not a metabolism problem

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:15 pm

I was watching a show where they took two women. One very thin and one overweight, but not obese. The skinny woman said she ate all day long and never gained a pound. The fat woman said she mostly watched what she ate and didn't feel she was overeating. The women had the same types of lives and activity levels. They took them into a lab with doctors to really see whether or not the skinny woman had a faster metabolism. They had some really scientific ways to test exactly how many calories each was taking in bla, bla, bla. In the end they found that their metabolisms were exactly the same. The skinny woman just ate less calories than the fat one. Their point was that we fool ourselves in regards to how much we really are consuming.

Sinnie · Post by **Sinnie** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:44 pm

Brilliant. I love that. It makes me feel so much better about striving to eat well knowing that we all more or less have a level playing field.

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:05 pm

Level playing field yes. But I think the activity level is crucial. Note that both women had the same activity level. Now i don't think this would be the same with an athlete and a couch potato. If you burn 6,000 calories a day as an athlete, you are going to consume more food. OR if you work physically for a living as opposed to sitting at a desk all day. I think the key is to be a able to find that balance, where more or less you know how much food will keep you satisfied for breakfast, lunch, and dinner everyday. Less crazy binge episodes and more moderation the better.

silver · Post by **silver** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:22 pm

my mother is a cook. she has a colleague who doesn't eat breakfast and eats only from small plates because she wants to loose weight. the problem is that she fills up and eats up that plate five times, while my mom does it only once. with a normal size plate, of course. my mom is half her size and that woman just keeps asking how is it possible that my mother can eat so much and stay so slim. she is under the impression that she eats much less. that's why it's important to have a proper meal if you eat. so that you know you've eaten. so that you notice that.

silver · Post by **silver** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:27 pm

oh sorry i just accidentally sent it so many times!!!

sorry i'm a blonde

Post by **reinhard** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:41 pm

(silver, no worries about the duplicate posts, I went ahead and deleted them)

Metabolism issues are way overrated, mostly because they seem to provide:

1) a good excuse to not do anything
2) a magic bullet solution that does not involve will power if your metabolism can somehow be tricked.

Self-deception regarding food intake is a far bigger problem. By forcing you to see what you're eating, No-s makes such self-deception very difficult.

Reinhard

bonnieUK · Post by **bonnieUK** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:21 am

reinhard wrote:Metabolism issues are way overrated, mostly because they seem to provide:

1) a good excuse to not do anything
2) a magic bullet solution that does not involved will power if your metabolism can somehow be tricked.

Self-deception regarding food intake is a far bigger problem. By forcing you to see what you're eating, No-s makes such self-deception very difficult.

Reinhard

Hi

I completely agree, I also think this metabolism thing has given too many unscupulous individuals the means to concuct gimicky diet books etc. (and make bucketloads of cash from the aforementioned gimmicky books!). I'm no expert, but as far as I know there is only one true way to enhance metabolic rate and that is to increase muscle mass through exercise i.e. muscle tissue burns more calories when at rest than other types of body tissue. But of course many people don't like that notion because it contains the dreaded "E" word

larisa0001 · Post by **larisa0001** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:40 pm

bonnieUK wrote:
reinhard wrote:Metabolism issues are way overrated, mostly because they seem to provide:

1) a good excuse to not do anything
2) a magic bullet solution that does not involved will power if your metabolism can somehow be tricked.

Self-deception regarding food intake is a far bigger problem. By forcing you to see what you're eating, No-s makes such self-deception very difficult.

Reinhard
Hi I completely agree, I also think this metabolism thing has given too many unscupulous individuals the means to concuct gimicky diet books etc. (and make bucketloads of cash from the aforementioned gimmicky books!). I'm no expert, but as far as I know there is only one true way to enhance metabolic rate and that is to increase muscle mass through exercise i.e. muscle tissue burns more calories when at rest than other types of body tissue. But of course many people don't like that notion because it contains the dreaded "E" word

I dunno. I used to live with a roommate who was very overweight - in the "obese" category. She was of normal weight until the year when she ended up working both a day job and a night job - and getting about 10 hours of sleep a week. That year, she gained 70 lbs. without changing anything in her diet. When we lived together, we ate exactly the same foods and the same amounts - but I weighed 120 lbs. and she weighed 220.

I do think that people have different metabolic rates; now, that doesn't mean that metabolism is a universal excuse. It just means that a person with a slow metabolism should exercise more and watch what they eat.

