4 ms·
In addition to activity levels, you probably just weren't eating that much food. It was similar for me when I was a teenager: some days I would binge on a ton o
by MichaelDickens 3y ago
In addition to activity levels, you probably just weren't eating that much food. It was similar for me when I was a teenager: some days I would binge on a ton of junk food, but other days I would forget to eat breakfast, and the latter happened often enough that I stayed skinny.
- naijaboiler 3y agoNo I legit ate way much much more in my 20s. I'm not misremembering. I ate more
- Loughla 3y agoI had to supplement with calorie shakes for workout guys in my 20's, just to maintain weight. I ate trash, and a shit load of it. And that's not considering the amazing levels of calories I would've consumed from alcohol. Same activity level now as then. But now if I think too hard about a candy bar I gain weight that never goes away.
- paulpauper 3y agosame here. the hockey-stick or v-shaped weight rebound if I even deviate a tiny bit. amazing how fast weight comes back on.
- willcipriano 3y ago> Same activity level now as then. As you go from untrained to trained you burn less calories doing the same activity.
- bennyelv 3y agoIt's actually nowhere near as simple as that, and it depends on how you define the "same activity". Moving your body from one location to another at a particular speed results in a fairly static amount of work done (in the basic physics sense). So if the same you hops on a bicycle and cycles up the same hill in the same conditions with the only difference being that one of you has trained hard for the last 5 years and the other hasn't (but somehow your body mass has stayed the same) then you'll burn exactly the same amount of energy. Untrained you will find it much harder, but the energy burn will be roughly the same. There are some things that can be different as you go from "untrained" to "trained", for example lighter people burn less energy moving themselves around than heavier people. Trained people tend to do activities harder/faster so the "same activity" could actually be a much harder activity despite it not feeling that way. Although if the activity involves travelling a set distance some of the extra effort involved in doing it faster is offset by the fact that it takes less time, so the difference between the two is not as large as you'd think.
- carstenhag 3y agoYeah, but likely you walked more. Cycled more. Ran more. Stuff like that.
- goostavos 3y ago>I'm not misremembering It's the easiest explanation. As a gym bro that regularly cycles weight, it's is remarkably easy over/under estimate intake just going off recollection. I always think I'm dialed in until I write things down (I'm almost always eating way fewer calories than I think).
- lkbm 3y agoOkay, so just to be clear: the OP is describing a phenomenon that is extremely widely reported, and is doing so in discussion thread about study that also reports finding this phenomenon, and your claim is that the simplest explanation is that OP is misremembering, and the research is just wrong? Do you have any evidence for this bizarre dismissal?
- goostavos 3y ago(This thread is now hella old, but only look at comments every once and awhile, thus the late reply). I'll just say the same thing I always say in these kinds of "who are you to deny science!?" replies. For everyone championing how hard, complex, and subtle weight loss is, there's a "dumb" gym bro just weighing him self every day and dialing back calories until the scale starts going in the right direction. It works every single time. 100% of the time.
- Jenda_ 3y agoI don't understand where does the excess basal energy expenditure go. Do persons like the OP when <25 y.o. produce significantly more heat (e.g. wearing only t-shirt and shorts even in winter, and "dying" in the summer)? Does the skinnier body mean way bigger heat losses, even when compared to bigger surface area after getting fat (i.e., way higher surface temperature)? (presumably yes, but to this extent?) The article states that the basal expenditure increases with "fat free mass", so someone fat but muscular will have this "overheating" problem even stronger?
- lkbm 3y agoSkinnier would mean more surface area to volume, but less surface area total. If we're just looking at energy in and energy out, it could partly be less thorough digestion. I wonder if there are poop studies that find more leftover fat or carbs in faeces of children.
- ashconnor 3y agoI was rake thin until I started lifting weights with a buddy of mine at university. However it wasn't until I started GOMAD that I noticed any muscle and weight gain. Before that I was eating crap. Lots of things that I that were high in calories but not enough of them throughout the day to exceed my metabolism or get close to the amount of protein I needed. I think if you could go back in time and count the calories you probably were eating as much as you think.