3 ms·
Where are you getting that number from? "something like" makes it sound like you're just guessing. Just the differences between men and women alone account for
by lucasmullens 5y ago
Where are you getting that number from? "something like" makes it sound like you're just guessing.
Just the differences between men and women alone account for 500cal/day, so it would likely be substantially more at the 5th and 95th percentiles.
"they eat twice as much as me and don't gain weight while I do" seems 100% possible if you compare a 100 pound woman with a 300 pound man.
- brandonmenc 5y ago> Where are you getting that number from? https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-t... > Just the differences between men and women alone > if you compare a 100 pound woman with a 300 pound man I assumed it was understood that I meant while holding all other conditions constant.
- rkk3 5y ago> I assumed it was understood that I meant while holding all other conditions constant. Except you and the article are drawing the complete opposite conclusion of the paper they cite. They literally say resting metabolic rate doesn't really matter. "Total daily energy expenditure varies several-fold in humans, not due to variation in resting metabolic rate, diet-induced thermogenesis, or exercise thermogenesis, but rather, due to variations in nonexercise activity. A variety of factors impact nonexercise activity, including occupation, environment, education, genetics, age, gender, and body composition" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15534426/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15534426/
- brandonmenc 5y agoMy point is that for any two people with the same body weight, the variation in "what a calorie is" is not significant enough to claim that counting calories is useless, as the article seems to suggest.