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:14 pm

Of course people have different metabolic rates. athlete vs. couch potato etc. That is not what I wrote. But two people with the same metabolic rate that eat the same amount of food and the same exercise are not going to be 100 pounds apart. Fat people fool themselves all the time about how much they eat. You never saw the extra food your roommate ate. The snacks etc. etc. the lack of activity.

larisa0001 · Post by **larisa0001** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:22 pm

milczar wrote:Of course people have different metabolic rates. athlete vs. couch potato etc. That is not what I wrote. But two people with the same metabolic rate that eat the same amount of food and the same exercise are not going to be 100 pounds apart. Fat people fool themselves all the time about how much they eat. You never saw the extra food your roommate ate. The snacks etc. etc. the lack of activity.

Actually, she ate less than me. We both spent a lot of time at home, so I could observe her in detail (we'd usually cook for two and share our meals). And that's what I meant - people have very different metabolic rates.

Lack of activity, maybe - I was more active than she was. But I'm not sure that accounted for the 100 lbs. difference, either. I wasn't that athletic.

I used to date someone who, when I started dating him, was of perfectly normal weight. As we spent more and more time together, his weight increased. Mine stayed the same. We ate the exact same things. But I have a reasonably high metabolic rate (at least, in my youth I did - I was the annoying person who could eat like a horse and never gain weight), and he didn't.

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:38 am

So you are claiming that people with the same metabolism and physical activity can be 100 pounds apart? Isn't that a direct debunk of the nos diet? I mean if people with the same metabolic rate and the same activity level can be 100 pounds different in weight, then nos could not possibly work for everyone. It would indicate that genetics or some other mysterious reason made some of us fat. You really believe your roommate was a 100 pounds heavier than you and consumed close to the same calories and had close to the same physical activity as you? I don't buy it. I have known really thin people. Really thin people that everyone said "oh they are just naturally thin" " they eat fatty foods all the time and never gain a pound" Well I have watched all of them like a hawk. (Like a person struggling with weight only could). And you know what? They order the cheeseburger and fries and they eat half of it and then they are full. or they eat the whole meal and then they don't eat until the next day because they are full. there is always that self monitoring ability to stop when full. that is what fat people lack. the off switch.

Post by **reinhard** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:40 pm

OK, two little clarifications:

1. it's very difficult to monitor one's own caloric consumption. Monitoring your friend's is close to impossible. What you see -- small meals -- might be only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, small meals might be part of the problem -- because they lead to more snacking. Between meal snacking represents over 90% of the increase in caloric consumption since the 70s in the American diet (over 100% for women -- meal calories actually went down).

2. There is no question that some people do have significantly "slower metabolisms," that they are "genetically fat" -- just not very many. We have an obesity rate of over 30%. The obesity rate in populations with sufficient food and traditional lifestyles like the old order amish is about 4%. Assuming every one of those 4% is obese for genetic/metabolic reasons, that 0% of old order Amish are simply gluttons (could be, they're virtuous folk), and that we can extrapolate that rate on our society, then almost 90% of obese people would not be obese if were it not for behavior factors (excessive eating, lack of movement). So your friend might be one of these unlucky 4% -- but most of us here aren't. Metabolism isn't always an excuse -- just usually.

Reinhard

silver · Post by **silver** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:29 pm

I dunno. I used to live with a roommate who was very overweight - in the "obese" category. She was of normal weight until the year when she ended up working both a day job and a night job - and getting about 10 hours of sleep a week. That year, she gained 70 lbs. without changing anything in her diet. When we lived together, we ate exactly the same foods and the same amounts - but I weighed 120 lbs. and she weighed 220.

I do think that people have different metabolic rates; now, that doesn't mean that metabolism is a universal excuse. It just means that a person with a slow metabolism should exercise more and watch what they eat.[/quote]

actually, i read somewhere that if you don't sleep enough, that's when your metabolism does slow down. it's because, your body is trying to save energy which it wasn't able to replace at night. so everything is slower, even reflexes. you aren't able to do anything properly. not even digesting. so if you eat as much as on a normal day, you, logically, gain weight. even metabolism needs energy. if your body doesn't have it, it doesn't burn the fuel properly. and the only other thing it can do with "the fuel" is to store it. which is what it does.

and if i should ad something from personal experience, i have a pretty hectic life from monday to friday, sleeping 6 hours a night max. my weekends are very relaxed. despite the s-days, at the weekend, i loose half of what i loose in the whole week. just in those two days! just because i get to sleep enough.

and yes, if you have more muscle, you burn more energy even if you just watch television. check out this web site.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/calrmr.htm

hmmmmmmmm, i might just use that as a new topic for discussion