabolically to lose and maintain weight. I can't eat that 1800-2000 calories a day that average woman needs to maintain weight, or the average BMR calculated for me by all the calculators out there. They don't apply because my metabolism is slower than average. Acknowledging biological differences in metabolism empowered me to let go of my "but I SHOULD be able to eat 2000 calories a day, it's not FAIR" and move to "My body is not the same as everyone else. My body requires X calories, which is what I will feed it, because it is important to me to maintain my weight".
I have stayed with someone for 2 weeks with an ultra-fast metabolism. I watched what he ate at almost every meal. It was 3500-4000 calories, to maintain his relatively low weight (he had a 30 inch waist, not sure on actual pounds). He didn't eat a big meal, then almost nothing - he ate a big meal at just about every meal, plus snacks. I will never be that, because my metabolism is different, and that's OK.
It's also not accurate to say the actual differences aren't very big. Post-obese people (people who were obese and have lost weight) need 15-20% fewer calories to maintain weight than those who were never obese. It's not a minor difference...its the difference between 2000 calories to maintain and 1600 calories to maintain.
I never thought of it as something that made it impossible to lose weight! Rather, it was something I had to be aware of, long term, for weight loss and maintenance. It's not an excuse to acknowledge metabolic differences. It only becomes an excuse when you say "BECAUSE of this metabolic difference, I have no option but to stay fat forever".
Ah, AManda, but you said you were overweight due to your metabolism and NOT that there's nothing I can do about it - but that I'm going to "work with what I've got" and am determined to find a way AROUND this particular *obstacle*." At least that's what I'm hearing from you. I think there are many who believe because their metabolisms are *slower* that that's it - nothing you can do about it. I suppose that's the ones that I made that particular (yes, very general) statement about.
I believe for ANY obstacle we face, there IS a solution.
We've got to look within and not look to or what others are doing.
I'm sure there's someone out there who requires even less calories than me to maintain their weight. Surely. Probably. Most likely. Somewhere.. anywhere... maybe...
I didn't mean that to sound like a pity party (not too much anyway )
Just one more thought...I don't think it's true that people who genetically have faster metabolisms and remain naturally slimmer get away with "it's my metabolism" without repurcussions. I have seen/heard frequently of people who are very slim being called anorexic, starving themselves, on drugs, etc (celebrities, but also lots of girls in my high school who ate regular, healthy diets but were very slim naturally). Just as people make unkind comments about the food intake of overweight people (are you sure you should be eating that??), people make unkind comments about very slim people as well (eat a sandwich, you're anorexic, etc.). It does go both ways, to an extent.
He is so thin that people have accused him of being a meth or crack addict,
...
When people are prone to be so thin, no matter what they do, and they say "it's my metabolism" nobody questions it.
If nobody questioned it they wouldn't accuse him of being a drug addict. ETA: I realized after I posted that mandalinn made this point in the post above mine!
This isn't something we'll see a lot of on this board, but naturally thin people do deal with a lot of obnoxious comments and nosy prying into their eating habits. Just ask one, I'm sure they'll be delighted to tell you all about it - in my experience, naturally thin people feel they are not allowed to complain about this issue because we regular and overweight people roll our eyes and say "oh yeah I'm sure it's such a hardship being naturally thin."
A very close friend of mine is one such naturally thin person. She's constantly batting away comments and impertinent inquiry. As it happens, she'd love to put on some weight, it would be very healthy for her - but it's just not that easy for her. She doesn't have a huge appetite - never has, as long as I've known her. And on top of that, for the last several years she's been suffering from Crohn's disease, which puts very stringent limits on what and how much she can eat.
It's also not accurate to say the actual differences aren't very big. Post-obese people (people who were obese and have lost weight) need 15-20% fewer calories to maintain weight than those who were never obese. It's not a minor difference...its the difference between 2000 calories to maintain and 1600 calories to maintain.
Well, I'm going to respectfully disagree here. There ARE differences in metabolism, based on age, gender, etc. and post-obesity may also represent a measurable difference.
There are differences between men and women, athletes and non-athletes, pregnant women, breastfeeders, etc. But if you match people based on those characteristics, then the differences are not great enough to explain why one person of the same age, gender, and activity level is skinny and the other is morbidly obese.
There will be differences, but that's why the normal BMI is a range-- a person who looks and feels good at a BMI of 25 is probably not going to change him or herself into a person with a BMI of 19, or at least not without a lot of pain and difficulty.
I don't know about you, but I did not become morbidly obese by eating 1600 or 2000 calories a day. I became morbidly obese by eating A TON OF FOOD AND STUFF THAT WAS BAD FOR ME day after day.
When I was younger, I was extremely active and ate a ton and I maintained a BMI of about 24-25. As I got older, I was less active, ate even more, and became morbidly obese.
My point is though there are small individual differences based on a variety of factors, the difference between skinny and morbid obesity is far greater and more complex than that. Metabolism plays a role sure, but not as significant a role as other factors.
Ubergirl - I don't know if I was clear. I am not disputing the fact that, if people have all of the same metabolism-influencing variables, their metabolisms won't be more or less the same...of course, if you're controlling all of the things that affect metabolism, you'll end up at about the same place. I wouldn't expect a big difference between people for whom all of the metabolism-affecting variables were controlled.
That said, we don't understand all of the things that can change metabolism, so much so that for many people, the calculators are literally useless. And just because we haven't identified the factor that caused my body to burn 1500 calories a day and someone else's to burn 2000 calories a day, that difference is enough to divide us by just about a pound a week. That'll level off, of course, as the one with the 1500 calorie burn gains weight and starts burning more, but that's still a significant difference, particularly over a number of years. And the fact is, there are many metabolic differences we don't understand yet, so your hypothetical experiment couldn't ever take place...we are incapable of controlling for all factors that influence calorie burn because science hasn't quite nailed down what they are.
You'll never hear me say that metabolism doesn't matter, because it does, in my experience...some people, for whatever reason, be it genetic, hormonal, or other, burn more calories than other people, for some reasons we understand, and for some reasons we don't. It's a key reason why I'm not able to ever compare what I eat to what others eat. What you WILL hear me say is, essentially, "so what?". So my metabolism is slower than a good portion of the population, meaning I have to eat less to maintain my weight or lose weight. OK, fine, that is worth the trade-off to me. But I don't see the danger in acknowledging that it is a tradeoff that people whose furnaces burn hotter don't have to make, you know?
.
)
)
