6 ms·
The study was underweight bmi vs healthy bmi. Nothing about overweight bmi, which I would assume is the trifecta of overeating, little activity, and slower meta
by sudden_dystopia 4y ago
The study was underweight bmi vs healthy bmi. Nothing about overweight bmi, which I would assume is the trifecta of overeating, little activity, and slower metabolism. At least that is my personal experience in going from overweight to healthy bmi.
Really not surprising that people that eat less have lower bmi and higher metabolism than people that eat more with a slower metabolism but who are more active.
- marifjeren 4y agoOf course it's no surprise that people who eat less weigh less. The surprise, I think, is that people who are underweight are relatively sedentary. Maybe this is not that much of a surprise either though? I wonder how much of this has to do with muscle. BMI infamously ignores muscle mass. An interesting followup would be whether people with low body fat % are sedentary. My guess is that they aren't. Side note: maybe there is a disparate importance of "Calories In" vs "Calories Out" for people who are under/over weight. Maybe underweight people should focus on exercise more, and overweight people should focus on eating less?
- rpmisms 4y agoI am mostly sedentary, and maintain body fat below 10%. It's mainly genetics, and probably 20% diet.
- sovnade 4y agoand on top of that, it looks like there's other factors of diet than just choosing what to eat - it sounds like some people are just less hungry for indefinite reasons. genetics, gut biome, etc all probably play a part.
- gamblor956 4y agoSub-10% body fat is underwear model territory. At that low level of fat, every muscle is well-defined, no matter how small. A lot of guys severely underestimate their body fat %. Sub 10% generally isn't possible without heavy dieting unless you're still going through puberty; genetics has nothing to do with it.
- rpmisms 4y agoI'm aware of what it looks like, and I've been up at 12-15% before. It's absolutely genetic, most of my family runs very skinny. I have generally decent muscle definition, although the fat I have tends to sit in my hips and shoulders. My doctor suggested I might have less interstitial fat than most people, which explains a few other health effects. I'm not bragging, there are serious downsides, but it's absolutely possible to sit at 10% year-round, just not while maintaining any serious level of elevated muscle mass.
- klyrs 4y agoI've known very active cyclists that couldn't lose weight despite riding hundred mile rides weekly. In my youth, I could eat anything and do nothing and not suffer the consequences. I definitely fit the "run hot" part but I was the plate-cleaner in my family and didn't really stop eating like that until I was in my late 30s and suddenly started gaining weight.
- chrisseaton 4y ago> I've known very active cyclists that couldn't lose weight despite riding hundred mile rides weekly. Isn’t this against the laws of physics? If you’re burning a ton of energy and not eating excessively, where are their bodies getting mass from to maintain weight?
- BizarroLand 4y agoI would guess that they are very metabolically efficient bicyclists and that they underestimate how much food they eat.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ska 4y ago> Isn’t this against the laws of physics? No because they were also eating a lot, the lower bound on this established by physics. I've known a lot of roadies who sort-of-correctly believed they could eat as much as they could physically manage, as they were expending enough (3+ hour intense riding daily) that it was a chore to keep up. At least when they were 20-something and racing. Many struggle a bit when the a) get a bit older/metabolically slower and b) life gets in the way and they ride a lot less. All of a sudden a guy who was rail thin gains 30lb that "sticks".
- amanj41 4y agoThe operative word was "couldn't". If they didn't eat as much, they could lose weight
- zhynn 4y agoyou missed the important point, IMO: being hungry. it's bizarre that we can be mechanically and nutritionally full yet still be hungry. These low BMI individuals were not hungry. WTF is going on with the hunger response being so messed up in a huge segment of the population?
- giraffe_lady 4y agoIMO this is one of the biggest and most interesting questions of the last century with the widest and most frightening implications. If literally a majority of people in wealthy nations are what we define as overweight, and we keep finding new ways that is at least somewhat out of our control or difficult to perfectly control, why do we keep framing it as solely a matter of individual discipline or virtue? I have my own guesses about why of course, but pretty much all of the possibilities are unsettling.
- rdl 4y agoIt's interesting how effectively GLP-1 (ozempic, etc.) eliminate that, though.
- matthewdgreen 4y agoThis entire "you just need to eat better" discussion seems to fall apart badly in the face of medicines like GLP-1 agonists (e.g., Ozempic/Wegovy.) It's like arguing that pneumonia can be cured through "healthy living" even after you've established the mechanism and effectiveness of penicillin.
- Spooky23 4y agoWhen I was 16, I was playing varsity basketball, baseball, track and was working on a farm doing heavy work all summer. Per the doctor, I was obese. My wife was obese because breasts. BMI is bullshit imo, it has some general value but creates a lot of distress for people, especially women.
- criddell 4y agoBMI is pretty good for populations. If you are standing in front of your doctor and he or she is telling you that you are obese because of your BMI score and not actually measuring you (like with calipers), I’d probably look for a new doctor.
- nradov 4y agoCalipers are not the proper medical standard of care for measuring body composition. They don't produce accurate, repeatable results. The current best practice for most patients is a DXA scan.
- criddell 4y agoHow many physicians can do a DXA scan in their office? Calipers give you ballpark numbers and often that's good enough for a physician. It's certainly better than BMI.
- nradov 4y agoBMI is useful for screening and population studies, but it's (mostly) bullshit for individuals. For most people it's body composition that really matters. Excess adipose tissue, especially visceral fat, has a wide range of negative health effects. Anyone who cares about their health should get a DXA scan at least every few years; it will give a highly accurate reading on body composition including fat distribution.
- corrral 4y agoWhen I was 16 I waffled between the top edge of healthy and the bottom edge of overweight, according to BMI. When I dropped into the top edge of healthy I had a 6-pack. I wasn't even that muscular, just broad-shouldered.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]