Do you think that people who have to eat a low amount of calories to maintain a lower weight are "naturally fat people"?

I sometimes hear of people being of a "normal" weight, who have to eat 1,500 calories/day to maintain that weight. I'm not talking about being very thin, just a normal trim weight, staying away from the overweight zone. I eat 1,500-1,700 calories/day too, but I have like a 1,700-2,000 calorie deficit eating like this. Which is why I'm losing at least 8 lbs/month minimum, 13-14 lbs being the average.

Maybe my perceptions of things are off.. but I think if you weigh 150 lbs for example, you could eat 2,200-2,300 calories/day, exercise moderately and maintain that weight. And I think if you are very petite with a small frame you might have to eat like 1,700 if you aren't very sedentary. I just don't understand how a 140 lb person has to eat only 1,500 calories/day to maintain that weight, especially if they have an active lifestyle. It seems as if people who are like that are fighting their body's desire to want to be at a heavier weight. I mean, it's acceptable to be "naturally thin" but it's not acceptable to be "naturally heavy".

I don't think we can really determine what is "natural" when we live in such an unnatural world. If we were living a natural life, we'd have to work very hard to find food - and work just as hard to avoid becoming some other critter's food. Even among very, very active people - the odds are that in a "natural" world, they'd be working a lot harder just to stay alive.

Also - even if you accept the premise of "naturally thin" AND "naturally fat," neither necessarily means "naturally healthy" or "naturally, socially acceptable."

There have been several research studies that suggest that being slightly underweight may actually have more risks than being slightly overweight (slightly being the key word) - and maybe it should, but it doesn't mean that being slightly overweight will every be more acceptable than being slightly underweight. As to the "naturallness" of any weight - I think it's difficult to determine just how "natural" any of it is in this very unnatural environment.


Because few people in the modern world ever burn a similar number of calories, I think trying to decide what's "natural" becomes almost pointless.


All that being said, while I don't think natural has anything to do with it - everyone is entitled to decide the weight (and activity level) that is most COMFORTABLE for them. Is it ok, to "settle" for a weight that is still "too high" according to some chart or another? I think the answer is yes. How to determine when you've reached that point of "good enough" - that's a much tougher question.

I think the question really becomes "good enough for what and good enough for whom." What are your goals: To look better (and what does that mean to you)? To feel better (and by better what do you mean - how much better)? To be in good physical health? To be in excellent physical health? To become an athlete (and of what sports and what skill level)?

Natural or not, you do have the right (there's no law against it) to decide that any weight is your desired weight (even 400 lbs). But at whatever your weight - there are consequences both private and social. Even if "naturally heavy" does exist (and to a degree I think it does), that unfortunately doesn't mean that it will ever become acceptable to be "naturally heavy."

And on the other hand, there's no guarantee that beauty (whatever is in fashion at the time) is natural or optimally healthy either. There've been times (some would say even now) that dangerously thin was in fashion (and as many or more times that unhealthily fat was in fashion). In some parts of the world, being fat is still considered beautiful and socially acceptable - more so than being "naturally thin."

Social norms and ideals aren't always natural or entirely logical. So it's really a separate issue. In the end, only your own opinion matters (except to the degree to which you're willing to care or not about other people's opinions).

There is an excellent article on this in the maintainers section..."post obese" people have a different metabolic pattern than "normal weight" folks. I personally maintain on a lower number of calories than one would expect, given my exercise levels and current weight.

http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/livi...intenance.html

I think everyone's body is different, which is the take home point.

I know if I eat 1800 calories, I'll gain, so when people say they maintain on 2000 calories a day I kind of already know I'm not going to be one of them.

I think 1500 calories is a good amount of calories to maintain on. I know I wont be able to maintain at 2000+ calories. I eat about 1600 and workout 5-6 days a week doing 1 hour of cardio and 30 mins of lifting weights and I only lose .5-1 lbs a week. Everyone burns there calories different, I don't measure calorie deficit because I think thats something that science hasn't figured out yet. I just measure how much food I eat and I keep my calories the same no matter how hard I workout at the gym.

I came in here to post this exact link, but Mandalinn beat me to it. It's a very informative read!

And also much like Mandalinn, I maintain at a lower calorie level than one might expect. I range from 1400-1600, with some 2200 and 1200 calorie days to shake it up. It is by no means "perfect", but I do have a sense of balance after 5+ years of trying to figure it out.

I don't want to put a sense of doom and gloom out there, though. You will find a wide array of calorie levels and plans that people maintain on. For example, I've found that *what* I'm eating is just as (if not more) important than how much.

I decided to read the link after you quoted it. So many people post links on here and I hate wasting my time but it was really informative and its good to know. Thanks