4 ms·

> then I was definitely eating 4000+ calories per day and not getting Fat I'm not sure about that... allegedly, research suggests that most people have the sam

by tomp 11y ago

> then I was definitely eating 4000+ calories per day and not getting Fat I'm not sure about that... allegedly, research suggests that most people have the same BMR (basal metabollic rate), and that there is nothing like "fast metabolism" (i.e. people get rougly equal amounts of energy from food). What I was referring to above, and what the article referrs to (with Glicemic Index) is purely psychological - how much food you want to eat, and how hungry/satiated you feel. I'm still pretty sure that calories-in/calories-out theory is more-or-less correct.

mistermann 11y ago
> I'm still pretty sure that calories-in/calories-out theory is more-or-less correct. From where do you derive this certainty? There's plenty of anecdotal evidence indicating significant variance among individuals. Simply less efficient absorption of ingested calories would obviously make a huge difference, and I don't think there's any reason to think everyone absorbs calories with identical efficiency is there?
- Retric 11y ago
  Your gut has been optimized over billions of years of evolution to work. A much more likely difference is how jittery some people are. Sure, if A and B sit still for 8 hours there is no difference. But, many people are constantly in motion. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2163173/Toddlers-daily-antics-equivalent-doing-83-rounds-boxing-ring.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2163173/Toddlers-d...
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  That issue does not affect the correctness of CICO, which is more or less thermodynamics. This issue just means that the CI for two people given the exact same portion of food is not necessarily the same.
  - mistermann 11y ago
    If one is discussing effectiveness of different weight loss approaches, ignoring CI variance based on the exact input foods, and the underlying reasons for that, seems.....unwise.
    - vonmoltke 11y ago
      Who said anything about ignoring it? It is a tangential question.
      - mistermann 11y ago
        Thread title: "Why do people put on differing amounts of weight?" "I'm still pretty sure that calories-in/calories-out theory is more-or-less correct." Counting calories-in as calories absorbed is not exactly tangential, it may very well be the essence of the conversation.
        vonmoltke 11y ago
        It's tangential because, despite being at best an approximation, calories in is still a measure that can be used to reduce intake. It might take experimentation to find the limits for you. It's quite simple: if you are gaining weight, eat less. The variation between calories marked and calories absorbed is not great enough to fundamentally matter.
- tomp 11y ago
  > From where do you derive this certainty? Physics. > There's plenty of anecdotal evidence indicating significant variance among individuals. However, research evidence disagrees. So, the most likely culprit in the variance reported anecdotally isn't different BMR or efficiency of digestion, but different (even delusional) calorie-counting approximations.
CuriouslyC 11y ago
Research has demonstrated that there is about about a 15% base difference between people with "slow" metabolisms and "fast" metabolisms. In addition, the composition of your gut microbiota significantly impact how efficient you are at extracting energy from the food you eat. To top it all off, some people notice a larger/more immediate reduction in BMR when they reduce calories than others. At the end of the day calories in/out is still correct. It is just more complicated than how much food you eat and how much activity you engage in.
npsimons 11y ago
> I'm still pretty sure that calories-in/calories-out theory is more-or-less correct. Unless someone has overturned the laws of thermodynamics, it is correct. CICO rules over all, and it's simple but not easy to lose weight, due as you put it to psychological factors. As for the research about most people having the same metabolic rate, here's a link: http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-peop... TL;DR - almost all people of the same height and weight will be within 200-300Kcal of each other BMR wise. There are some outliers, but not enough to cover all the people claiming to be special snowflakes. And even if someone does have a "slow metabolism", that changes nothing: they still had to overeat to get fat. Mass doesn't come from nowhere.

by tomp 11y ago

mistermann 11y ago

> I'm still pretty sure that calories-in/calories-out theory is more-or-less correct. From where do you derive this certainty? There's plenty of anecdotal evidence indicating significant variance among individuals. Simply less efficient absorption of ingested calories would obviously make a huge difference, and I don't think there's any reason to think everyone absorbs calories with identical efficiency is there?

Retric 11y ago
Your gut has been optimized over billions of years of evolution to work. A much more likely difference is how jittery some people are. Sure, if A and B sit still for 8 hours there is no difference. But, many people are constantly in motion. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2163173/Toddlers-daily-antics-equivalent-doing-83-rounds-boxing-ring.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2163173/Toddlers-d...
vonmoltke 11y ago
That issue does not affect the correctness of CICO, which is more or less thermodynamics. This issue just means that the CI for two people given the exact same portion of food is not necessarily the same.
- mistermann 11y ago
  If one is discussing effectiveness of different weight loss approaches, ignoring CI variance based on the exact input foods, and the underlying reasons for that, seems.....unwise.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    Who said anything about ignoring it? It is a tangential question.
    - mistermann 11y ago
      Thread title: "Why do people put on differing amounts of weight?" "I'm still pretty sure that calories-in/calories-out theory is more-or-less correct." Counting calories-in as calories absorbed is not exactly tangential, it may very well be the essence of the conversation.
      - vonmoltke 11y ago
        It's tangential because, despite being at best an approximation, calories in is still a measure that can be used to reduce intake. It might take experimentation to find the limits for you. It's quite simple: if you are gaining weight, eat less. The variation between calories marked and calories absorbed is not great enough to fundamentally matter.
tomp 11y ago
> From where do you derive this certainty? Physics. > There's plenty of anecdotal evidence indicating significant variance among individuals. However, research evidence disagrees. So, the most likely culprit in the variance reported anecdotally isn't different BMR or efficiency of digestion, but different (even delusional) calorie-counting approximations.

CuriouslyC 11y ago

Research has demonstrated that there is about about a 15% base difference between people with "slow" metabolisms and "fast" metabolisms. In addition, the composition of your gut microbiota significantly impact how efficient you are at extracting energy from the food you eat. To top it all off, some people notice a larger/more immediate reduction in BMR when they reduce calories than others. At the end of the day calories in/out is still correct. It is just more complicated than how much food you eat and how much activity you engage in.

npsimons 11y ago

> I'm still pretty sure that calories-in/calories-out theory is more-or-less correct. Unless someone has overturned the laws of thermodynamics, it is correct. CICO rules over all, and it's simple but not easy to lose weight, due as you put it to psychological factors. As for the research about most people having the same metabolic rate, here's a link: http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-peop... TL;DR - almost all people of the same height and weight will be within 200-300Kcal of each other BMR wise. There are some outliers, but not enough to cover all the people claiming to be special snowflakes. And even if someone does have a "slow metabolism", that changes nothing: they still had to overeat to get fat. Mass doesn't come from nowhere.