4 ms·

People don't have that much difference in metabolisms (unless we are talking about actual health problems or differences between severe overweight and athletes)

by BSousa 14y ago

People don't have that much difference in metabolisms (unless we are talking about actual health problems or differences between severe overweight and athletes). What happens is most people don't know what they are eating. BBC did a documentary where two friends, one skinny and one fat, swore the difference was due to metabolism, that the skinny one ate a lot and the fat one didn't. They tested it and found out that the fat one used more calories than the thin one, but also took a lot more calories per day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTr1JUvEiUU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTr1JUvEiUU

analog 14y ago
The basal metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ) to as high as 2499 kcal (10455 kJ) [1] Your metabolism also slows noticeably as you get older. In my 20s I could eat anything (and lots of it) without being able to gain any weight. Now in my 40s I have to lift weights (to increase metabolism) and watch what I eat to stop putting on fat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate
- BSousa 14y ago
  According to the study, only 26.7% difference wasn't explained by age/sex/weight. Which means for almost 75% the values were somehow dependent on sex/age/weight. And the difference between the top 5% and bottom 5% of the outliers was around 30% (which means for a 2000kcal average BMR, the bottom needed only 1700 and top 2300). This, in my opinion, is not enough for people to tout slow/fast metabolism for weight gain/loss as most people won't fall into the top/bottom 5%.
  - analog 14y ago
    Even if you're eating just 300kcal over what you need every day you will become overweight eventually. Edit: for reference 300kcal is about what you'd burn off with a 4 kilometer run.
    - randallsquared 14y ago
      "Eventually"? That's putting on 30 pounds a year, assuming it's all about (caloriesIn - caloriesUsed) / 3600 = poundsOfFat. Of course, anyone who has dieted long term knows that that's not the whole story. You might cut your calories in half and still plateau within a few months.
      - analog 14y ago
        As you put on more weight the amount of calories you need increases. I don't think cutting your calories in half would result in a plateau within a few months in most cases. That's quite a major reduction, pretty much a starvation diet.
        randallsquared 14y ago
        As you put on more weight the amount of calories you need increases. The initial claim was about 300 kcal more than you need, though. My experience suggests plateau happens every time, without regard to the type of dieting done, unless it's quite literally a starvation diet. The only time I've manage to lose more than 100 pounds was on a diet of about 400 kcal a day. Reducing my diet from about 3500 kcal/day to half that (by the simple method of not eating every other day) worked really well for about two months, and then plateaued; total reduction, about 50 pounds. I've resigned myself to losing in bursts and concentrating on not putting much back on in between. Of course, my sample size in number of people is low... :)
        analog 14y ago
        Ah ok, 100 pounds would be quite a challenging target. As I understand it though starvation diets don't work long term as they train your body to deal with food shortages by storing energy as fat. Losing in bursts doesn't sound like it would be a healthy option for the rest of your body as well. Do you include exercise at all? From what I've researched, and what trainers have told me, weight training is the most effective way to lose weight - when combined with calorie monitoring and some cardio.
- Shorel 14y ago
  Most of the differences on basal metabolic rate can be explained by the difference in diet. With keto diets you lose weight faster the more you eat.

by BSousa 14y ago

analog 14y ago

The basal metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ) to as high as 2499 kcal (10455 kJ) [1] Your metabolism also slows noticeably as you get older. In my 20s I could eat anything (and lots of it) without being able to gain any weight. Now in my 40s I have to lift weights (to increase metabolism) and watch what I eat to stop putting on fat. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

BSousa 14y ago
According to the study, only 26.7% difference wasn't explained by age/sex/weight. Which means for almost 75% the values were somehow dependent on sex/age/weight. And the difference between the top 5% and bottom 5% of the outliers was around 30% (which means for a 2000kcal average BMR, the bottom needed only 1700 and top 2300). This, in my opinion, is not enough for people to tout slow/fast metabolism for weight gain/loss as most people won't fall into the top/bottom 5%.
- analog 14y ago
  Even if you're eating just 300kcal over what you need every day you will become overweight eventually. Edit: for reference 300kcal is about what you'd burn off with a 4 kilometer run.
  - randallsquared 14y ago
    "Eventually"? That's putting on 30 pounds a year, assuming it's all about (caloriesIn - caloriesUsed) / 3600 = poundsOfFat. Of course, anyone who has dieted long term knows that that's not the whole story. You might cut your calories in half and still plateau within a few months.
    - analog 14y ago
      As you put on more weight the amount of calories you need increases. I don't think cutting your calories in half would result in a plateau within a few months in most cases. That's quite a major reduction, pretty much a starvation diet.
      - randallsquared 14y ago
        As you put on more weight the amount of calories you need increases. The initial claim was about 300 kcal more than you need, though. My experience suggests plateau happens every time, without regard to the type of dieting done, unless it's quite literally a starvation diet. The only time I've manage to lose more than 100 pounds was on a diet of about 400 kcal a day. Reducing my diet from about 3500 kcal/day to half that (by the simple method of not eating every other day) worked really well for about two months, and then plateaued; total reduction, about 50 pounds. I've resigned myself to losing in bursts and concentrating on not putting much back on in between. Of course, my sample size in number of people is low... :)
        analog 14y ago
        Ah ok, 100 pounds would be quite a challenging target. As I understand it though starvation diets don't work long term as they train your body to deal with food shortages by storing energy as fat. Losing in bursts doesn't sound like it would be a healthy option for the rest of your body as well. Do you include exercise at all? From what I've researched, and what trainers have told me, weight training is the most effective way to lose weight - when combined with calorie monitoring and some cardio.
Shorel 14y ago
Most of the differences on basal metabolic rate can be explained by the difference in diet. With keto diets you lose weight faster the more you eat.